|
|
Post by sheepy on Apr 4, 2024 16:15:23 GMT
Just a thought, but you being typically neo-liberal, with your we can save the world attitude, we just need people to have and need less, who have grown used to needing and having more, which will provoke a reaction of you want us all living in caves. I wonder to myself how much of the credit-based society that has caused the growth and just about every crisis since you have participated in. Short answer loads over the years, But I'm not a fan of "If you can't solve it all on your own then don't comment" I think we can all do something together if we really think cutting population growth is important. It was pointed at your blatant hypocrisy, while lording it over half the rest of the world. If you want so badly to solve it, then start nearer home perhaps. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 4, 2024 16:26:44 GMT
Nope. We could easily buy enough food to stuff double our population up to gross. What stops population growth is health and wealth. I very much doubt it. What stops population growth is enforced cultural status symbols that encourage responsible reproduction and raise costs in over-crowding We could very easily. We throw away 95 million tonnes a year. Every person in the UK can afford to eat despite the fact our population has gone up by 150% in our lifetimes, still no sign of hunger. I have no idea what enforced cultural symbols are. What stopped population growth in Bangladesh was education, child mortality and personal wealth. Helped by free contraception. Same thing that stops population growth in the UK. We stopped needing to have 4 children when we stopped fearing they might die. We became wealthy because having fewer years of child rearing freed us up to earn more. We earnt more still because of education. The wealth that followed lead us to no longer need children to care for us in old age, this in turn lead to many deciding to have no children and instead enjoy the pleasures bought by wealth. That you would prefer people to starve to control population, rather than my method, is very instructive. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 4, 2024 16:35:19 GMT
Short answer loads over the years, But I'm not a fan of "If you can't solve it all on your own then don't comment" I think we can all do something together if we really think cutting population growth is important. It was pointed at your blatant hypocrisy, while lording it over half the rest of the world. If you want so badly to solve it, then start nearer home perhaps. Extraordinary isn't it? It appears, Zany will do handstands and turn himself inside out to point only at one particular group.My theory is he went on a management course |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 4, 2024 16:38:01 GMT
I very much doubt it. What stops population growth is enforced cultural status symbols that encourage responsible reproduction and raise costs in over-crowding We could very easily. We throw away 95 million tonnes a year. You aren't engaging with my point. We could easily, but don't because various signals kick in. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 4, 2024 16:42:32 GMT
It was pointed at your blatant hypocrisy, while lording it over half the rest of the world. If you want so badly to solve it, then start nearer home perhaps. Extraordinary isn't it? It appears, Zany will do handstands and turn himself inside out to point only at one particular group. My theory is he went on a management course Oh goody the petty insults have arrived. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 4, 2024 16:45:02 GMT
We could very easily. We throw away 95 million tonnes a year. You aren't engaging with my point. We could easily, but don't because various signals kick in. You quoted only one line out of my post. My whole post addressed your claims very well. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 4, 2024 17:54:08 GMT
Extraordinary isn't it? It appears, Zany will do handstands and turn himself inside out to point only at one particular group. My theory is he went on a management course Oh goody the petty insults have arrived. So long as we all agree the proper role for Europeans is to massively reduce their numbers and provide sufficient resources to support an ever expanding African population |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 4, 2024 18:32:35 GMT
Oh goody the petty insults have arrived. So long as we all agree the proper role for Europeans is to massively reduce their numbers and provide sufficient resources to support an ever expanding African population Who agrees with that? I suggested that we help the African population reduce its expansion. I haven't seen anyone make your suggestion. Have you got a link? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 6, 2024 15:32:56 GMT
Population growth is a far greater threat to the future of mankind than any of the many geo apocaliptic disasters that eco mentalists have wrongly predicted over the past 50 years. And it's no secret that global population is growing fastest in Islamic countries. But as long as white western politicians and governments refuse to acknowledge this, in fear of being labelled racist or Islamophobic, then population growth will never be discussed, let alone controlled.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 6, 2024 15:47:32 GMT
Population growth is a far greater threat to the future of mankind than any of the many geo apocaliptic disasters that eco mentalists have wrongly predicted over the past 50 years. And it's no secret that global population is growing fastest in Islamic countries. But as long as white western politicians and governments refuse to acknowledge this, in fear of being labelled racist or Islamophobic, then population growth will never be discussed, let alone controlled. My opening post was about how we might slow global population to Western levels without culling them. Were Western politicians to admit to it, what would be the next step from your point of view. How would you control it? This is what I wrote: Some have proposed government control by financial penalty, but what happened in Bangladesh was bought to my notice by National Geographic a few years ago. Basically they used a combination of: Reduction in infant mortality Free birth control Education. What happened was that those who took part found they had all the children they wanted by the age of 26, they didn't want more because they didn't fear losing one. Then they found they could return to work aged 34 as they didn't have the usual range of ages of children caused by infant mortality. They could get work because they had basic education. They didn't get pregnant accidentally because of free contraception. Finally they got rich, well rich in comparison to those not taking part. This encouraged others to join the scheme and the result was a reduction from 5.5 children to 2.1 per family. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 6, 2024 16:23:03 GMT
Population growth is a far greater threat to the future of mankind than any of the many geo apocaliptic disasters that eco mentalists have wrongly predicted over the past 50 years. And it's no secret that global population is growing fastest in Islamic countries. But as long as white western politicians and governments refuse to acknowledge this, in fear of being labelled racist or Islamophobic, then population growth will never be discussed, let alone controlled. My opening post was about how we might slow global population to Western levels without culling them. Were Western politicians to admit to it, what would be the next step from your point of view. How would you control it? This is what I wrote:... Yes I read what you wrote. A cull! And some people call me right wing lol. No ZG, not a cull, although future wars over resources is a far more likely prospect, and would have the same effect. Western politicians can do nothing about global population growth, absolutely nothing. Do you think India, China, Africa, emerging economies anywhere will stop growing because of anything western politicians say, of course not. But here's a prediction: If virtue signalling western governments insist on forcing the west into fuel poverty in the name of net zero, then by the end of the century geo politics will have changed dramatically. The super powers will be countries with huge and growing populations who require massive resources and who's governments ignored net zero, probably China and India. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 6, 2024 16:29:37 GMT
My opening post was about how we might slow global population to Western levels without culling them. Were Western politicians to admit to it, what would be the next step from your point of view. How would you control it? This is what I wrote:... Yes I read what you wrote. A cull! And some people call me right wing lol. No ZG, not a cull, although future wars over resources is a far more likely prospect, and would have the same effect. Western politicians can do nothing about global population growth, absolutely nothing. Do you think India, China, Africa, emerging economies anywhere will stop growing because of anything western politicians say, of course not. But here's a prediction: If virtue signalling western governments insist on forcing the west into fuel poverty in the name of net zero, then by the end of the century geo politics will have changed dramatically. The super powers will be countries with huge and growing populations who require massive resources and who's governments ignored net zero, probably China and India. So your chosen solution is do nothing until it gets to war. Gosh, I think I'm quite a bit more optimistic than you are. I think we can clean up the planet, feed the people and increase the standard of living to a point where having 5 children is not necessary. I guess we'll have to do it without your help.  |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 6, 2024 16:40:13 GMT
Yes I read what you wrote. A cull! And some people call me right wing lol. No ZG, not a cull, although future wars over resources is a far more likely prospect, and would have the same effect. Western politicians can do nothing about global population growth, absolutely nothing. Do you think India, China, Africa, emerging economies anywhere will stop growing because of anything western politicians say, of course not. But here's a prediction: If virtue signalling western governments insist on forcing the west into fuel poverty in the name of net zero, then by the end of the century geo politics will have changed dramatically. The super powers will be countries with huge and growing populations who require massive resources and who's governments ignored net zero, probably China and India. So your chosen solution is do nothing until it gets to war. Gosh, I think I'm quite a bit more optimistic than you are. I think we can clean up the planet, feed the people and increase the standard of living to a point where having 5 children is not necessary. I guess we'll have to do it without your help. If you think emerging economies like China, India, Brazil etc etc, are even slightly concerned about cleaning up the planet, then you are optimistically naive. ZG, I guarantee that sooner or later there will be wars over resources and I'm not necessarily talking about oil or lithium, I'm talking about food and water, particularly water. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 6, 2024 16:54:35 GMT
So your chosen solution is do nothing until it gets to war. Gosh, I think I'm quite a bit more optimistic than you are. I think we can clean up the planet, feed the people and increase the standard of living to a point where having 5 children is not necessary. I guess we'll have to do it without your help. If you think emerging economies like China, India, Brazil etc etc, are even slightly concerned about cleaning up the planet, then you are optimistically naive. ZG, I guarantee that sooner or later there will be wars over resources and I'm not necessarily talking about oil or lithium, I'm talking about food and water, particularly water. China is not an emerging economy they're out performing us. They are concerned about cleaning up the planet. You just wish it wasn't so. And I say thank god for optimists like me and the lefties, if it was left to the small C conservatives it would come down to war. And I bet you one thing, war with China would not end well. So if you don't mind I will continue to support the change needed, the improvements in agriculture, vertical farming and all the other things that lefties will invent to save the planet from those who give up at the first obstacle. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 6, 2024 17:13:38 GMT
If you think emerging economies like China, India, Brazil etc etc, are even slightly concerned about cleaning up the planet, then you are optimistically naive. ZG, I guarantee that sooner or later there will be wars over resources and I'm not necessarily talking about oil or lithium, I'm talking about food and water, particularly water. China is not an emerging economy they're out performing us. They are concerned about cleaning up the planet. You just wish it wasn't so. And I say thank god for optimists like me and the lefties, if it was left to the small C conservatives it would come down to war. And I bet you one thing, war with China would not end well. So if you don't mind I will continue to support the change needed, the improvements in agriculture, vertical farming and all the other things that lefties will invent to save the planet from those who give up at the first obstacle. Oh bless, ZG China have pumped more emissions into the environment over the past eight years than Great Britain has since the start of the industrial revolution, and China has more coal fired power stations than any country on earth, but they have pledged not to build more than two new coal power stations a month until 2030, which is nice of them. And just for interest, Narendra Modi prime minister of the biggest democracy in the world says global warming has got nothing to do with India. The fact is, Modi, Jinping and others, need people like you. They need people in the west to believe that weakening the economy with net zero will save the planet, as their own economies get ever stronger, thanks to fossil fuels. |
|
