You've been Greenwashed - A thread for pseudo green/environmet bullsh!t
Posted by: Shayman on 30 October 2007
Hi all
Am I the only one who finds it amusing that every company on earth is now marketing themselves and their goods as being environmentally friendly irrespective of the obvious true facts.
How about using this thread to post the most humorous green-BS that you've heard in an advert or marketing campaign recently.
Jonathan
Am I the only one who finds it amusing that every company on earth is now marketing themselves and their goods as being environmentally friendly irrespective of the obvious true facts.
How about using this thread to post the most humorous green-BS that you've heard in an advert or marketing campaign recently.
Jonathan
Posted on: 24 November 2007 by MarkEJ
quote:Originally posted by GFFJ:
The Green Agenda is no less a means of allowing for rotten new laws than the so called new terrorist threat. In UK we have lived with a terrorirst threat of one sort or another almost all my life, but only in the last ten years has it been taken as opportunity for government to take unto itself more and more power and restrict our basic freedoms. I feel that the Green issue will be used in similar vein in future, and those who value their freedom will do well to oppose the ever growing grip of the nanny state style governement we are witnessing!
Nail, head, thwack.
Bravo that man.
Posted on: 25 November 2007 by u5227470736789439
Apparently, according the finance programme on the BBC World Service, the reason that the British gov't wants to double the throughput of Heathrow Airport by allowing the Third Runway is to prevent the possibility that a lack of Airport capacity will cramp grouth in UK economy.
So there we have it. The governement is happy to talk the green talk, whilst promoting increased usage of air-travel. Brilliant.
If the UK government takes this line, then why should the Chinese or Indians moderate anything!
Marvelous. But watch the governement increasing petrol and deisel road fuel tax take [on the back of crude oil price rises from which the gov't benefits at least as much as the oil corporations] in the near future whilst leaving air fuel untaxed! £1.50 per litre of unleaded anyone? It is not so far away I would imagine, and Mr Darling will be coining it in.
Until such policies are fundamentally reversed, then anything any individual does is completley futile!
The cynic in me makes me think that this means the whole green thing is bogus or that the game is over so we might as well make hay till the catastrophy overtakes us ...
ATB from George
So there we have it. The governement is happy to talk the green talk, whilst promoting increased usage of air-travel. Brilliant.
If the UK government takes this line, then why should the Chinese or Indians moderate anything!
Marvelous. But watch the governement increasing petrol and deisel road fuel tax take [on the back of crude oil price rises from which the gov't benefits at least as much as the oil corporations] in the near future whilst leaving air fuel untaxed! £1.50 per litre of unleaded anyone? It is not so far away I would imagine, and Mr Darling will be coining it in.
Until such policies are fundamentally reversed, then anything any individual does is completley futile!
The cynic in me makes me think that this means the whole green thing is bogus or that the game is over so we might as well make hay till the catastrophy overtakes us ...
ATB from George
Posted on: 26 November 2007 by Earwicker
quote:Originally posted by GFFJ:
Until such policies are fundamentally reversed, then anything any individual does is completley futile!
Individuals can usefully not breed if they really want to do their bit for the environment - unfortunately that means putting the future of our species and countless others before one's personal happiness, so my guess would be that we're ****ed!
quote:The cynic in me makes me think that this means the whole green thing is bogus or that the game is over so we might as well make hay till the catastrophy overtakes us ...
Well, political efforts to tackle climate change are often just misguided because they target the the wrong things. For some reason, policy is made as though there is no connection between exponential population growth and overexploitation (read "depletion") of natural resources and a commensurate increase in atmospheric CO2 and other pollutants. I still don't really understand why this is, unless telling people to control their fecundity is just regarded as a vote loser.
Since 1950, the number of people in the world has surged from 2.5 billion to more than 6.2 billion. At the same time, carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere have risen as people use more fossil fuel, produce more chemicals, and cut down more forests. As a result, average global temperature has climbed.
Climate change is happening, the rate, and nature, of change is a result of human activity, the consequences are all very very bad, and there doesn't seem to be any serious will to do anything about it.
So I'm rather cynical and pessimistic too: just wait for the inevitable disaster!
EW
Posted on: 26 November 2007 by u5227470736789439
The greatest give a man and a woman can give their offspring is that their offspring are never conceived! Thus the offspring will not have to face the catastrophe. You can bet there will be plenty of offspring to be crushed by the catastrophe when it comes however sane are some individuals.
That is all that can be done, and it will not be done. This is the flaw in democracy. No vision ...
ATB from George
That is all that can be done, and it will not be done. This is the flaw in democracy. No vision ...
ATB from George
Posted on: 26 November 2007 by David Dever
quote:he greatest give a man and a woman can give their offspring is that their offspring are never conceived!
Bulls#it. My wife and I welcomed our first child, our son, on 15 November. May he bring to the table skills intended to enhance the lives of other people, and not to spend his years sanctimoniously typing away on a keyboard his Malthusian ramblings.
Chances are, he will learn his Well-Tempered Clavier sooner than I did.
Posted on: 26 November 2007 by u5227470736789439
Hit a nerve did I, Mr Dever?
The whole thing is inevitable. The human population is already far too high, and no effort is being made to even debate the issue, let alone addresses it.
I think your reply is an indication of the problem and certainly no answer to it, though you have taught me a new word as well! I had to look up Malthus.
Sincerely, George Johnson
The whole thing is inevitable. The human population is already far too high, and no effort is being made to even debate the issue, let alone addresses it.
I think your reply is an indication of the problem and certainly no answer to it, though you have taught me a new word as well! I had to look up Malthus.
Sincerely, George Johnson
Posted on: 26 November 2007 by Earwicker
quote:Originally posted by David Dever:
Bulls#it. My wife and I welcomed our first child, our son, on 15 November.
Congratulations, you must be very happy...!
Posted on: 29 November 2007 by Simon Perry
Bullseye. At the core of the problem of global warming (which I actually do believe is man made) is population growth. With much fewer people it would not be so much of a problem. The good news is that the oil will be running out sooner than we think. The bad news is that population levels are too high to make the transition to other energy sources in a managed way. I suspect what we will witness is massive deforestation as the human race plunders our remaining physical resources in a desperate bid to stay warm / cook etc.
It won't be pretty. Simon
It won't be pretty. Simon
Posted on: 29 November 2007 by u5227470736789439
This Thread might well have been called the "Apocalypse caused by mindless breeding." Any other issue pales into complete insignificance beside this.
ATB from George
ATB from George
Posted on: 29 November 2007 by droodzilla
This thread is in danger of becoming a neo-malthusian love-in! In the interests of balance, and in the hope of injecting a little controversy, I offer the following link:
Neo-Malthusian Misanthropy
I don't wish to downplay the threat of global warming, or deny that we're contributing to it, but I can't relate to the doomy tenor of this thread. Also, I believe it's easy to succumb to a kind of perverse glee in contemplating apocalyptic visions of the future, but I don't think we should - it's not good for us.
Personally, I relate most easily to David's post about the birth of his child. Arguably selfish, in current circumstances, but also, in its plain expresion of parent-child love, a sign that this being alive lark ain't all bad. No children myself, but I've seen the transformative effects of children on friends and family. How not to be grateful for this bounty!?
Neo-Malthusian Misanthropy
I don't wish to downplay the threat of global warming, or deny that we're contributing to it, but I can't relate to the doomy tenor of this thread. Also, I believe it's easy to succumb to a kind of perverse glee in contemplating apocalyptic visions of the future, but I don't think we should - it's not good for us.
Personally, I relate most easily to David's post about the birth of his child. Arguably selfish, in current circumstances, but also, in its plain expresion of parent-child love, a sign that this being alive lark ain't all bad. No children myself, but I've seen the transformative effects of children on friends and family. How not to be grateful for this bounty!?
Posted on: 29 November 2007 by Earwicker
quote:Originally posted by Simon Perry:
Bullseye. At the core of the problem of global warming (which I actually do believe is man made) is population growth.
Yes, and I really don't understand why people can't or won't see it. It's the elephant in the room everyone's falling over themselves not to mention. A species that likes to think of itself as being intelligent really should see the pigging obvious folly of failing to control the size and growth rate of its population, given its intrinsic exponential growth potential.
As for politicians like Blair and Cameron who, having demonstrated their inability or unwillingness to control their fecundity, then go winding on about their desire to save the planet... well. What a pair of plonkers.
Life on earth would be better for every living thing on it if these idiot humans would start thinking with their brains instead of their generative structures.
EW
Posted on: 29 November 2007 by u5227470736789439
Dear Droo,
I agree that this is actually a rather gloomy thread, but I believe for example that there is no such thing as a pessimist. In my view there are - at least in the bigger picture - absolutely no grounds to be optimistic about any human activity at all. The exception is the individual act of kindness that exists between good individuals and friends, but the overall balance of human behaviour is selfish and thoughtless of the implications ...
Every bit of good human invention and intention is turned evil by a minority of people, annd the careless way of most allows this minority to be rather significant in their impact. Every general scientific advance is eventually corrupted to evil ends - bar none, as far as I can see.
I agree that child rearing can alter people, but one has too look beyond the improvements in an individual or couple that might result to the fact the population is so much too high that we cannot but destroy the planet within a few generations. I am not some religious crackpot who joyfully welcomes this, expecting some form of redemption. There will be none!
The doom is all embracing and will envelope every single person alive in some way, and for many this will be literally fatal. The veneer of civilisation is both very thin and very fragile. Look at France: two boys killed by an accident followed by mayhem extending over two cities ...
I think the values that we might call civilised will soon crumble when food starts to get both short and too expensive to buy. And fuel for heating, cooking, or even travelling to work becomes too expensive to buy for many. In some areas of the world it will become unobtainable.
If you can promise me that there is no looming energy crisis, I will take a less gloomy view. But without high fuel consumption at a reasonable cost and stable climatic conditions, then the current rate of food production cannot be maintained. Already food prices are rising because of a few production crises. A few more and we shall see mass starvation on a much more terrible scale than has been seen in the history of the human race, simply because there are far more to starve now. And once this is reached the case against fighting an apocalyptic war disappears. There will be nothing to loose for those in the worst situations, and the weapons now exist to make this a final war. As a friend of mine wryly observed the next war will be the last not to rely on clubs and stones.
ATB from George
I agree that this is actually a rather gloomy thread, but I believe for example that there is no such thing as a pessimist. In my view there are - at least in the bigger picture - absolutely no grounds to be optimistic about any human activity at all. The exception is the individual act of kindness that exists between good individuals and friends, but the overall balance of human behaviour is selfish and thoughtless of the implications ...
Every bit of good human invention and intention is turned evil by a minority of people, annd the careless way of most allows this minority to be rather significant in their impact. Every general scientific advance is eventually corrupted to evil ends - bar none, as far as I can see.
I agree that child rearing can alter people, but one has too look beyond the improvements in an individual or couple that might result to the fact the population is so much too high that we cannot but destroy the planet within a few generations. I am not some religious crackpot who joyfully welcomes this, expecting some form of redemption. There will be none!
The doom is all embracing and will envelope every single person alive in some way, and for many this will be literally fatal. The veneer of civilisation is both very thin and very fragile. Look at France: two boys killed by an accident followed by mayhem extending over two cities ...
I think the values that we might call civilised will soon crumble when food starts to get both short and too expensive to buy. And fuel for heating, cooking, or even travelling to work becomes too expensive to buy for many. In some areas of the world it will become unobtainable.
If you can promise me that there is no looming energy crisis, I will take a less gloomy view. But without high fuel consumption at a reasonable cost and stable climatic conditions, then the current rate of food production cannot be maintained. Already food prices are rising because of a few production crises. A few more and we shall see mass starvation on a much more terrible scale than has been seen in the history of the human race, simply because there are far more to starve now. And once this is reached the case against fighting an apocalyptic war disappears. There will be nothing to loose for those in the worst situations, and the weapons now exist to make this a final war. As a friend of mine wryly observed the next war will be the last not to rely on clubs and stones.
ATB from George
Posted on: 29 November 2007 by droodzilla
Hi George
Many issues here, but I'll try to disentangle a couple, at least. As far as global warming itself is concerned, I share your concern, There clearly is potential for catastrophe, and the attendant loss of many lives. I'm rather more hopeful than you that we will get our collective acts together to thwart, or at least mitigate, the effects, but I accept that our political leaders are shilly-shallying. I think the pressure for collective political action will grow in the next decade or so, and wouldn't be surprised to see the idea of population control being tentatively brought into the conversation, and eventually becoming mainstream. If nothing else, a younger generation, bottle-fed on the dangers of global warming may have greater will and vested interest in acting.
The second issue - and the main reason for my interjection - was the underlying misanthropy I felt I detected in some of the posts:
In my view it's almost a meaningless question to ask whether the human race as a whole is ignoble and selfish, or noble and true. There is simply no fact of the matter here - it all depends upon how one attends to the evidence. To use the old cliche - it's a "is the glass half full or half empty?" type of question. The answer is one, the other, both or neither depending on how you look at it. Against all the barbarism and cruelty of which our race is undoubtedly capable, I would set those individual acts of kindness you refer to, great art, literature and music, the astonishing success of modern science at uncovering the hidden mechanisms of the natural world etc. Not as countervailing evidence, for I do not believe this is factual matter to be settled by the balance of evidence - but as a prompt to myself to look again, and "turn that frown upside down". Hope that doesn't sound too trite - I'm well aware that life is not all great.
Many issues here, but I'll try to disentangle a couple, at least. As far as global warming itself is concerned, I share your concern, There clearly is potential for catastrophe, and the attendant loss of many lives. I'm rather more hopeful than you that we will get our collective acts together to thwart, or at least mitigate, the effects, but I accept that our political leaders are shilly-shallying. I think the pressure for collective political action will grow in the next decade or so, and wouldn't be surprised to see the idea of population control being tentatively brought into the conversation, and eventually becoming mainstream. If nothing else, a younger generation, bottle-fed on the dangers of global warming may have greater will and vested interest in acting.
The second issue - and the main reason for my interjection - was the underlying misanthropy I felt I detected in some of the posts:
quote:In my view there are - at least in the bigger picture - absolutely no gounds to be optimistic about any human activity at all. the exception is the individual act of kindness that exists between good individuals and friends, but the overal balance of human bejhavour is selfish and thoughtless of the implications of their actions, and the consequences ...
In my view it's almost a meaningless question to ask whether the human race as a whole is ignoble and selfish, or noble and true. There is simply no fact of the matter here - it all depends upon how one attends to the evidence. To use the old cliche - it's a "is the glass half full or half empty?" type of question. The answer is one, the other, both or neither depending on how you look at it. Against all the barbarism and cruelty of which our race is undoubtedly capable, I would set those individual acts of kindness you refer to, great art, literature and music, the astonishing success of modern science at uncovering the hidden mechanisms of the natural world etc. Not as countervailing evidence, for I do not believe this is factual matter to be settled by the balance of evidence - but as a prompt to myself to look again, and "turn that frown upside down". Hope that doesn't sound too trite - I'm well aware that life is not all great.
Posted on: 29 November 2007 by Earwicker
quote:Originally posted by droodzilla:
I think the pressure for collective political action will grow in the next decade or so, and wouldn't be surprised to see the idea of population control being tentatively brought into the conversation, and eventually becoming mainstream.
Yes, but it'll be way too late by then. People fail to appreciate that the growth rate increases with population size - thus you go from being merely in trouble to totally fcuked very very suddenly, not gradually.
Posted on: 29 November 2007 by u5227470736789439
quote:Originally posted by droodzilla:
Hi George,
In my view it's almost a meaningless question to ask whether the human race as a whole is ignoble and selfish, or noble and true. There is simply no fact of the matter here - it all depends upon how one attends to the evidence. To use the old cliché - it's a "is the glass half full or half empty?" type of question. The answer is one, the other, both or neither depending on how you look at it. Against all the barbarism and cruelty of which our race is undoubtedly capable, I would set those individual acts of kindness you refer to, great art, literature and music, the astonishing success of modern science at uncovering the hidden mechanisms of the natural world etc. Not as countervailing evidence, for I do not believe this is factual matter to be settled by the balance of evidence - but as a prompt to myself to look again, and "turn that frown upside down". Hope that doesn't sound too trite - I'm well aware that life is not all great.
Dear Droo,
If you were ever to meet me you would find a jolly individual, who faces a life which is daily helped by the kindness of those around me, with a light heart! I have a wicked sense of humour, which certainly would not fit well here on the Forum! I would be banned in a matter of days, and create absolute mayhem if I did not stand on my tendency to be quite pithy, or even rather un-PC on occasion as well!!!
I certainly do not go round with a big frown on. I see the world's problems and I realise that there is little I can do about it. I don't put on a personal hair shirt of misery! But the control of population is already fifty years too late. The looming energy crisis is already here! The rise of the price of road fuel in 12 months is over ten per cent, and unlike previous rises the next move will be upwards again, not down!
As for the morality or sagacious planning of the behaviour of the human race once one steps back from the individual case, it tends exactly to follow the biological mode of any other species and will be limited by food availability and disease just like other species as well as we destroy the planets ability to allow us to farm it for the food we need. It may even lead to our extinction. The difference is that unlike other species, our ability to inflict wanton destruction is immense, whereas other species simply decline in numbers by death to a sustainable level, when food shortage or disease intervenes. I doubt if the greedy human species will reduce in scale with equal grace. It is going to be very ugly, and I suspect that as someone who will be forty-six next week, I shall live long enough to wish my parents had not brought me into the world at all! This should have been foreseen fifty years ago at least.
I am not sure the artistic exploits of the human race are going to help much now, though they may help us face the doom as happier individuals!
All the more reason to be kind and happy while I still can. But breeding? No, that is the greatest folly of all! Not for the parents but for the offspring. When my brother fathered his two I pointed this out, and he gave me a very funny look. That was fifteen and sixteen years ago.
With such a possibly short time left to enjoy, as I have said elsewhere the important thing is Carpe Diem. So long as nobody is hurt by one’s enjoyment of life, then there is no point in worrying much beyond the small contribution of not breeding, and really making sure that life's great moments are enjoyed to the full, without regard for living to extreme old age!
ATB from George
Posted on: 29 November 2007 by droodzilla
Hi George
I won't argue about whether it's already too late to act, as I don't know enough about it. Pragmatically speaking, and assuming the evidence is inconclusive, I think we should act as if it is *not* too late for damage limitation - before it's too late!
My main aim in posting was to challenge some of the jaundiced views expressed in the thread. Personally I don't find these very helpful, so I choose not to adopt them (I believe we have a choice in these matters). I'm aware that this sounds like a glib exhortation to think positively, but that's not really what I'm getting at. If anything, I'm suggesting that we don't think at all - or, at least that we refrain from generalisations about life, humanity, etc, which ultimately get in the way. For this reason, I'm not inclined to counter your claim by saying that the human race is essentially decent (or is essentially anything at all). "Nothing can be known...", and all that.
For what it's worth, your last post sounded a little more upbeat!
I won't argue about whether it's already too late to act, as I don't know enough about it. Pragmatically speaking, and assuming the evidence is inconclusive, I think we should act as if it is *not* too late for damage limitation - before it's too late!
My main aim in posting was to challenge some of the jaundiced views expressed in the thread. Personally I don't find these very helpful, so I choose not to adopt them (I believe we have a choice in these matters). I'm aware that this sounds like a glib exhortation to think positively, but that's not really what I'm getting at. If anything, I'm suggesting that we don't think at all - or, at least that we refrain from generalisations about life, humanity, etc, which ultimately get in the way. For this reason, I'm not inclined to counter your claim by saying that the human race is essentially decent (or is essentially anything at all). "Nothing can be known...", and all that.
For what it's worth, your last post sounded a little more upbeat!
Posted on: 29 November 2007 by u5227470736789439
Dear Droo,
I had a hell of a day at work - bloody awful - but I was still happy when I got home.
But on the big scale I suppose I am profoundly apocalyptic! I quite agree that action is necessary and necessary on curbing the population. There was a discussion on this on the Farming [Radio Four] in the last couple of weeks [amid a discussion on bio-fuels] and the talk turned on what level of population might be sustainable without using conventional modern farming without much dependance on fossil fuels. The expert estimated that the level would be around the 2 billion mark or a little higher. This was considering a completely sustainable farming method and allowing the wildernesses of the world to survive. In other words the level of population of the planet about fifty or slightly more years ago.
Of course what has not yet been mentioned in this thread is the sterling efforts of the Chinese to discourage population increase, but unfortunatly a non-concerted action is not going to help.
However the real issue is now that the population is probably already three times what is sustainable, and that is a problem however you look at it, even without the continuing and accelerating rise as things stand. If we acted now - today, or this coming year - then we may get through by a sheer squeak. But I see no sign of this, and the longer it goes on the greater will have to be the reduction in the population in the future - not just a stabilisation. It seems to me that the reduction in population is inevitable, whether it is undertaken by mankind or imposed by nature when the food runs scarce. An urbanised population is pretty much helpless without a functioning agriculture, and the truth is the human race has never been more urbanised or helpless in the face of this situation.
But that does not mean that any of us should not enjoy daily life. Rather the reverse, it should make us aware of the crucial need to do so, in my view.
But population control is al of our responsibilities, once the situration is appraised. Waiting for the GW Bushes of this world to catch up is going to leave the situation far more dangerous for the future and at its worst, catastrophe could be with us much faster even than the most pessimistic forcasts.
Whether climate change is man-made or not, it is happening and much faster than even the worst predictions from a few years ago. I hope that the trend for excessive optimism on the part of the scientific experts does not continue ...
ATB from George
PS: The reason I post about this, is that I fear the greatest risk is that people really don't think about it at all, as you suggest. If they did then the political agenda would already reflect this. The Green Agenda is still so far behind. Carbon Trading and such like are fiddling at the edges and really a convenient hiding place for people who refuse to countenance it at all in the big sense. "The Green Issue is on the table. We are talking about Carbon Emissions!" Too may humans creating them is the real problem. It is how we are going to feed six, eight, ten billion humans without cheap oil, and in a world where sea levels will rise and other productive areas become desertified, which is already happening, and historically this has already happened in the dust bowl in the USA when non-sustainable production systems were employed.
I had a hell of a day at work - bloody awful - but I was still happy when I got home.
But on the big scale I suppose I am profoundly apocalyptic! I quite agree that action is necessary and necessary on curbing the population. There was a discussion on this on the Farming [Radio Four] in the last couple of weeks [amid a discussion on bio-fuels] and the talk turned on what level of population might be sustainable without using conventional modern farming without much dependance on fossil fuels. The expert estimated that the level would be around the 2 billion mark or a little higher. This was considering a completely sustainable farming method and allowing the wildernesses of the world to survive. In other words the level of population of the planet about fifty or slightly more years ago.
Of course what has not yet been mentioned in this thread is the sterling efforts of the Chinese to discourage population increase, but unfortunatly a non-concerted action is not going to help.
However the real issue is now that the population is probably already three times what is sustainable, and that is a problem however you look at it, even without the continuing and accelerating rise as things stand. If we acted now - today, or this coming year - then we may get through by a sheer squeak. But I see no sign of this, and the longer it goes on the greater will have to be the reduction in the population in the future - not just a stabilisation. It seems to me that the reduction in population is inevitable, whether it is undertaken by mankind or imposed by nature when the food runs scarce. An urbanised population is pretty much helpless without a functioning agriculture, and the truth is the human race has never been more urbanised or helpless in the face of this situation.
But that does not mean that any of us should not enjoy daily life. Rather the reverse, it should make us aware of the crucial need to do so, in my view.
But population control is al of our responsibilities, once the situration is appraised. Waiting for the GW Bushes of this world to catch up is going to leave the situation far more dangerous for the future and at its worst, catastrophe could be with us much faster even than the most pessimistic forcasts.
Whether climate change is man-made or not, it is happening and much faster than even the worst predictions from a few years ago. I hope that the trend for excessive optimism on the part of the scientific experts does not continue ...
ATB from George
PS: The reason I post about this, is that I fear the greatest risk is that people really don't think about it at all, as you suggest. If they did then the political agenda would already reflect this. The Green Agenda is still so far behind. Carbon Trading and such like are fiddling at the edges and really a convenient hiding place for people who refuse to countenance it at all in the big sense. "The Green Issue is on the table. We are talking about Carbon Emissions!" Too may humans creating them is the real problem. It is how we are going to feed six, eight, ten billion humans without cheap oil, and in a world where sea levels will rise and other productive areas become desertified, which is already happening, and historically this has already happened in the dust bowl in the USA when non-sustainable production systems were employed.
Posted on: 29 November 2007 by droodzilla
quote:I had a hell of a day at work - bloody awful - but I was still happy when I got home.
That's the spirit!
Posted on: 29 November 2007 by wellyspyder
Hi GFFJ
Have you put your ideas to your local MP?
Have you put your ideas to your local MP?
Posted on: 29 November 2007 by Earwicker
quote:Originally posted by wellyspyder:
Have you put your ideas to your local MP?
I presume you're being facetious, but one of the many problems we now face - and it's going to get worse - is demographic change. The optimum population size of the UK has been estimated at less that 30 million, and it is rising well above 60 million and shows no sign of stopping.
Writing to one's MP to express concern about overpopulating our towns, cities, counties and indeed nation is a reasonable thing to do.
Again, policy is made as though the population carrying capacity of the nation is limitless: it isn't.
EW
Posted on: 29 November 2007 by u5227470736789439
Dear Welly,
My MP is Mike Foster. I am not sure that we have anything in common! My MP used to be Sir Micheal Spicer. I have had communication with Sir Micheal, but not on world over population. Only about a TV licence!
Do you think talking to Mr Foster would make any difference?
ATB from George
My MP is Mike Foster. I am not sure that we have anything in common! My MP used to be Sir Micheal Spicer. I have had communication with Sir Micheal, but not on world over population. Only about a TV licence!
Do you think talking to Mr Foster would make any difference?
ATB from George
Posted on: 30 November 2007 by rough edges
George,
You certainly speak the truth regarding the plight of this planet and mankind. With cheap fossil fuels we have greatly exceeded the natural carrying capacity of the Earth. That is about to change with skyrocketing energy costs, and hardship is inevitable. Waiting for politicians is a waste of time. Check out energybulletin.net for countless articles ranging from energy, climate change, sustainability, etc. Energy shortages will soon overtake climate change as the #1 concern for the general public. Guaranteed.
Regards,
Brian
You certainly speak the truth regarding the plight of this planet and mankind. With cheap fossil fuels we have greatly exceeded the natural carrying capacity of the Earth. That is about to change with skyrocketing energy costs, and hardship is inevitable. Waiting for politicians is a waste of time. Check out energybulletin.net for countless articles ranging from energy, climate change, sustainability, etc. Energy shortages will soon overtake climate change as the #1 concern for the general public. Guaranteed.
Regards,
Brian
Posted on: 30 November 2007 by Earwicker
quote:Originally posted by rough edges:
With cheap fossil fuels we have greatly exceeded the natural carrying capacity of the Earth.
It's the size of the population of consumers that's the problem, not the price. This is what the politicians can't get through their thick skulls. Price won't change the world's total energy requirement, it is a function of the number of people who require energy - i.e. all of us.
You can put as much tax on oil and petrol as you like, you'll just piss people off and wreck the economy. If you want to conserve natural energy reserves and protect the environment, you need to reduce the size of the population.
Maybe some kind of tax incentive for people who refrain from breeding, and punitive measures for people who have more that two kids? Might help...
EW
Posted on: 01 December 2007 by rough edges
EW,
You misunderstand the point I'm trying to make.The population of the Earth was able to grow to it's present level with the implementation of industrial agriculture. Without tractors/machinery, fertilizers, herbicides, international transportation and distribution, we simply could not have provided enough food to sustain so many people. Each of these things relies heavily on fossil fuel feedstocks. Oil and natural gas. When these commodities were abundant and cheap, industrial agriculture was feasible. That's about to change.
The price of fossil fuels is mainly a function of supply and demand. The price of oil on the world market has increased fourfold since 2002. All of the major oil producers are indicating that the "easy to get" oil is gone, and the era of cheap oil is over. This is the effect on the supply side. With the burgeoning economies of China and India, and relentless demand in the USA, the EU, and Japan, there is increasing pressure on the demand side. Thus, the price increases of recent years.
It will soon become impractical to ship food around the planet to feed everyone. This will not only affect the underdeveloped world. Look in your own refrigerator and see how much was grown/produced locally. The era of the 3000Km salad is coming to an end. We will all become more reliant on locally grown food in the near future.
There will be famine and hardship. There will be more resource wars, like the one in Iraq. The population "problem" will solve itself, but it won't be an elegant solution.
I respectfully suggest you read something by Richard Heinberg or James Lovelock.
Regards,
Brian
You misunderstand the point I'm trying to make.The population of the Earth was able to grow to it's present level with the implementation of industrial agriculture. Without tractors/machinery, fertilizers, herbicides, international transportation and distribution, we simply could not have provided enough food to sustain so many people. Each of these things relies heavily on fossil fuel feedstocks. Oil and natural gas. When these commodities were abundant and cheap, industrial agriculture was feasible. That's about to change.
The price of fossil fuels is mainly a function of supply and demand. The price of oil on the world market has increased fourfold since 2002. All of the major oil producers are indicating that the "easy to get" oil is gone, and the era of cheap oil is over. This is the effect on the supply side. With the burgeoning economies of China and India, and relentless demand in the USA, the EU, and Japan, there is increasing pressure on the demand side. Thus, the price increases of recent years.
It will soon become impractical to ship food around the planet to feed everyone. This will not only affect the underdeveloped world. Look in your own refrigerator and see how much was grown/produced locally. The era of the 3000Km salad is coming to an end. We will all become more reliant on locally grown food in the near future.
There will be famine and hardship. There will be more resource wars, like the one in Iraq. The population "problem" will solve itself, but it won't be an elegant solution.
I respectfully suggest you read something by Richard Heinberg or James Lovelock.
Regards,
Brian
Posted on: 01 December 2007 by Earwicker
Brian - Yes, I agree.
I'm not looking forward to the inelegant solution to the population problem. Given the inevitability and unpleasantness of the events that are about to unfold as a result of man's unwillingness to control the size of the human population - and let us not forget that technology has made such control perfectly possible - I wonder if we should find a new name for our species. Homo sapiens translates as wise or intelligent men; I don't think breeding yourself into an environmental crisis that will make life on earth a horror for most living things is wise, knowing, or intelligent. It is fucking stupid. And people who ought to know better seem to think it's cute...
That's my point. The disaster wouldn't be inevitable if Homo sapiens showed any signs of being sapient.
EW
I'm not looking forward to the inelegant solution to the population problem. Given the inevitability and unpleasantness of the events that are about to unfold as a result of man's unwillingness to control the size of the human population - and let us not forget that technology has made such control perfectly possible - I wonder if we should find a new name for our species. Homo sapiens translates as wise or intelligent men; I don't think breeding yourself into an environmental crisis that will make life on earth a horror for most living things is wise, knowing, or intelligent. It is fucking stupid. And people who ought to know better seem to think it's cute...
That's my point. The disaster wouldn't be inevitable if Homo sapiens showed any signs of being sapient.
EW