Pessimism!

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:
Hitler, Stalin, Ghengis Khan, Mao,.............

No, they tried to annihilate specific populations, I'm talking about a global drive to reduce the size of the human population. The bottom line is there're too many people.

EW

Yeah, what a bunch of failures. They really lacked your vision EW. What do you suggest?

Of course, you are right about there being too many people. The planet cant suport us all at the moment and it is going to get very much worse. I remember an idiot government minister saying that there would shortly be so many old people that the only way to pay for their pensions is for the rest of us to breed like rabbits to increase the number of tax paying people in the future. I won't insult anyones intelligence by pointing out the total lack of logic in the plan. In many poor countries where there is no unemplyment benefit or state pensions couples are forced to have as many children as they can so the children can look after their parents in old age. 60% of the population of the Philippines is under 20 and the populations of India, China and South America is set to double in 20 years or so I read!!

Bloody nightmare. Personally I blame our Fritz and his strange grasp of statistics.

Indeed. And birth control is all the more conspicuously absent in places that can't really sustain life. But even in this country, all too many people can't see past their own base desires when it comes to breeding. THEY want to have children to make THEM happy... that fact that it means dooming some poor fucker to have to live and exacerbates the problem of overpopulation doesn't enter their simple little heads.

EW

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:
Indeed. And birth control is all the more conspicuously absent in places that can't really sustain life. But even in this country, all too many people can't see past their own base desires when it comes to breeding. THEY want to have children to make THEM happy... that fact that it means dooming some poor fucker to have to live and exacerbates the problem of overpopulation doesn't enter their simple little heads.

EW

I agree. Peoples motivation for having children is complex and often unexamined. As for birth control and the third world I am pleased more than I can readily articulate that the bloody Catholic church is at last talking of allowing contraception. Unbelievable! First they announce that the world does indeed revolve around the sun and now this!

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:
Unbelievable! First they announce that the world does indeed revolve around the sun and now this!

I know! I'd say there was hope if I wasn't a pessimist!

EW

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
I always said a realist is less likely to be dissappointed.

Oh no dear Fred.
As far he has dreams or hopes.
Which means not to be realist anymore.
Hard balance to get, isn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:
Hitler, Stalin, Ghengis Khan, Mao,.............

No, they tried to annihilate specific populations, I'm talking about a global drive to reduce the size of the human population. The bottom line is there're too many people.

EW

Agreed - the issue of birth control has not (until now?) been given the prominence and emphasis it deserves.

shoot them all I say!

quote:

Originally posted by Polarbear:
shoot them all I say!

Me too

Except PB was joking.....I think!

After the night I have had don't believe it

The catholic church in their divine wisdom think a woman should rely solely on mathematics for birth control, when chemistry is the answer.

Catholic church killed as much as hitler.

Hmm....harsh, but probably fair.

Direct and indirect they did.

Lets get on to Catholics!

And ready to do it again.
Instead of fire they use social isolation now.
As an example: if you're a gay you're just a sick person to be treaten.
If you refuse the treatment you're a enemy.

So on with all they consider not "good".

On the 13th March 2005 I posted the following when starting a thread on global warming.

Is it too late to stop Global Warming ?

For the lazy sods amongst us, I have highlighted the gist of this topic.

"Global Warming is a disaster waiting to happen", said Mrs D yesterday. "Bollocks" was the gist of my reply, "It's already happened"

According to popular science (ie what I learned at school), the recent geological history of the earth (ie the last million years or so) has been dominated by a succession of ice-ages. These have helped to carve the current, familiar landscape out of the wind/water-eroded, crumpled fault-lines and thrust-mountains along the north and south tropics. We enjoy the resultant scenery in the Rockies, the Alps, the Norwegian Fjords the Andes and New Zealand's South Island (LOTR). ISTR from school that the ice-ages were associated with independent 100,000; 40,000 and 20,000 year cycles, the latter being due to a "wobble" of the earth on its axis. When all three effects are co-aligned, we get the more severe ice-age; with wobble-induced-fluctuations superimposed at 20,000 year intervals (I think this latter interval is actually nearer 22,000 years) .

circa 11,000 years ago, the last ice-age had already receded sufficiently for humans in Asia to move into North America; and shortly after for the UK to be cut off from Europe as the polar ice-cap melted etc. At this time we were all still hunter-gatherers (according to my uncle Albert who says he can remember) and I "presume" the earth was well on its way to that inter-glacial point in the glacial cycle, of maximum warmth, if not actually at that point.

I can't recall what drives the 100,000 year (shape of the solar orbits?) and 40,000 year cycles and which of the cycles is dominant. Does anybody know where we "should" be in the ice-age cycle(s)? I have a hunch that we "should" be at the coldest point in a 22,000 year ice-age. But I don't know where we are in the other cycles.

I say "should" because clearly, the burning of fossil fuels over the last 200 years could be having a significant effect on the earth's climate; and human activity in the form of wide-spread migration, farming, deforestation and the building of cities, (all over the past 10,000 years) could likewise have had a huge impact on the cycle. I am therefore not convinced that it will be enough to stop burning coal and oil. To save the planet as we know it today, I think we will have to dramatically reduce the population numbers (say) from 6 billion to 6 million and revert to hunter-gathering.

Long-live Mr Archer and Mr Fletcher

Perhaps you have a better idea, or aren't so pessimistic?

Cheers

Don

Well, it looks like one or two of you have finaly caught up and realised our fundamental predicament.

China has embarked on the "one child per couple" policy, which if succesfully implemented would halve global poulation every 20 years or so.

Anybody got any other realistic ideas

Cheers

Don

quote:

I think we will have to dramatically reduce the population numbers (say) from 6 billion to 6 million

Who can we shoot first?

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
I am therefore not convinced that it will be enough to stop burning coal and oil. To save the planet as we know it today, I think we will have to dramatically reduce the population numbers (say) from 6 billion to 6 million and revert to hunter-gathering.

Just reducing the population will do. Having achieved that, people could exploit technology and natural resources with impunity. We have to be careful these days because 6 billion of us are at it...

quote:

Originally posted by Polarbear:
Who can we shoot first?

There's no need to shoot anyone, all that's required is an end to this stupid nonesense of breeding like it's some kind of contest. Especially foreigners: the English breed excessively, but out in Foreign it seems to be the national sport.

EW

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:
all that's required is an end to this stupid nonesense of breeding like it's some kind of contest.

In Italy they give you about 700 pounds for every new born child.
I knew that someone just fuck for money, but this is stupid.
Bloody stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by Gianluigi Mazzorana:

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:
all that's required is an end to this stupid nonesense of breeding like it's some kind of contest.

In Italy they give you about 700 pounds for every new born child.
I knew that someone just fuck for money, but this is stupid.
Bloody stupid.

What?

Just think of the fun you could have earning your first million!

quote:

Originally posted by Gianluigi Mazzorana:
I knew that someone just fuck for money

I wish someone would pay me for it! Not that I'd make much...

quote:

Originally posted by Polarbear:
Just think of the fun you could have earning your first million!

1428 childs.
And a half.
Gosh!
Better start as soon as i can!

Come on Ladies! (in every meaning you want!)