Selfish Sunak.didn't Think About Us...
News0 min ago
Interesting Projections
http://
14% poulation increase ... we had better get busy building some infrastructure.
Warning
Opening some of the links/pdf's may spoil your breakfast.
14% poulation increase ... we had better get busy building some infrastructure.
Warning
Opening some of the links/pdf's may spoil your breakfast.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by -Talbot-. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm no historian but as I understand it they were on the losing side when all the treaties resulted in the first world war, and the retribution etc. imposed from that ensured they would follow any lunatic that seemed able to deliver on a promise to make them respected again. And of course a part of that involved finding scapegoats to blame and turn into "not us" targets.
IMO a society can change dramatically with even a small change. Because as everyone/most move even just slightly in their views, society as a whole gains a load of extremists at one end of the spectrum and loses a previously balancing set of extremists at the other end, which tips power markedly. But what do I know ?
IMO a society can change dramatically with even a small change. Because as everyone/most move even just slightly in their views, society as a whole gains a load of extremists at one end of the spectrum and loses a previously balancing set of extremists at the other end, which tips power markedly. But what do I know ?
-- answer removed --
There are varying ideas as to the sustainable world population level but around 9 billion seems to be a common consensus.
http://
We are at over 7 billion now.
http://
We are at over 7 billion now.
Sustainable is one thing, but it depends on what standard we wish to inflict on future humans.
http://
We already need 2.5 Earths to live a reasonable standard.
That implies a maximum level of 7.2/2.5 = 2.88 billion. So we are already way way way way way too many.
http://
We already need 2.5 Earths to live a reasonable standard.
That implies a maximum level of 7.2/2.5 = 2.88 billion. So we are already way way way way way too many.
^^ 2.8 Billion is the population level to sustain consumption at the level of the USA. A citizen of the USA consumes 3 to 4 times the resources that a European uses.
The figure of 9 billion means that we would have to kill all animals other than humans to save all potential food growing areas for feeding ourselves and turn 100% vegetarian.
The figure of 9 billion means that we would have to kill all animals other than humans to save all potential food growing areas for feeding ourselves and turn 100% vegetarian.
“Current social policy throughout the West is based on the principle that the state guarantees the health and financial security of all its citizens from cradle to grave, NJ. The cost of this guarantee cannot be met by a static, far less a declining, population.”
I would not quite agree in that if properly managed (particularly so that not so many people are paid to sit around doing nothing) the same guarantee could be provided. However, accepting what you say, v_e, that’s why I suggested that another model needs to be devised that will accommodate no population growth. It is simply lunacy to continue encouraging population growth when ultimately enormous problems, far greater than we are already witnessing, will ensue. The world is petrified (so we’re told) that “climate change” (or whatever it is called to match the prevailing data) will see the end of mankind. Well I’ve got news for the world. The threat posed by climate change is but nothing compared to the threat posed by over population. Virtually every serious problem the world faces can be traced back to there being too many people. Just looking at the UK (which is where this question started) the first thing that is apparent is that there are currently not enough homes to comfortably accommodate the existing population. Furthermore, nor are there likely to be in the near future, even ignoring the ridiculous rates of population growth forecast. Moving on from there, the same can be said for virtually every aspect of life in the UK.
Just because there is room to build more homes that does not mean they should simply be built even if it were possible. A far broader enquiry needs to be made before doing so. The UK cannot continue to accommodate an ever increasing population without life becoming for many even more unpleasant than it is for some now. It is ridiculous to continue with policies that you know will end in abject disaster in the faint and vain hope that it will all turn out OK in the end. It won’t and the sooner politicians spend a little of the time they currently spend fretting and vainly legislating to combat climate change on addressing the problem of over-population, the sooner some sanity may be restored.
I would not quite agree in that if properly managed (particularly so that not so many people are paid to sit around doing nothing) the same guarantee could be provided. However, accepting what you say, v_e, that’s why I suggested that another model needs to be devised that will accommodate no population growth. It is simply lunacy to continue encouraging population growth when ultimately enormous problems, far greater than we are already witnessing, will ensue. The world is petrified (so we’re told) that “climate change” (or whatever it is called to match the prevailing data) will see the end of mankind. Well I’ve got news for the world. The threat posed by climate change is but nothing compared to the threat posed by over population. Virtually every serious problem the world faces can be traced back to there being too many people. Just looking at the UK (which is where this question started) the first thing that is apparent is that there are currently not enough homes to comfortably accommodate the existing population. Furthermore, nor are there likely to be in the near future, even ignoring the ridiculous rates of population growth forecast. Moving on from there, the same can be said for virtually every aspect of life in the UK.
Just because there is room to build more homes that does not mean they should simply be built even if it were possible. A far broader enquiry needs to be made before doing so. The UK cannot continue to accommodate an ever increasing population without life becoming for many even more unpleasant than it is for some now. It is ridiculous to continue with policies that you know will end in abject disaster in the faint and vain hope that it will all turn out OK in the end. It won’t and the sooner politicians spend a little of the time they currently spend fretting and vainly legislating to combat climate change on addressing the problem of over-population, the sooner some sanity may be restored.
