Bolitics UKIP Nutters

[leviramsey]

Anybody who thinks there's a global population problem should take action by sticking a shotgun in their mouth.

Anybody who thinks there isn't a problem with uncontrolled population growth needs to get educated

The Earth is more than capable of supporting a population of 10 billion. Considering the speed (even faster than anticipated) of demographic transition, it's somewhat likely that human population will not even hit 9 billion.

[villaguy]

Think this site is informative if you don't know much or are ignorant about the wider issues

http://www.populationmatters.org/making-case/key-facts-points/

[Awol]

 

 

Anybody who thinks there's a global population problem should take action by sticking a shotgun in their mouth.

Anybody who thinks there isn't a problem with uncontrolled population growth needs to get educated

 

The Earth is more than capable of supporting a population of 10 billion. Considering the speed (even faster than anticipated) of demographic transition, it's somewhat likely that human population will not even hit 9 billion.

 

Levi with the greatest respect, I'd put a little more weight in the view of David Attenborough on this issue than yours.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

The bigger problem is getting 6+ billion people better water, better housing, better food, better education and generally evening out the gap between the West & the rest.

 

Specifically, how we manage that without each of those countries going through their own industrial revolutions and needing oil when oil production will peak and go in decline after the 2020s.

Edited September 21, 2013 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[villaguy]

 

 

 

Anybody who thinks there's a global population problem should take action by sticking a shotgun in their mouth.

Anybody who thinks there isn't a problem with uncontrolled population growth needs to get educated

 

The Earth is more than capable of supporting a population of 10 billion. Considering the speed (even faster than anticipated) of demographic transition, it's somewhat likely that human population will not even hit 9 billion.

 

Levi with the greatest respect, I'd put a little more weight in the view of David Attenborough on this issue than yours.

 

Even with todays population, if everyone in the world was to live as they do in western Europe and the US, two worlds worth of natural resources would be needed. Already the bio diversity of the planet is being depleted at a rapid rate. When I was travelling recently I got chatting with someone who had been to South East Asia, I wondered what it was like, especially the landscape as I'm into nature. He told me rather bluntly, don't travel to Burma or Vietnam, it'll just depress you, most of the natural landscape has been destroyed, like an endless sea of deforestation.

Some people like to marvel at skyscrapers and urban developments, I guess leviramsey you fit into that category, the future may be rosy for you. Other people with different appreciations may be less well off in the future.

[leviramsey]

The Earth can't handle more than a few billion people at Western middle class standards.

If from that you deduce that the Earth is in danger of overpopulation, you've gone full retard.

As it is, if people gave up meat, the world easily feeds 10-15 billion. There's more than enough water, too (most of it is in areas that aren't populated and whose governments are unwilling to open the borders. That's a political issue, not a scientific issue. Free trade and free markets can handle that.

If you believe otherwise, you are a racist, a moron, or perhaps a racist moron (or you're taking direct action against overpopulation by killing yourself and maybe taking your family and friends with you).

Edited September 21, 2013 by leviramsey

[villaguy]

The Earth can't handle more than a few billion people at Western middle class standards.

If from that you deduce that the Earth is in danger of overpopulation, you've gone full retard.

As it is, if people gave up meat, the world easily feeds 10-15 billion. There's more than enough water, too (most of it is in areas that aren't populated and whose governments are unwilling to open the borders. That's a political issue, not a scientific issue. Free trade and free markets can handle that.

If you believe otherwise, you are a racist, a moron, or perhaps a racist moron (or you're taking direct action against overpopulation by killing yourself and maybe taking your family and friends with you).

You sound like an idiot to me, anyway show me evidence I'm a racist and also that the world can support 10 to 15 billion at Western living standards where the worlds eco systems haven't been wiped out in order to make way for arable land

[peterms]

Levi with the greatest respect, I'd put a little more weight in the view of David Attenborough on this issue than yours.

Why?

 

David Attenborough fronts up an organisation formerly called the Optimum Population Trust, now called Population Matters, which is very concerned about the number of people in the world.  They are concerned with climate change, and have come to the conclusion that the best way of combatting climate change is contraception.  In particular, they want to reduce the population of developing countries, even though it is the population of the developed countries who have far, far more impact on global warming.  They present their position as being about female empowerment, but it seems they want female empowerment if it means having fewer children in developing countries, rather than the right to choose whether large or small families suit them better.

 

Population Matters don't appear to be nearly as vocal about changing the gross overconsumption of resources in the West.  They do list "limiting consumption" as one of their goals, but looking at the range of publications they put out, simple numbers of people is clearly far and away the dominant theme.  Oh, and they are also vehemently against net immigration to the UK.

 

David Attenborough's a lovely chap.  He makes great programmes about geckoes and things.  He has a wonderfully soothing voice, and I could happily drift off to sleep while watching one of his excellent programmes.  But I'm not sure he's the person I would turn to for advice on how the global economy should be run.

[peterms]

When I was travelling recently I got chatting with someone who had been to South East Asia, I wondered what it was like, especially the landscape as I'm into nature. He told me rather bluntly, don't travel to Burma or Vietnam, it'll just depress you, most of the natural landscape has been destroyed, like an endless sea of deforestation.

 

Well, thanks for bringing some original research to the table.  Not many of us manage to do that.

[villaguy]

 

Levi with the greatest respect, I'd put a little more weight in the view of David Attenborough on this issue than yours.

Why?

 

David Attenborough fronts up an organisation formerly called the Optimum Population Trust, now called Population Matters, which is very concerned about the number of people in the world.  They are concerned with climate change, and have come to the conclusion that the best way of combatting climate change is contraception.  In particular, they want to reduce the population of developing countries, even though it is the population of the developed countries who have far, far more impact on global warming.  They present their position as being about female empowerment, but it seems they want female empowerment if it means having fewer children in developing countries, rather than the right to choose whether large or small families suit them better.

 

Population Matters don't appear to be nearly as vocal about changing the gross overconsumption of resources in the West.  They do list "limiting consumption" as one of their goals, but looking at the range of publications they put out, simple numbers of people is clearly far and away the dominant theme.  Oh, and they are also vehemently against net immigration to the UK.

 

David Attenborough's a lovely chap.  He makes great programmes about geckoes and things.  He has a wonderfully soothing voice, and I could happily drift off to sleep while watching one of his excellent programmes.  But I'm not sure he's the person I would turn to for advice on how the global economy should be run.

 

It's not so much the global economy, it's the global environment. You can't expect to educate people to give up on life's luxuries without them turning a deaf ear to it, but you can try and limit the number of children that people have. People on the planet naturally want to feel that there is equality amongst the world, therefore people in the poor developing world are going to want a western standard of living, hence why a lot of the net immigration into the western world is economic. David Attenborough, with his career spanning the length it has and the nature of work he does, is one of the best people to illustrate how the world on an environmental level has been adversely affected. The worlds population increases by the size of a new Germany every year, that is a huge figure and is accelerating the rate of environmental damage. Are you telling me there isn't an issue here? I'm sure you're not, what do you think the plan of action should be as an alternative?

[Awol]

The Earth can't handle more than a few billion people at Western middle class standards.

If from that you deduce that the Earth is in danger of overpopulation, you've gone full retard.

As it is, if people gave up meat, the world easily feeds 10-15 billion. There's more than enough water, too (most of it is in areas that aren't populated and whose governments are unwilling to open the borders. That's a political issue, not a scientific issue. Free trade and free markets can handle that.

If you believe otherwise, you are a racist, a moron, or perhaps a racist moron (or you're taking direct action against overpopulation by killing yourself and maybe taking your family and friends with you).

What exactly do you think the rapidly developing and industrialising nations of the world are striving for, lentil soup, no electricity, unheated homes and none of the trappings of the developed world? Similarly it is as unrealistic to expect western democratic societies to elect people who are telling them "vote for us and we'll do everything in our power to drive down your standard of living", not without some catastrophe that actually forces people to change their behaviour first. The only other variable therefore is to try to limit the growth of the overall population - although if you've got an answer to the first two points that would be more constructive than dishing out the slightly OTT abuse.

[villaguy]

 

The Earth can't handle more than a few billion people at Western middle class standards.

If from that you deduce that the Earth is in danger of overpopulation, you've gone full retard.

As it is, if people gave up meat, the world easily feeds 10-15 billion. There's more than enough water, too (most of it is in areas that aren't populated and whose governments are unwilling to open the borders. That's a political issue, not a scientific issue. Free trade and free markets can handle that.

If you believe otherwise, you are a racist, a moron, or perhaps a racist moron (or you're taking direct action against overpopulation by killing yourself and maybe taking your family and friends with you).

What exactly do you think the rapidly developing and industrialising nations of the world are striving for, lentil soup, no electricity, unheated homes and none of the trappings of the developed world? Similarly it is as unrealistic to expect western democratic societies to elect people who are telling them "vote for us and we'll do everything in our power to drive down your standard of living", not without some catastrophe that actually forces people to change their behaviour first. The only other variable therefore is to try to limit the growth of the overall population - although if you've got an answer to the first two points that would be more constructive than dishing out the slightly OTT abuse.

 

Exactly this, put it better than I could. I can't see how people can't grasp it

[peterms]

It's not so much the global economy, it's the global environment. You can't expect to educate people to give up on life's luxuries without them turning a deaf ear to it, but you can try and limit the number of children that people have. People on the planet naturally want to feel that there is equality amongst the world, therefore people in the poor developing world are going to want a western standard of living, hence why a lot of the net immigration into the western world is economic. David Attenborough, with his career spanning the length it has and the nature of work he does, is one of the best people to illustrate how the world on an environmental level has been adversely affected. The worlds population increases by the size of a new Germany every year, that is a huge figure and is accelerating the rate of environmental damage. Are you telling me there isn't an issue here? I'm sure you're not, what do you think the plan of action should be as an alternative?

The problems with the global environment (the man-made ones) have been caused by the type of economic development we have pursued.  An individual in the US uses about 250-300 times the amount of carbon as an individual in Mali.  The answer is clearly not population reduction in Mali, but behaviour change in the western economies.

 

And the answer is certainly not preserving current rates of resource usage in the West, while drawing up the gangplank to deny entry to others and hoping that solves the problem.

 

In comparison to the problem of western lifestyle and consumption, population growth is pretty small beer.  This is why it's difficult to take seriously what Population Matters are saying.  It's like the house is on fire, and they're telling us all to look at the garden shed.

[villaguy]

 

It's not so much the global economy, it's the global environment. You can't expect to educate people to give up on life's luxuries without them turning a deaf ear to it, but you can try and limit the number of children that people have. People on the planet naturally want to feel that there is equality amongst the world, therefore people in the poor developing world are going to want a western standard of living, hence why a lot of the net immigration into the western world is economic. David Attenborough, with his career spanning the length it has and the nature of work he does, is one of the best people to illustrate how the world on an environmental level has been adversely affected. The worlds population increases by the size of a new Germany every year, that is a huge figure and is accelerating the rate of environmental damage. Are you telling me there isn't an issue here? I'm sure you're not, what do you think the plan of action should be as an alternative?

The problems with the global environment (the man-made ones) have been caused by the type of economic development we have pursued.  An individual in the US uses about 250-300 times the amount of carbon as an individual in Mali.  The answer is clearly not population reduction in Mali, but behaviour change in the western economies.

 

And the answer is certainly not preserving current rates of resource usage in the West, while drawing up the gangplank to deny entry to others and hoping that solves the problem.

 

In comparison to the problem of western lifestyle and consumption, population growth is pretty small beer.  This is why it's difficult to take seriously what Population Matters are saying.  It's like the house is on fire, and they're telling us all to look at the garden shed.

 

But surely birth control measures are the only solution. It isn't Mali that is the concern, it's the combination of the whole of Africa, India, China, Bangladesh etc. wanting a western life. This is understandable and they should, but unfortunately the finite Earth cannot support all those demands from 7 billion and climbing people. Just what is the alternative?

 

Why differentiate that the global environment is man made, there's not an inch of the planet that is out of limits to being affected by over burden surely

Edited September 21, 2013 by villaguy

[peterms]

What exactly do you think the rapidly developing and industrialising nations of the world are striving for, lentil soup, no electricity, unheated homes and none of the trappings of the developed world? Similarly it is as unrealistic to expect western democratic societies to elect people who are telling them "vote for us and we'll do everything in our power to drive down your standard of living", not without some catastrophe that actually forces people to change their behaviour first. The only other variable therefore is to try to limit the growth of the overall population

 

 

But surely birth control measures are the only solution. It isn't Mali that is the concern, it's the combination of the whole of Africa, India, China, Bangladesh etc. wanting a western life. This is understandable and they should, but unfortunately the finite Earth cannot support all those demands from 7 billion and climbing people. Just what is the alternative?

We don't have to have unheated homes (though it's worth noting that even in Aberdeenshire, one of the colder parts of the UK, there are modern unheated homes where people live perfectly comfortably because they've been designed well). 

 

We don't have to subsist on lentil soup, but we do have to get away from the late C20 idea that three servings of meat a day is either sensible or sustainable.

 

We don't have to live without using energy, though we do have to live with renewable energy, not having continual wars to drag more fossil fuels out of the ground to poison the earth even more. 

 

We don't have to have a crap standard of living, but we do have to escape from the idea that a good standard of living is buying endless plastic, disposable shite that's deliberately designed to break down once out of guarantee.

 

The idea of continuing with current patterns of consumption, while telling others to reduce their population and at the same time causing wars, crop destruction, forest logging and mass population movement as a consequence of the wars we foment to win and keep control of fossil fuels, is simply insane.  Barking, saucer-eyed, howling-at-the-moon mad.

 

[tonyh29]

The Earth can't handle more than a few billion people at Western middle class standards.

If from that you deduce that the Earth is in danger of overpopulation, you've gone full retard.

As it is, if people gave up meat, the world easily feeds 10-15 billion. There's more than enough water, too (most of it is in areas that aren't populated and whose governments are unwilling to open the borders. That's a political issue, not a scientific issue. Free trade and free markets can handle that.

If you believe otherwise, you are a racist, a moron, or perhaps a racist moron (or you're taking direct action against overpopulation by killing yourself and maybe taking your family and friends with you).

You sound like an idiot to me, anyway show me evidence I'm a racist and also that the world can support 10 to 15 billion at Western living standards where the worlds eco systems haven't been wiped out in order to make way for arable land

With respect calling Levi an idiot is both dumb and disrespectful

But getting it back to being light hearted

Now Levi will post 600 lines of programmer code showing how he is right ... And when he does I'm holding you responsible Villaguy

[Dr_Pangloss]

Yeah he's even going to post it in python!

[villaguy]

 

What exactly do you think the rapidly developing and industrialising nations of the world are striving for, lentil soup, no electricity, unheated homes and none of the trappings of the developed world? Similarly it is as unrealistic to expect western democratic societies to elect people who are telling them "vote for us and we'll do everything in our power to drive down your standard of living", not without some catastrophe that actually forces people to change their behaviour first. The only other variable therefore is to try to limit the growth of the overall population

 

 

But surely birth control measures are the only solution. It isn't Mali that is the concern, it's the combination of the whole of Africa, India, China, Bangladesh etc. wanting a western life. This is understandable and they should, but unfortunately the finite Earth cannot support all those demands from 7 billion and climbing people. Just what is the alternative?

We don't have to have unheated homes (though it's worth noting that even in Aberdeenshire, one of the colder parts of the UK, there are modern unheated homes where people live perfectly comfortably because they've been designed well). 

 

We don't have to subsist on lentil soup, but we do have to get away from the late C20 idea that three servings of meat a day is either sensible or sustainable.

 

We don't have to live without using energy, though we do have to live with renewable energy, not having continual wars to drag more fossil fuels out of the ground to poison the earth even more. 

 

We don't have to have a crap standard of living, but we do have to escape from the idea that a good standard of living is buying endless plastic, disposable shite that's deliberately designed to break down once out of guarantee.

 

The idea of continuing with current patterns of consumption, while telling others to reduce their population and at the same time causing wars, crop destruction, forest logging and mass population movement as a consequence of the wars we foment to win and keep control of fossil fuels, is simply insane.  Barking, saucer-eyed, howling-at-the-moon mad.

 

 

Yeah I agree with all of these points, however we don't seem to be doing a good job of it so far, and the exponential population growth isn't making things any easier for future generations

[villaguy]

 

 

The Earth can't handle more than a few billion people at Western middle class standards.

If from that you deduce that the Earth is in danger of overpopulation, you've gone full retard.

As it is, if people gave up meat, the world easily feeds 10-15 billion. There's more than enough water, too (most of it is in areas that aren't populated and whose governments are unwilling to open the borders. That's a political issue, not a scientific issue. Free trade and free markets can handle that.

If you believe otherwise, you are a racist, a moron, or perhaps a racist moron (or you're taking direct action against overpopulation by killing yourself and maybe taking your family and friends with you).

You sound like an idiot to me, anyway show me evidence I'm a racist and also that the world can support 10 to 15 billion at Western living standards where the worlds eco systems haven't been wiped out in order to make way for arable land

 

With respect calling Levi an idiot is both dumb and disrespectful

But getting it back to being light hearted

Now Levi will post 600 lines of programmer code showing how he is right ... And when he does I'm holding you responsible Villaguy

 

Ok, fair enough. I take it back Mr Levi, I'm a lowly racist moron, sorry for having any kind of position on the topic

[tonyh29]

As it is, if people gave up meat ....

Nooooooooooooooooooooo

Can't we just eat vegetarians instead ?