Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Population control

2»

Comments

  • #32
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,457 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    newmug wrote: »
    And I'm sure you're also aware that urban planning would only apply to the 25% of the population who actually are urban dwellers, and would mean nothing to the other 75% of us who live rurally, an essential way of life for a rural country?

    Actually 60% of Irelands population lives in Urban areas. That is low by European standards (it is 90% in France). BTW this is well up on the past in Ireland, the trend is moving more and more towards the European average.

    As for promoting IT. Even if all the unskilled people can't retrain in IT, it attracts thousands of highly educated, well paid, high tax paying immigrants into Ireland every year. Their taxes support the unemployment payments and they also require increased number of shop assistants, waiters, hair dressers, etc.

    BTW one of the very best software engineers on my team worked as a builder in Australia for years before returning to University to study Software Engineering.


  • #33
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    newmug wrote:
    Our land can feed 1 million people per year

    Source?
    Duggys Housemate wrote:
    Peak oil theories rely on one truth ( they are not infinite) and plenty of distortions. It ignores market feedback, people reducing demand as prices increase, new technologies like fracking, incentives to invest in newer once uneconomic fields. And so on.

    Fracking won't be supported because it's simply not viable on the scale needed. It's being sold by some commentators as the magic solution. You think the peak oil theories would stand up to any scrutiny if it was as easy to disprove them as that? And that ignores the enormous environmental problems fracking would cause even if it were possible on the scale needed.

    Also, there's some abrasive posts here, so I'm going to give one general warning to cool it down bit. Heated debate - good, fine. Insults -no. Let's not spoil an interesting thread topic.

    Thanks,


  • #34
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    newmug wrote:
    Our land can feed 1 million people per year

    Source?
    Duggys Housemate wrote:
    Peak oil theories rely on one truth ( they are not infinite) and plenty of distortions. It ignores market feedback, people reducing demand as prices increase, new technologies like fracking, incentives to invest in newer once uneconomic fields. And so on.

    Fracking won't be supported because it's simply not viable on the scale needed. It's being sold by some commentators as the magic solution. You think the peak oil theories would stand up to any scrutiny if it was as easy to disprove them as that? And that ignores the enormous environmental problems fracking would cause even if it were possible on the scale needed.

    Also, there's some abrasive posts here, so I'm going to give one general warning to cool it down bit. Heated debate - good, fine. Insults -no. Let's not spoil an interesting thread topic.

    Thanks,

    Fracking would be supported if the opposite were economic collapse. Peak oil is a conspiracy theory, am on my iPhone now and away from my computer but will post a link tomorrow.

    The main misunderstanding is that reserves are economically recoverable deposits the moment, not all known deposits ( the term for that is resources) vSo in the year 2000 Venezuelan heavy oil was not included, then it became economically and technically viable and, hey presto, reserves equal to the Saudi oilfields come online. There are hundreds of years of resources left.


  • #35
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,272 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Cawk n bawllz wrote: »
    If we were to move to nuclear energy it wouldn't serve us for as long as oil has and also the risk of pollution AND terrorism rises significantly.

    What???

    Nuclear Energy generates a lot less pollution than conventional power plants.

    Terrorism?? how would having nuclear increase the risk of terrorism?


  • #36
    Cawk n bawllz
    Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭Cawk n bawllz


    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    Terrorism is an issue, pollution isn't. What I am saying is simple, if we were running out of oil we would be building nuclear plants, in fact we are decommissioning them. Peak oil theories rely on one truth ( they are not infinite) and plenty of distortions. It ignores market feedback, people reducing demand as prices increase, new technologies like fracking, incentives to invest in newer once uneconomic fields. And so on.

    If politicians were convinced we would run out of oil in the near future they would push nuclear, and if people saw prices triple they would support fracking. In theory at least.

    Pollution not an issue with nuclear power? The nuclear waste! Silos and silos of that stuff lying around! The risk of a meltdown at a nuclear power plant! I know there are nuclear power stations which function just fine and the people who work there have made safety and caution paramount but in the event of some sort of leak you can have airborne radiation ranging from harmful to lethal!
    And I really hope fracking does not replace oil. I've seen a documentary called Gasland and the pollution that fracking causes is jaw dropping!

    How much do politicians actually know and understand themselves? I'm not arguing with you, I'm suggesting that maybe they don't have all the facts. Oil companies could very well be keeping the truth from them in order to get every penny out of oil that they can right up intil it's gone or so scarce that only millionaires can afford it.
    And I'm not saying that's what's going on but it's a possibility I think. They don't have the interests of others at heart.

    I've seen a lot of negative **** online about the end of the oil age. I need to look into the renewable and untapped energies more.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Cawk n bawllz
    Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭Cawk n bawllz


    cgcsb wrote: »
    What???

    Nuclear Energy generates a lot less pollution than conventional power plants.

    Terrorism?? how would having nuclear increase the risk of terrorism?

    You can bomb a power station and you'll knock out all the the electricity on the grid. If you bomb a nuclear power station you can kill everything within miles from the deadly radiation emissions. And the wind carries it.


  • #38
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,272 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    newmug wrote: »
    Our land can feed 1 million people per year. Already we are 4 times overcrowded going by that.

    how have you arrived at that figure?? How do you explain the fact that The Netherlands, with 1/4 the land area of Ireland manages to be self sustainable food wise with a population of 17 million?
    newmug wrote: »
    As for improvements in infrastructure, we have how many extra, unfinished, unsellable houses?

    point? we're talking about future pop growth and our currently unacceptable water, rail and broadband infrastructure to support said growth.
    newmug wrote: »
    You do know the investors in all the recently built tool-roads are actually suing the govt. because the volume of traffic (ridiculously) promised by the govt. isnt there?

    can you back that assertion up please? a link maybe? I haven't heard of such a case. I know the government pays compo to toll companies because of low traffic (as per their contract), I wasn't aware any toll company had gone to court over it.
    newmug wrote: »
    And I'm sure you're also aware that urban planning would only apply to the 25% of the population who actually are urban dwellers, and would mean nothing to the other 75% of us who live rurally, an essential way of life for a rural country?

    WHAT?? Ireland's population is 70% Urban, and that % would be even larger if we had proper urban planning.
    newmug wrote: »
    But yeah forget about India, its not as if they'd ever end emmigrating due to their overpopulation, especially to a place like Ireland!

    Solution: tighter immigration controls


  • #39
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,272 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Cawk n bawllz wrote: »
    You can bomb a power station and you'll knock out all the the electricity on the grid. If you bomb a nuclear power station you can kill everything within miles from the deadly radiation emissions. And the wind carries it.

    err, has that ever happened anywhere in the world? The reactor in the majority of fission stations is protected by some pretty heavy duty lead shielding. It'd take an explosion of some magnitude at close range to make a dent.


  • #40
    Cawk n bawllz
    Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭Cawk n bawllz


    cgcsb wrote: »

    Solution: tighter immigration controls

    I wonder if the Irish government actually would adopt some immigration controls next time around.


  • #41
    Cawk n bawllz
    Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭Cawk n bawllz


    cgcsb wrote: »
    err, has that ever happened anywhere in the world? The reactor in the majority of fission stations is protected by some pretty heavy duty lead shielding. It'd take an explosion of some magnitude at close range to make a dent.

    Do you actually disagree with me or do you just like arguing for the fun of it?
    Are you an explosives expert? I'm not. But I can't imagine it being terribly difficult to cause a melt down using explosives if an adequately organised terrorist group put their mind to it. And without any intent of sabotage things still go wrong in those power stations. There's no room for error but errors occur anyway!

    Give this a read and then tell me how green and safe nuclear power plants are.
    http://www.infowars.com/fukushima-nuclear-power-plant-in-japan-a-dirty-bomb-waiting-to-go-off/


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    Cawk n bawllz wrote: »
    cgcsb wrote: »
    err, has that ever happened anywhere in the world? The reactor in the majority of fission stations is protected by some pretty heavy duty lead shielding. It'd take an explosion of some magnitude at close range to make a dent.

    Do you actually disagree with me or do you just like arguing for the fun of it?
    Are you an explosives expert? I'm not. But I can't imagine it being terribly difficult to cause a melt down using explosives if an adequately organised terrorist group put their mind to it. And without any intent of sabotage things still go wrong in those power stations. There's no room for error but errors occur anyway!

    Give this a read and then tell me how green and safe nuclear power plants are.
    http://www.infowars.com/fukushima-nuclear-power-plant-in-japan-a-dirty-bomb-waiting-to-go-off/

    I read that, it is out of date sensationalist rubbish.


  • #43
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,272 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Cawk n bawllz wrote: »
    Do you actually disagree with me or do you just like arguing for the fun of it?
    Are you an explosives expert? I'm not. But I can't imagine it being terribly difficult to cause a melt down using explosives if an adequately organised terrorist group put their mind to it. And without any intent of sabotage things still go wrong in those power stations. There's no room for error but errors occur anyway!

    Give this a read and then tell me how green and safe nuclear power plants are.
    http://www.infowars.com/fukushima-nuclear-power-plant-in-japan-a-dirty-bomb-waiting-to-go-off/

    I don't doubt that there is anti nuclear hysteria out there, but it's mostly unfounded, there have been far more environmental disasters at conventional power stations. You're terrorism scenario is far fetched at best, terrorism can happen anywhere, and the shielding around a typical fission reactor makes it extremely unlikely that a conventional explosive would be any more effective at causing a breach than throwing a pebble at it.


Advertisement