Omackeral wrote: » Obviously she's a victim of the patriarchy. Only way it makes sense.
Jimmy Garlic wrote: » The Catholic church often used child visionaries/prophets to copperfasten obedience.Nearly always young girls too., always with some prediction of doom. Criticising Greta would almost be akin to saying Fatima or Lourdes was a load of horse**** back in 1955
Veritas Libertas wrote: » I'm more talking about our incessant need for immigrants to 'pyramid scheme' our pensions. If someone has to take the hit, why not our generation? Let's take it in the gut so that others won't have the same problem coming after us.
joseywhales wrote: » I do agree, they should not conflate climate change with economic system change, two completely separate issues that can be tackled independently. I think she is a very impressive child, when i was 16 I could not do that, I know that much.
Hector Savage wrote: » Good man Frankie, such a moral man, has never slagged off children that are disabled or vulnerable.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Absolutely. Population decline desperately needs to happen, and to be quite frank I don't give a f*ck if my generation suffers in our old age as a result. If people would think outside their own comfort bubble for two seconds, they'd realise that eventually, someone, somewhere is going to have to take this hit, or life will become more and more miserable for each individual as the world becomes more and more crowded.
joe40 wrote: » How exactly do we bring about global population decline. I know you don't mean a cull or genocide so what other mechanism is there.A one child policy like china?
joe40 wrote: » How exactly do we bring about global population decline. I know you don't mean a cull or genocide so what other mechanism is there. A one child policy like china?
joseywhales wrote: » ... Its all for nothing, humans can't comprehend a problem until it is literally affecting them personally and they can see cause and effect. We will adapt when it's too late but aren't going to all die or something, it's not a doomsday, just a much ****ter world, particularly bad if you are not wealthy and don't live in a temperate climate. China for example seem like unlikely leaders in environmental issues but they have invested recently due to necessity, after choking on smog and being hit by massive sand storms for a few decades.
Veritas Libertas wrote: » Funny thing is I don't think there are many (bar the AOC supporters) that dispute this kind of science. Many people are in the ship of,this is happening but not nearly at the rate that is suggested by Greata. More importantly, you have denied repeatedly in this thread the effect of man-made climate change; upon which this paper is based.
KyussB wrote: » One of the principal problems, is that there are going to be water shortages and desertification of land that used to support agriculture - and that pattern is going to get worse the further we push things, in terms of climate change - and this is going to endanger the abiltiy to produce enough food and provide enough water, for everyone on the planet. That means more wars over resources, including water - and a planet with a higher population in the future, that has a fair chance of escalating failures of food production - all things which can kill off a lot of people. So yes, it's pretty sure to lead to a lot of people dying - it's not actually an exaggeration to say that.
Tony EH wrote: » joe40 wrote: » How exactly do we bring about global population decline. I know you don't mean a cull or genocide so what other mechanism is there.A one child policy like china? Sure we can't do that. That's "Communism". :rolleyes:
SafeSurfer wrote: » Would we live as free people if the state decided if or how many children we could have? We have spent the first 100 years of this country’s existence getting the state out of our bedrooms. We shouldn’t rush to invite them back in.
KyussB wrote: » joseywhales wrote: » ... Its all for nothing, humans can't comprehend a problem until it is literally affecting them personally and they can see cause and effect. We will adapt when it's too late but aren't going to all die or something, it's not a doomsday, just a much ****ter world, particularly bad if you are not wealthy and don't live in a temperate climate. China for example seem like unlikely leaders in environmental issues but they have invested recently due to necessity, after choking on smog and being hit by massive sand storms for a few decades. One of the principal problems, is that there are going to be water shortages and desertification of land that used to support agriculture - and that pattern is going to get worse the further we push things, in terms of climate change - and this is going to endanger the abiltiy to produce enough food and provide enough water, for everyone on the planet. That means more wars over resources, including water - and a planet with a higher population in the future, that has a fair chance of escalating failures of food production - all things which can kill off a lot of people. So yes, it's pretty sure to lead to a lot of people dying - it's not actually an exaggeration to say that.
Tony EH wrote: » SafeSurfer wrote: » Would we live as free people if the state decided if or how many children we could have? We have spent the first 100 years of this country’s existence getting the state out of our bedrooms. We shouldn’t rush to invite them back in. And yet there are people looking to "reduce populations". How do we do that.
SafeSurfer wrote: » Let the people looking to reduce populations begin by example.
SafeSurfer wrote: » You fail to mention the new areas of agricultural land that would become viable as a result of warming and the super harvests from increased levels of the plant food which is Co2.
joseywhales wrote: » The reason a child is doing it, is because people won't listen to adults. ... .
gozunda wrote: » But but - by 'people' I presune you mean those who are adults! Do you give in when your 5 year old has a melt down because they can't watch their favourite cartoon show? Or your 14 year old wants to go out with some bloke to a nightclub? Or a 16 year old throws a strop and refuses to go back to school and instead takes a lift in some strangers fancy racing boat and bunks off to America? I hope not ...
Tell me how wrote: » Still deliberately leaving out the critical link that Greta is trying to get people to listen to the scientists. You've kicked your straw man to death, time to keep it real.
weldoninhio wrote: Cut all financial and medical aid to overseas countries. Stop all immigration from third world countries. Ship dangerous criminals to third world countries. We wouldn’t have to cull anyone, natural selection would take care of it.
Wanderer78 wrote: » Or maybe we should help them try become more prosperous, just like ourselves...
Wanderer78 wrote: » I think we should also load these countries up with weapons, and cameras, and maybe even some drugs and alcohol, it can be a form of entertainment for us privileged folk.... Or maybe we should help them try become more prosperous, just like ourselves... It's a tough one, but maybe you're right
begsbyOnaTrain wrote: » And have them produce more carbon with such lifestyles?! Are you mad.
gozunda wrote: » # 445 and counting ... You do know you do not have to reply to every other comment in this thread? It's a discussion involving many posters and many different opinions and not just yours yeah? And just to clarify what has any of your personalised 'strawman' (sic) remarks have got to do with the comment to which I was relying? Or are you still attempting to spam the thread with that already discredited argument? As bizarely you are still ignoring the fact that greta is evidently not listening to the scientists whilst telling others to do so! It has already been detailed may times how greta explicitly believes that civilisation is going to end in 2030 despite IPCC scientists not saying this / saying otherwise. Funnily enough you ignore that as well. Very very strange indeed.
KyussB wrote: » Or just build prosperity on carbon neutral enegy sources, and industrial proccesses that don't involve producing so much carbon?... The only reason we might be facing some amount of material discomfort through fighting climate change, is by not acting early enough, and being forced to curtail carbon emissions through reduced economic output - because we left it too late... - rather than simply transitioning our economies to carbon neutral energy generation and economic activity, without reducing output. So the longer we delay mounting a proper response to climate change, to developing the proper technologies for sustainably constructing and operating carbon neutral (and eventually negative) economies - the bigger the risk of necessitating material deprivation for everybody. If you want to keep your standard of living, then you want to support acting sooner, not later when it's an even more urgent emergency.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » When you say 'we', if you mean Ireland then it is achievable though pointless. If you mean humanity, then there is a major problem in that there are many countries with large or burgeoning populations whose people are not aware of climate change or do not understand it. Even worse, there are countries with large populations whose people are fully aware of climate change but choose to elect climate change deniers. Trump's America being a prime example. It is only when tipping point has been passed, and the effects of climate change is on people's own doorsteps, that there will be a concerted effort. That will be deckchairs on the Titanic time.
