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 ...
joseywhales wrote: » The reason a child is doing it, is because people won't listen to adults. ... .
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.
SafeSurfer wrote: » Let the people looking to reduce populations begin by example.
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: » 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.
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.
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:
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Hector Savage wrote: » Good man Frankie, such a moral man, has never slagged off children that are disabled or vulnerable.
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.
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.
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
Omackeral wrote: » Obviously she's a victim of the patriarchy. Only way it makes sense.
Tell me how wrote: » It is a problem of our society and the need for growing markets, income, taxes etc are linked to the numbers on the planet. I think that that is what Greta was suggesting when she said that what needs to happen needs to be invented because it doesn't exist within our current ways of doing things.
David Attenborough: someone who believes in infinite growth is 'either a madman or an economist'
CrankyHaus wrote: » I can't be the only one who sees the similarities to religion back before it was acceptable to criticise it.
Veritas Libertas wrote: » Open to correction; but I believe this true alsoCertainly a case to be made that a lot of the same people that advocate for fixing climate change are also advocating for growing populations.
weldoninhio wrote: » No I haven’t. I have stated that there is no definitive proof. Not once did I state that it wasn’t happening. You are seeing what you want to see.
weldoninhio wrote: » I thought we needed less people on the Earth?? Would certainly reduce CO2 output.
Overheal wrote: » If those countries perish should all the human beings inside its borders just sort of die off in droves or something? You're not 'forced' to be multicultural, it is however something that came about from WWII, when it was discovered that unchecked hegemony could lead to tens millions of deaths.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » joseywhales wrote: » There are plenty of people with chips on their shoulder but it's perfectly acceptable to disagree with her obviously. Similar to your examples above, there are people who dismiss her due to age or assumed handicap, people are clowns what can I say?! The art of argument is gone, it's one emotional logical fallacy after another, not that I am any authority but there seemed to be better social commentary in the past when journalists worked for a small number of reputable media. Proof by popularity seems to be the goal. General population is even worse obviously, I would have loved a philosophy 101 class in secondary school. A mandatory year of logic, rhetoric and dialectic would have saved a lot of foolishness on this thread.
joseywhales wrote: » There are plenty of people with chips on their shoulder but it's perfectly acceptable to disagree with her obviously. Similar to your examples above, there are people who dismiss her due to age or assumed handicap, people are clowns what can I say?! The art of argument is gone, it's one emotional logical fallacy after another, not that I am any authority but there seemed to be better social commentary in the past when journalists worked for a small number of reputable media. Proof by popularity seems to be the goal. General population is even worse obviously, I would have loved a philosophy 101 class in secondary school.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » A mandatory year of logic, rhetoric and dialectic would have saved a lot of foolishness on this thread.
