Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

Tell me how wrote: »

Fewer cars has to be a goal.

Fewer people would mean fewer cars...less rubbish...less consumption...less co2..

Fewer people should be the goal.

Eric Cartman

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Also do people living rurally think everyone born there should build a one off house, and everyone should get a car at age 17? I mean this kind of seems unsustainable to me in the long run?

until you can overcome the problems that high density living brings, its often a much better option by every other metric.

Tell me how wrote: »

Nobody is unaware of the need for a car rurally. But, imagine, shock horror, if families were able to go back to owning one car rather than 2.

Also, I didn't say it had to happen, I said people should be hoping it does.

Do you think the majority of people willingly impose the cost of two cars on themselves if they can avoid it?

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Fewer people would mean fewer cars...less rubbish...less consumption...less co2..

Fewer people should be the goal.

But realistically that's not going to happen, so there's no point in talking about it. No government is going to restrict how many kids you have. Plus, it's down to consumption, not population.

jackboy

Tell me how wrote: »

Fewer cars has to be a goal.

Why. Electric cars charged with electricity sourced from renewables. Batteries that are more environmentally friendly will be developed eventually.

Getting rid of cars is just so unambitious and makes people’s lives much worse.

Eric Cartman

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

But realistically that's not going to happen, so there's no point in talking about it. No government is going to restrict how many kids you have. Plus, it's down to consumption, not population.

education , free contraception and end the ability for people to turn kids into cash on the welfare system and i bet youll see a massive reduction.

Micky 32

jackboy wrote: »

Why. Electric cars charged with electricity sourced from renewables. Batteries that are more environmentally friendly will be developed eventually.

Getting rid of cars is just so unambitious and makes people’s lives much worse.

I think most of the so called climate protesters are people who would love to see other peoples freedoms restricted because they begrudge the fact that they may have better lives than themselves. Some people hate seeing newer cars on neighbours driveaways or that they have more sun holidays.

Eric Cartman

Micky 32 wrote: »

I think most of the so called climate protesters are people who would love to see other peoples freedoms restricted because they begrudge the fact that they may have better lives than themselves. Some people hate seeing newer cars on neighbours driveaways or that they have more sun holidays.

it does definitely seem like that, they have to get a bus so instead of work harder its 'find a way to take their cars'

Micky 32 wrote: »

I think most of the so called climate protesters are people who would love to see other peoples freedoms restricted because they begrudge the fact that they may have better lives than themselves. Some people hate seeing newer cars on neighbours driveaways or that they have more sun holidays.

I thought they were all filthy rich hypocrites who go to Bali 3 times a year?

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Fewer people would mean fewer cars...less rubbish...less consumption...less co2..

Fewer people should be the goal.

Maybe. How will be decide to initiate this?

Euthanasia for those with any illness over 70?
Tubes tied after the first child is delivered?

This is partly what has been said about what needs to happen. Our entire society needs to change. As it it stands, we need more and more people to fuel growth, to fuel revenue, to fuel pay rises, to fuel purchases and round and around we go. It's not, dare I say it... sustainable.

Interesting that people are aghast at the thought of losing their car but several people are okay with losing people or reducing the number of offspring which people can have. Which is a fundamental human right, or as close as you can get to it anyway.

Micky 32

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I thought they were all filthy rich hypocrites who go to Bali 3 times a year?

They probably are but there is always someone richer.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Also do people living rurally think everyone born there should build a one off house, and everyone should get a car at age 17? I mean this kind of seems unsustainable to me in the long run?

Honest question but are you intentionally trolling?

Micky 32 wrote: »

They probably are but there is always someone richer.

Plus they all drive SUVs to school, so there goes your jealous of others theory.

Micky 32

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Plus they all drive SUVs to school, so there goes your jealous of others theory.

Or maybe because you have to cycle to work in pissing rain and live in a crowded box where you can hear your neighbours fart and burp? Maybe that’s why you want rural freedom curtailed?

Micky 32 wrote: »

Or maybe because you have to cycle to work in pissing rain and live in a crowded box where you can hear your neighbours fart and burp? Maybe that’s why you want rural freedom curtailed?

I love cycling to work, and love where I live, I can walk to the dart or the pub in less than 10 mins, what more could I ask for. You can hear a pin drop around here at night too.

Tell me how wrote: »

Maybe. How will be decide to initiate this?

Euthanasia for those with any illness over 70?
Tubes tied after the first child is delivered?

This is partly what has been said about what needs to happen. Our entire society needs to change. As it it stands, we need more and more people to fuel growth, to fuel revenue, to fuel pay rises, to fuel purchases and round and around we go. It's not, dare I say it... sustainable.

Interesting that people are aghast at the thought of losing their car but several people are okay with losing people or reducing the number of offspring which people can have. Which is a fundamental human right, or as close as you can get to it anyway.

You’re completely contradicting yourself. We need more people for growth? And what will more growth do? What will these extra people for this growth do? They’ll consume and use up even more resources.

You heart seems to be in the right place, but you’ve put zero thought into any sort of a practical solution.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I love cycling to work, and love where I live, I can walk to the dart or the pub in less than 10 mins, what more could I ask for. You can hear a pin drop around here at night too.

Funny earlier you described your neighbours as 'proles'. A rather nasty label to attach to people you live beside.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Funny earlier you described your neighbours as 'proles'. A rather nasty label to attach to people you live beside.

It was in jest as someone was slagging me for living in a council estate.

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

You’re completely contradicting yourself. We need more people for growth? And what will more growth do? What will these extra people for this growth do? They’ll consume and use up even more resources.

You heart seems to be in the right place, but you’ve put zero thought into any sort of a practical solution.

Do you dispute the fact that our current model of society is driven by growth? That throughout Europe, and Japan there is an aging population which will put a burden on countries and there will be a need for sufficient numbers in the workforce to ensure the governments revenue intake is maintained. This is not new news.

I'm not saying I want it to be this way, but our society is currently structured like this.

Given the above, what we need to do is enable science and industry to develop greener more sustainable solutions. I have also done a Masters thesis on the topic of prolonging the use of materials so I can at least claim to have put more than a little thought in to this.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

It was in jest as someone was slagging me for living in a council estate.

Of course it was.......

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

You’re completely contradicting yourself. We need more people for growth? And what will more growth do? What will these extra people for this growth do? They’ll consume and use up even more resources.

You heart seems to be in the right place, but you’ve put zero thought into any sort of a practical solution.

He obviously means the continuous economic expansion policies our governments push require constant growth in population and consumption.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Of course it was.......

He took the lead from Gozunda in moving to more light hearted engagement.

Tell me how wrote: »

He took the lead from Gozunda in moving to more light hearted engagement.

Nothing light-hearted about using such a derogatory term to describe your neighbours. Then again I guess I have a different sense of humour and neighbours I enjoy the pleasure of living near.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Nothing light-hearted about using such a derogatory term to describe your neighbours. Then again I guess I have a different sense of humour and neighbours I enjoy the pleasure of living near.

Youre really clutching at straws here lol. I thought you people didnt have any neighbours as youre freaked out by living anywhere near others?

[Deleted User]

lol at the answer to a population five times what it should be being a *shrug* "what you gonna do?"

look, if you cannot face the actual issue you have no business in here getting wound up that people arent convinced about your propaganda angel

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you dispute the fact that our current model of society is driven by growth? That throughout Europe, and Japan there is an aging population which will put a burden on countries and there will be a need for sufficient numbers in the workforce to ensure the governments revenue intake is maintained. This is not new news.

I'm not saying I want it to be this way, but our society is currently structured like this.

Given the above, what we need to do is enable science and industry to develop greener more sustainable solutions. I have also done a Masters thesis on the topic of prolonging the use of materials so I can at least claim to have put more than a little thought in to this.

Do you dispute the fact that population growth=Consumption growth?

Do you dispute that we should be reducing our consumption?

Do you dispute that the best way to reduce consumption is to reduce population growth?

Call in to any home on St Stephens day and have a look at the crap they’ve bought for their kids, plastic toys that will be thrown out in a few months time. Look at all the plastic packaging these toys come in, you’ll have wheelie bins full to the brim of packaging. These kids will continue their consumption throughout their lives.

Prolonging the use of materials will give us gains, but these gains will be tiny in comparison to what reducing the population growth rate would give us.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Youre really clutching at straws here lol. I thought you people didnt have any neighbours as youre freaked out by living anywhere near others?

Ah so you are trolling... time to use the ignore function.

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Do you dispute the fact that population growth=Consumption growth?

Do you dispute that we should be reducing our consumption?

Do you dispute that the best way to reduce consumption is to reduce population growth?

That's not a simple question. The simple answer is no, of course if you have less users, the resources will last longer. (It will still likely be inefficient however)

Prolonging the use of materials will give us gains, but these gains will be tiny in comparison to what reducing the population growth rate would give us.

As previously asked, how do you propose reducing the population growth?

Tell me how wrote: »

As previously asked, how do you propose reducing the population growth?

By disincentivising people for having more than one child.