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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Of course it was.......

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

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?

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.

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

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

No

Do you dispute that we should be reducing our consumption?

No

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?

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

By disincentivising people for having more than one child.

Is it not disincentivised already given the costs for childcare and actually raising a child? Do you think a significant proportion of the population are having children because of the children's allowance?

Would removing children's allowance completely not be seen as class warfare? Would that not be targeting a specific section of society in an unfair way.

Again, you see how people react when being told they have to consider changing their diet and modes of transport but you think reducing the number of children being born, through some governmental order would stand a chance?