Fr_Dougal wrote: » Do you really not understand what is? Really?
Tell me how wrote: » Because, the right to have a child is one of the most fundamental basic human rights, which people have. In evolutionary terms, it is our reason for being here. You are suggesting that it would be better to cut the population and to continue being wasteful. The majority of people recognize that we should try to reduce waste first. And, leaving the above aside, if there was a decision to reduce the population. How would that be done in a fair and balanced manner? Would a grand dad be told, 'Sorry, but we've decided not to treat you because you are over 78', what would happen the economy which is reliant on people to make purchases and pay taxes. You're using what you think is a simple answer without thinking about the implications of it. I know you are saying I am being dramatic, but how would you see it being implemented?
population growth
gozunda wrote: » Simply pointing out the facts. And agreed that what you are claiming others are saying and thinking has been mainly bunkum to date in this thread. But no worries apology accepted.
Tell me how wrote: » Greta would be proud of you. Finally, after several hundred posts, a suggestion to help the environment.
gozunda wrote: » But the point is that these conferences shouldn't be the the circus they are. A digital platform is not only possible but more accessible to most. Plus it sets an excellent example for others.
gozunda wrote: » The report I read recently had totted up both voyages plus the flights of the first crew and the skipper who flew in for the second. I believe it exceeded any savings. I'll see if I can find it again.
Tell me how wrote: » Ah yes, righteous indignation. I see no need to explain anything any further other than what I've already said in the posts you've quoted. You having a problem with them does not mean I must do so. You are second only to me in the posts on this thread and if you think I am posting anything which hasn't been influenced by the content which has been posted by you then you go ahead and think that.
gozunda wrote: » The report I read recently had totted up both voyages plus the flights of the first crew and the skipper who flew in for the second. I believe it exceeded any savings. I'll see if I can find it again. But the point is that these conferences shouldn't be the the circus they are. A digital platform is not only possible but more accessible to most. Plus it sets an excellent example for others.
hetuzozaho wrote: » I think it was equal wasn't it?
gozunda wrote: » Easy to spot verbage tbh. But yes I would simply delighted if you could explain your erroneous attribution as in the example already linked and bellow. Your claims as to what was said / suggested were not only completely inaccurate they were also grossly disingenuous.
Deleted User wrote: » I don't think I said anything to ignore carbon emission? That's a pretty stupid interpretation of my comments. Read what I said - we need to address the source, not put a patch on the symptom
Tell me how wrote: » You need to research quoting versus paraphrasing. There's quite a difference and it does matter when it comes to a discussion and someone talking about what someone else has said. Also, because I disagree with you and explain how and why I do, that does not necessarily mean it is either misquoting or paraphrasing.
gozunda wrote: » Nope. Incorrect. greta hasn't travelled efficiently. Her refusal to fly has involved a greater spend in terms of carbon emissions
gozunda wrote: » No she hasn't travelled efficiently. Her refusal to fly has involved a greater spend in terms of carbon emissions for those who went with her and had to fly back - than if she had simply flown. She can garner attention online - she seems to be well versed in this already. Btw you gave not quoted 'verbatim'. You made an erroneous claim that I was finally agreeing about cutting down Gretas unnecessary travel. A point I have made consistently. I pointed out this already here
Tell me how wrote: » People advocating for X, are asked to defend it. Asking them do so or suggesting they must mean Y is not unfair given many of the statements. Glad to see this is recognized as a discussion once again and no longer a meme dump.
Tell me how wrote: » Big picture. She has travelled efficiently. She has garnered massive public attention leading to record marches virtually everywhere she has been. Worldwide, for the last several generations, the attendance of key people at an event has dramatically raised the significance of it. (Also, could you stop falsely accusing me of misquoting and false attribution when what I am doing is quoting your comments verbatim. You can argue the interpretation of those, but if you don't like how your words read, don't write them)
gozunda wrote: » Well thank you. Because that is a good descriptor of exactly what those attempting to claim that anyone in support of X are automatically guilty of Y. It doesn't wash and it certainly doesn't help the discussion.
gozunda wrote: » Again more false attribution and misquoting? Ive said from the very start that greta should lead by example and cut down unnecessary travel. She can raise 'awareness' without traipsing halfway around the planet for sure. If she really seeks to influence and change things then this is a no brainer. Where better to start than the hugely publicised "climate Conferences'
Tell me how wrote: » Brilliant.
Tell me how wrote: » So ye are in agreement with Greta about cutting down unnecessary travel. Finally. And yeah, I know ye are going to say, 'but, but, she has just travelled the world'.Big picture guys. She travelled the world in an effort to raise awareness, something which was successfully done. Do you think that salespeople, business travellers and MNC staff should no longer travel for face to face meetings?
Fr_Dougal wrote: » Your argument is constantly being trotted out. Activists: mankind is destroying the planet Response: how about we have less population growth? Activists: no, we needs population growth. Response: but this very same population growth is the reason we’re consuming so much Activists: I’m all out of ideas Response: but why can’t we just slow population growth? Activists: you have stolen my childhood and that of my children Seems like activists aren’t willing to make any personal sacrifices to help the situation.
gozunda wrote: » Was just thinking that so far Gretas travels across the world and back again have included trains, (no) planes and automobiles - well except for the crews of the yacht who had to fly back and across to the US to facilitate gretas intransigence about flying. I do wonder why she and her team do not use technology such as skype or at least advocate for an end of these far flung junkets where thousands of people have to travel from all over the world to get there.https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/davos-2019-private-jets-climate-change-world-economic-forum-summit-attenborough-a8742681.html Anyway shes heading back to sweden now where next I wonder?
Beechwoodspark wrote: » I agree. Skype and even the humble phone call can cut huge amounts of unnecessary travel.
gozunda wrote: » But hey nothing like a load of passionate exaggeration and superfluous use of adjectives to belabour a point.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » I'm not saying we do require population growth, but the crazy consumer orientated steamroller economy you all worship needs population growth to exist, so if we cut population you'd be shooting yourself in the foot. And even if we halved the population, we'd still be destroying the planet at an unsustainable rate. Population growth is not the reason we are consuming so much. We need to consume less and change our ways and through education and a shared level of prosperity, then birth rates would fall and even out anyway. There's no getting around the fact that we need to change our way of life and stop the current carry on of trying to hoover up the Earth as quickly as possible. Just look around you now at Xmas time, it's disgusting, everyone just buying all kinds of crap they don't need that'll end up in the sea or rotting into the earth for centuries.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Population control is indeed part of the solution. So we ignore carbon emissions? That's about as stupid an idea as I've ever heard.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » These people who are unwilling to change anything - diet, consumption, travel, etc., just throw out the population thing as an excuse, as they are unwilling to budge on their current way of life. The current economic model demands population growth. If we are to reduce the population the economy would be f*cked anyway and you may have **gasp** less money in your pockets. There are no easy solutions.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » These people who are unwilling to change anything - diet, consumption, travel, etc., just throw out the population thing as an excuse, as they are unwilling to budge on their current way of life. ...There are no easy solutions.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Yeah I know. Some people just jump in and deliberately misinterpret for a few likes. The same people who just don't want to know because it might affect their lifestyle in some way....
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a2f3ae3bc561a654d087af4d67ea885a.svg)
