useurowname wrote: » Caught it there. Too many deer, too many seals.. cull/don’t cull, probably need to cull, don’t know how many deer cos there’s been no survey. Animals rights people don’t like the cull idea, they want to give the seals contraceptives and rewild(wolves I’d assume)to sort out the deer. That’s the bones of it .
Grizzly 45 wrote: » Not surprised the John "streaker" Carmody's[As he is known by down here in Limerick] rantings and suggestions of rewilding the place with wolves from the enviro one. If we cant deal with marauding dog packs at lambing season, imagine what a wolf pack will do? And no, they won't stay in their rewilded areas either. A packs range could be the entire length of the 32 counties.
Bog Trotter99 wrote: » 100% Most countries do not have a population problem and Ireland doesn't until now. They say that children are our future. Children will actually be the death of the planet unless common sense is put into practise.
minktrapper wrote: » You should check out the population of the African countries. There is so many people there. Also check out population densities. It is trying to feed the planet is the problem. Modern agriculture is destroying the planet.
tudderone wrote: » Yup, In 1950 the population of the world was 2.5 billion, its 7.7 billion now and by 2100 it will be 11 billion ! Thats a lot of mouths to feed.
Birdnuts wrote: » With most of the growth coming in countries that can least afford it:(
tudderone wrote: » It'll be Asia, when you see some of the rubbish they eat now, what will it be like in 80 years time ?
Bog Trotter99 wrote: » It will be the vanishing wild animals as food prices start to get more expensive and those 'free' animals become a food source.
Feisar wrote: » I've noticed a lot of the smaller stuff doesn't seem to be around anymore at all. Couldn't tell you when I last heard a grasshopper or seen frogspawn. Butterflies, bees and wasps don't seem as plentiful these days either.
yubabill wrote: » Missed PT last night - usually watch youtube now and forgot. Glad to hear it wasn't a hatchet job. On world population, it's expected to peak at 10-11Bn mid-century and then decline naturally. Africa will be the biggest contributor, as Asia is mostly maxxed out, China is already seeing irreversible decrease in births (and as an aside, apparently Russia has been massaging births for the last 4-5 years). Africa is becoming affluent, it's not the desert they put on TV many millions have escaped absolute poverty, many live in cities with cellphones and cars. Yes, they are less-developed than the West but the people are resilient and have ingenuity, they are progressing at an amazing rate. With this shift away from subsistence farming will eventually come less need for children and more desire for affluence. I don't see problem feeding 11Bn, we're already doing it with 7-8Bn. When I was a kid, the world had 3.5Bn and they worried about population growth and food. They managed with new techniques and fertilisers etc., granted at the cost of biodiversity. But a lot of people forget that Nature is not a static, fragile thing - it is dynamic. Just tarmac or concrete a piece of field and see how long it lasts. Eventually, something will burst through and if left alone it will be overgrown. Not in favour of tarmac or concrete, just using to illustrate the passing nature of the things we do as humans. I don't see humans as parasites on the Earth, we are a part of Nature, too just as much as ants, bees, wildebeest and so on. And our population will naturally adjust to the resources available given time.
Grizzly 45 wrote: » Yeah,and us thinking apes can actually match this population growth,by technology .Food has never been cheaper,plentiful or in abundance n mankind history than in the present day.I am old enough to remember in the 1970s ,India still having a famine because of rice crop failure. They export rice nowadays. This "We are,all gonna die,cos the world has too many people!"is another debunked myth that has been around since the 1970s purported by a Mr Eherlich and like the rest of the doomsayers of environmentalism is bunkum. In fact they were talking about this happening in ancient Rome...We are still here ...
Grizzly 45 wrote: » Wait about another month.Everyhing is about 4 /6weeks behind this year.Courtsey of the jet stream being lower over us than usual and hanging around longer.
tudderone wrote: » Yeah, including my Tomato plants, courgettes, and strawberry's :mad:
Bog Trotter99 wrote: » The first type of 'environmental disaster' type movie I ever saw was made in 1970. The Earth's demise in the film was because of over population, pollution etc. That film was based on a book, written in 1956. That is how long (at least) they have known about the problems we experience today. 80 years? I doubt there will be many left to tell the tale. Happy fecker aren't I ?
Grizzly 45 wrote: » Paul Eherlich 's masterpiece of bull manure.Long debunked along with a load of other climate doomsayers predictions that as of yet not one of them has come true. And like all good cults,they keep changing the dates of when their version of their rapture will occur.2050 now at the latest.Be near on a century then of them not getting it right with their multiple predictions.
tudderone wrote: » Unicef say there are 190 million people in India undernourished at the last count. A point has to come when we can no longer feed everyone. Apart from that, what are all these people going to work at ?
Bog Trotter99 wrote: » No it wasn't. Completely wrong Grizzly:D It was actually a good subject film but it was cheaply put together. Had big stars and you could say the 'first' disaster movie because the book was written in 1956.
Grizzly 45 wrote: » Ah!I'm thinking of "The population bomb" by Eherlich which came out around the same time.
Feisar wrote: » Ended up missing it after. One has to laugh at the animal’s rights crowd. Shooting bad but let’s bring in wolves to do the job! Go have a look at the aftermath of a dog attack on sheep and come back to me on that one lads. They could also mean tracts of the country been given to wildlife maybe? We’re too small a country with too scattered a population for that.
Grizzly 45 wrote: » Not because of a actuaL food shortage tho.But because of their poverty and class system and religious beliefs.That all ties together there. Work is indeed going to be a problem,for us all if we start replacing our jobs with AI and robotics. Even est professions would be at risk on that one.What do you need an accountant for ,when you can use a program to do your books?Go to an expensive brick university in person, when you can distance learn at home? .
berettaman wrote: » Logically speaking then they will be looking for Great Whites to be released off the Saltees to keep the seals in check.:rolleyes: They really are away with the fairies.
Birdnuts wrote: » Great Whites are already in Biscay and off Cornwall so its a matter of time before they are seen in Irish Waters. Indeed they were probably here in the past during warmer climate periods such as the early bronze age
Bog Trotter99 wrote: » No and it still applies today because if a virus killed our grass plants as in the film, we would be in same trouble. A virus caused through they think pollution killed all grass plants. Wheat, barley, oats. maize and rice. So there was a lack of food. The film was more about the response from Government and normal folk to survive. The book was............. 'The Death Of Grass' by John Christopher 1956. The film which got messed up was ......'No Blade Of Grass' 1970. Starred Nigel Davenport, Lynn Frederick, Wendy Richards. Interestingly they banged on about over population and pollution and burning the rain forests etc then in the film and possibly the book? That was 51 to 66 years ago and still nowt has been done...............and never will until they can't make any money anymore. If you remember Grizzly and I know you do. 'This Town Aint Big Enough For Both Of Us' by Sparks. That was about same and that is 47 years old this year.:)
