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.
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? .
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: » Ah!I'm thinking of "The population bomb" by Eherlich which came out around the same time.
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.
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 ?
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.
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 ?
tudderone wrote: » Yeah, including my Tomato plants, courgettes, and strawberry's :mad:
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.
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.
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
Birdnuts wrote: » With most of the growth coming in countries that can least afford it:(
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.
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.
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 .
The pigeon man wrote: » Very balanced coverage. Great to see a scientist give his opinion that contraceptives for wild animals is entirely impractical. Far too many people think this is feasible instead of culling. I found it funny when they stated that the deer hunter shooting under section 42 at night uses highly advanced technology then he's shown using a red torch. In fairness thermal was shown a while after saying this.
