Big news on the OS

[Eddie Hitler]

5 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

The rate of population growth has been in decline steadily for almost 50 years now I think. The UN thinks it'll become relatively stable in the next 100 years or so once Africa has had a bit of a boom, and some others reckon it'll increase then decrease a bit in the middle of this century.

Personally while population is of course a huge contributor to climate change I don't think the problem is insurmountable when tackled with technology - the real problem is countries are reluctant to do so! There is of course always going to be some upper limit though.

 

 

https://globalmillennial.org/thefutureofafrica/

[RedRock]

17 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

The rate of population growth has been in decline steadily for almost 50 years now I think. The UN thinks it'll become relatively stable in the next 100 years or so once Africa has had a bit of a boom, and some others reckon it'll increase then decrease a bit in the middle of this century.

Personally while population is of course a huge contributor to climate change I don't think the problem is insurmountable when tackled with technology - the real problem is countries are reluctant to do so! There is of course always going to be some upper limit though.

 

Climate change is not the central issue.
 

If the Virus - hasn’t demonstrated to those who want to ignore population growth, whether for political or religious reasons, as being the central issue to which all others relate then we’re all doomed. 
 

As an example, while climate change may have some impact on fish stocks in our Oceans, it’s gross over-fishing that causing them to plummet. 

[Harry]

1 hour ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Er you might want to check what China are doing regards climate change. It's bolder planning than any other country on the planet. And the Biden administration has also launched a load of initiatives to deal with it. 

Will be in decline within the next few decades though, and already is declining in many countries. We just happened to have lived through a period of intense population growth. 

 

1 hour ago, Rudolf Hucker said:

Bloody hell, you really are ITK, Kid.

 

54 minutes ago, RUSSEL85 said:

Can I ask how you know that? I’m just curious! 

Kid In The Riot believes that covid is a conspiracy to depopulate the earth. The vaccine will kill millions and drop the global pop below 6 million to make it more sustainable. 
He’s got Bill Gates on speed dial. Kid knows, I’ll tell thee. 

[The Coach]

At least we're doing our bit by dumping a load of shit down Ashton Gate.

[IAmNick]

33 minutes ago, RedRock said:

Climate change is not the central issue.
 

If the Virus - hasn’t demonstrated to those who want to ignore population growth, whether for political or religious reasons, as being the central issue to which all others relate then we’re all doomed. 
 

As an example, while climate change may have some impact on fish stocks in our Oceans, it’s gross over-fishing that causing them to plummet. 

Is it population growth primarily driving the overfishing do you think?

I think climate change will have a far greater impact on the globe long term, and is driven by a lot more than just population growth. It can also be meaningfully reduced by technology even if population plateaued now or grew slightly. 

[grifty]

You should watch Seaspiracy and Cowspiracy if you have interest in what is the driving cause of climate change. Very interesting facts and figures which governments and organisations hide or blame the public for pollution where it is corporations and industry which are the leading polluters and habitat destroyers.

It's nigh on impossible for us to destroy the planet without actively trying to. If the earth can survive being struck by a 6 mile wide asteroid which killed 95% of life on earth, turned the atmosphere into a cauldron of carbon dioxide and raining fiery rocks but can regenerate into the 'lush' paradise for life to thrive as it does, the only thing we are worried about killing is ourselves!

Sorry went a bit off topic...err I hate Ashton! 

[grifty]

20 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Is it population growth primarily driving the overfishing do you think?

I think climate change will have a far greater impact on the globe long term, and is driven by a lot more than just population growth. It can also be meaningfully reduced by technology even if population plateaued now or grew slightly. 

The main problem with fishing is the fish that get caught in the net that the fisherman are not aiming to catch as they are just killed and thrown back in the sea called bycatch.

[RedRock]

Without doubt, over-fishing is linked to human population size. Whether that be by direct consumption, or indirect for making animal feed or fertilizer. The world’s fish stocks are collapsing at an alarming rate.
 

Climate change is of importance, and needs addressing without doubt but it’s inconvenient truth for some that our current global population levels are way beyond what the planet can reasonably sustain. 
 

Like Boris did with the Virus, humanity has ignored the basic scientific approach of the ‘precautionary principle’. The human population has far outstripped the natural resource on which it depends. Those that say technology will come to our aid rely on hope. Most existing ‘solutions’ applied to industrial food production are unsustainable reliant on chemicals, are dangerous due to high density rearing methods and inherently cruel. 

Always better to have the tried and tested scientific solutions in place before you create the problem rather than after it in my mind - avoids a lot of pain and suffering for humanity and the natural world.
 

Can’t believe the likes of Greta choose to ignore the issue, if you think her motives are as much politically driven as environmental, given that agri-chemical firms are as much ‘big business’ as the oil sector.

[IAmNick]

47 minutes ago, grifty said:

You should watch Seaspiracy and Cowspiracy if you have interest in what is the driving cause of climate change. Very interesting facts and figures which governments and organisations hide or blame the public for pollution where it is corporations and industry which are the leading polluters and habitat destroyers.

It's nigh on impossible for us to destroy the planet without actively trying to. If the earth can survive being struck by a 6 mile wide asteroid which killed 95% of life on earth, turned the atmosphere into a cauldron of carbon dioxide and raining fiery rocks but can regenerate into the 'lush' paradise for life to thrive as it does, the only thing we are worried about killing is ourselves!

Sorry went a bit off topic...err I hate Ashton! 

I haven't seen those, although I did read reviews and saw a bit with questions around how accurate some of the science was. I'll try and remember to give them a watch though, thanks.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "destroy the planet" - if you're considering a mass extinction event a barometer because tens of millions of years later there is now life flourishing I'm not sure that's a particularly high bar! The issue is we are actively destroying the planet, for all intents and purposes anyway. I think there's a real risk we could kill much more than just ourselves, even if other stuff eventually takes its place.

41 minutes ago, RedRock said:

Without doubt, over-fishing is linked to human population size. Whether that be by direct consumption, or indirect for making animal feed or fertilizer. The world’s fish stocks are collapsing at an alarming rate.
 

Climate change is of importance, and needs addressing without doubt but it’s inconvenient truth for some that our current global population levels are way beyond what the planet can reasonably sustain. 
]

Like Boris did with the Virus, humanity has ignored the basic scientific approach of the ‘precautionary principle’. The human population has far outstripped the natural resource on which it depends. Those that say technology will come to our aid rely on hope. Most existing ‘solutions’ applied to industrial food production are unsustainable reliant on chemicals, are dangerous due to high density rearing methods and inherently cruel. 

Always better to have the tried and tested scientific solutions in place before you create the problem rather than after it in my mind - avoids a lot of pain and suffering for humanity and the natural world.
 

Can’t believe the likes of Greta choose to ignore the issue, if you think her motives are as much politically driven as environmental, given that agri-chemical firms are as much ‘big business’ as the oil sector.

I find it strange people like to wear talking about population growth as a weird badge of honour, and imply it's unusual to do so. It's pretty widely discussed from what I can see.

You mention having solutions in place before creating a problem, but it's not like it's a problem you can stop and start at will is it? What would be the scientific solution for population growth that we should have implemented 50 years ago? Is there a way to control problems like that globally?

A bit of hindsight it looks like to me to be honest. Lots of problems and pointing out holes in current solutions, without providing any new ones. Of course it would have been better to prevent this current situation from ever occurring, but that's not the world we live in. You say those that talk about technology rely on hope - but it's one more solution (or hope) than I can see in your post!

[RedRock]

Wish it was widely discussed. 

Unfortunately, it’s been suppressed. Have you heard of Agenda 21? Mega global conference, I think (without Googling it) held in Brazil in the 80’s at around the time green issues were becoming fashionable. Why wasn’t population growth included in the actions? Because certain ‘religious’ Country’s vetoed it. 

Have you heard Greta utter a word on global population levels? I haven’t. Do the Climate Change protesters have banners about population growth - I haven’t seen them.

Solutions. Many.

Let’s start.... unpalatable for many no doubt .... reverse current dogma that having children is a right, not a responsibility, .. incentivise small families not big ones by financial and other means..... really easy if there was a will - and no need for the communist one child per family policy (yet).