[TV] Greta Thunberg: A year to change the world

[KZNSeagull]

The subject of over-population is not a myth though even if some are desperate to peg it as one.
It is a concerning issue in its own right.
Some people are taking it very seriously and not dismissing it.


“All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder and ultimately impossible to solve with ever more people.”
– Sir David Attenborough, Population Matters patron


`Human population has grown beyond Earth's sustainable means. We are consuming more resources than our planet can regenerate, with devastating consequences.

It took humanity 200,000 years to reach one billion and only 200 years to reach seven billion. We are still adding an extra 80 million each year and are headed towards 10 billion by mid-century.

More people inevitably put more demands on the planet. More people require more food, water, sanitation, homes, public services, and amenities – but our Earth is struggling to cope. Populations of wild species have plummeted, global temperatures are rising, our seas are full of plastic and forests are disappearing.

Humans are directly responsible for the sixth mass extinction and the climate crisis, the most serious environmental threats our planet has ever faced.

In the rich world, we consume at astronomical and unsustainable levels. That cannot continue, and we must change our behaviour. Today, a child born in the US will produce 24 times more consumption carbon emissions per year than one born in Nigeria.

Addressing how people consume is not enough, however. We are already using the resources of more than one-and-a-half planets. Everyone has the right to a good quality of life and with increasing global affluence, the collective impact of billions more of us will increase even further. This is why we cannot ignore population.`

https://populationmatters.org/the-i..._Mh9jKn3bbnfr_AnQivlETwdHBP4dIpQaAuwiEALw_wcB

Which is true but the global birth rate has dropped dramatically and is just above 2 (it was 5 in the 1950's), so the estimate of 10bn is unlikely to rise further. So to a certain extent that issue won't get worse which makes it 'easier' to find a way of sustaining 10bn people.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It's just baffling that in 2021, there's still total and absolute idiocy and ignorance from some people regarding global warming.

The affects are tangible and measurable.
The peer-reviewed studies and reports are open source and free to read.
The consensus among scientists is over 95% worldwide, that humans are greatly accelerating climate change.

And yet there are still people who deny it - and I guarantee these people have not read any of the peer reviewed studies (either side) or conducted their own research, or put forward their own hypothesis.

It seems to purely be a vitriolic political stance. Just plain ignorance, which they are happy to display for the world to see.

On the same level as flat-earthers.

The first problem (and I speak as a scientist) is that there is no direct way to prove that the increase in temperature that has been seen over the last X number of decades is due to climate change. All the evidence supports it but there is no proof. The second problem is that most people don't undertstands what that means.

Here is an example. All the evidence supports the hypothesis that there are no dinosaurs roaming the outback of Australia. But if someone wanders into Aloce Springs with one of the ****ers on a lead, you can take all the so-called evidence and shove it up your bollocks (to quote Roy Keane). It was never proof, merely supporting evidence.

So where does that leave us? Well, consider, you are planning a drive through the outback. Should you make contingency for a close encounter with a dinosaur? Well, if you like. What did you have in mind? A Sherman tank? Ok, mate. See you next Tuesday. My risk assessment would tell me to relax, and simply make sure the motor has good air con and a great sound system.

Here's another. There is no proof that the Covid vaccine does not cause autism. This means there is a possibility it may. The odds, based on data with other vaccines, are vanishingly low at present. This is what we call the a priori estimate of risk based on expectations but no data. So should we risk the jab? Here what you do is a risk benefit analysis. Yep. I have had my first jab (and I don't know which one, nor do I care - because they are probably all the same).

So back to global warming. As that lovely cartoon posted on this thread indicates, the risk benefit ratio justifies intervention, especially the sort that makes it nicer outside (so-called environmental protection), even though there is no proof that man-made global warming will do bowel-emptying carnage if humans don't make amends. Here we can consider the cost:benefit ratio and, to me, doing things cleaner and greener is win win, even if it turns out that climate change is actually due to dinosaurs farting.

Now, I appreciate that for some, the cost:benefit calculation is different. The amount of faff involved in not chucking an empty fag packet on the pavement, or cleaning up their shit after a picnic, or recycling their domestic garbage is just not worth the perceived benefits (to them). It is a stance, although pursuing much of it is now illegal.

I could comment on the last bit above, but I'll leave it to the massed wankers on my ignore to explain my cluelessness

 

[pastafarian]

Which is true but the global birth rate has dropped dramatically and is just above 2 (it was 5 in the 1950's), so the estimate of 10bn is unlikely to rise further. So to a certain extent that issue won't get worse which makes it 'easier' to find a way of sustaining 10bn people.

We are struggling with existing resources now, adding more doesn’t resolve existing problems especially when you factor in more and more are being brought out of poverty (good thing) and they in turn will also want a good quality of life.

 

[Guinness Boy]

We are struggling with existing resources now, adding more doesn’t resolve existing problems especially when you factor in more and more are being brought out of poverty (good thing) and they in turn will also want a good quality of life.

But, to turn the argument on its head, isn't poverty a major contributor to over population? If you have less chance of your child dying, less need to send them out to work at the age of 10 or whatever and more access to education and contraception, doesn't the population naturally start to level off / decline?

 

[pastafarian]

But, to turn the argument on its head, isn't poverty a major contributor to over population? If you have less chance of your child dying, less need to send them out to work at the age of 10 or whatever and more access to education and contraception, doesn't the population naturally start to level off / decline?

It levels off or declines locally in wealthier countries, some of the wealthiest countries are on track for large population declines this century, the problem being the poorest nations are still expected to have enormous increases which overall still means a global population increase not a global decline.
When you are looking at resources globally you have to look at population globally (not locally)

 

[goldstone]

Agree or disagree with her. If she was your daughter you’d be proud as punch.

If she was MY daughter I'd be embarrassed as hell.

 

[KZNSeagull]

We are struggling with existing resources now, adding more doesn’t resolve existing problems especially when you factor in more and more are being brought out of poverty (good thing) and they in turn will also want a good quality of life.

Yes, but that growth is going to happen anyway but the point I am trying to make is that the population is not estimated to increase above 10bn. The huge growth in the second half of the 20th century has slowed down. It will reach 10bn not because some people are having too many babies, it is because people are living longer due to all sorts of factors. At some point towards the latter half of this century, the babies that will be born will replace those people that have died and will not add to the overall total. That at least means that we are not trying to hit an increasing target above 10bn. The challenge is to find a way of ensuring that those 10bn have a reasonable minimum standard of living using the resources that we have.

 

[banjo]

If she was MY daughter I'd be embarrassed as hell.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Agree or disagree with her. If she was your daughter you’d be proud as punch.

You can't disagree with her FFS!

Sent from my SM-A715F using Tapatalk

 

[Wrong-Direction]

If she was MY daughter I'd be embarrassed as hell.

Shows what a piece of **** you are.

Sent from my SM-A715F using Tapatalk

 

[London Pompous]

If the earth has a problem right now it's over-population. People in certain countries need to be told that two kids is more than enough.

In the case of your parents, one was one too many.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

1% of the population causes 50% of aviation pollution. And we all know what 1% that is don't we..

Sent from my SM-A715F using Tapatalk

 

[Wrong-Direction]

No need for that? Looking through his recent post history he has done nothing to deserve that? Correct me if I'm wrong.

If he really believes that the climate crisis is a hoax, then he is entitled to that view. Those who believe in conspiracy theories are useful as they inspire debate, and quickly get shouted down and ridiculed, but imo they don't deserve abuse like that.

Climate change ISN'T a conspiracy though!
Its not up for debate! The evidence is there to see and I'll shut down people that have their eyes shut however I see fit [emoji106]

Sent from my SM-A715F using Tapatalk

 

[Mr Putdown]

If the earth has a problem right now it's over-population. People in certain countries need to be told that two kids is more than enough.

**** me.

Maybe the 650 million obese people living in certain countries need to be told that elsewhere on the planet, more than 800 million people currently do not get enough food to meet their nutritional needs every day.

 

[BN41Albion]

If she was MY daughter I'd be embarrassed as hell.

Of course you would. My god what the fvck is wrong with the likes of you and Baker Lite.

 

[pastafarian]

Yes, but that growth is going to happen anyway but the point I am trying to make is that the population is not estimated to increase above 10bn. The huge growth in the second half of the 20th century has slowed down. It will reach 10bn not because some people are having too many babies, it is because people are living longer due to all sorts of factors. At some point towards the latter half of this century, the babies that will be born will replace those people that have died and will not add to the overall total. That at least means that we are not trying to hit an increasing target above 10bn. The challenge is to find a way of ensuring that those 10bn have a reasonable minimum standard of living using the resources that we have.

Still too many. The UN forecast is 10.9bn at 2100.
7.7bn now (too many), we can ill afford over 3bn extra by then.
Something will go pop.

https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/

 

[portlock seagull]

Climate change ISN'T a conspiracy though!
Its not up for debate! The evidence is there to see and I'll shut down people that have their eyes shut however I see fit [emoji106]

Sent from my SM-A715F using Tapatalk

It is if you’re...



...completely MENTAL!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

In the case of your parents, one was one too many.

Wrong account, you twit

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Why I love NSC. Encapsulated. Hats off to the increasingly noisy majority.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Climate change ISN'T a conspiracy though!
Its not up for debate! The evidence is there to see and I'll shut down people that have their eyes shut however I see fit [emoji106]

Sent from my SM-A715F using Tapatalk

Everything is up for debate