The Real Inconvenient Truth
-
The Financial Post praising China's one child law and calling for it to be adopted world wide as the only possible solution for environmental degradation.
Because it's children who cut down the rain forest and dump sludge in the sea. Children are terrorists!
-
But if there were no children who would make our shoes?
-Brodie
-
Seems like 'the children are the future' mantra is lost on this journalist? Needs to make a stronger case IMO, as the information he provides is unproven and questionable.
But no the less an interesting read, thanks for sharing
@unknownuser said:
But if there were no children who would make our shoes?
-Brodie
Elves or course
-
While most of us view China's one-child policy as some of the ultimate government meddling out there, the point in the article has some real truth. People just seem to assume that there is room enough on the planet for everyone, that agriculture will miraculously find ways to ramp up production to feed everyone (despite the destruction of farmland for homes/businesses), that the Earth will absorb all of the garbage we throw away or pump into the air, or that the Earth has enough material to supply all of our growing needs for everything (buildings, fuel, air, food, raw material in general). Even businesses want to find ways to get rid of employees in exchange for automation, where will the jobs come from when entire segments of a production line can be monitored with one employee in an a room full of buttons?
I think we are headed for a bad situation that will be contributed to by overpopulation. Many view the ability to have half-dozen kids as a right. I disagree.
However, I don't think we'll need to do much about it. Once we hit a certain limit, famine and fights over resources will cause enough war and disease to thin the herds substantially. Maybe we'll have learned something by then.
-
-
I can't say if China's issues would be solved this way, but I think a softer approach is to raise the education level of people around the world, especially women. Then the birth rate goes down naturally. I believe we do need lower population growth rates overall, not because we don't need children but we need less at time than we used to, or as recently needed in most evolving cultures around the world.
-
@unknownuser said:
I think a softer approach is to raise the education level of people around the world, especially women
?! LOL
-
@linea said:
@unknownuser said:
I think a softer approach is to raise the education level of people around the world, especially women
?! LOL
It's been shown that the birth rate is lower and communities are stronger when the women are more educated. I guess I should say "educating girls, and supporting their rights." Allow them to go to school, instead of treating them like property. Not to your liking? What's your idea?
-
Interesting subject.
I think it has to be a balancing act. Our increasing numbers brought about much of human innovation over the the past millennium when population numbers demanded better food & shelter production methods. However there are limited amounts resources on the planet but again there are other planets!
There was a time in human society when only the fittest survived but this is not now the case with the intervention of the state, particularly in Western World societies over the past few centuries.
I have no idea what human population Planet Earth can reasonably sustain whereas I can find some figures for most all other species. In the case of other animal species their population figures relate directly to their support environment, amount of available food and number of predators. Intelligence in other species would not appear to be a major survival factor in their propagation, compare whale numbers to rat numbers.
Humans have the ability to quickly adapt to their environment, some groups more so than others and education would appear to be a key factor in this as it supplies the tools to get the survival job done efficiently.
I have no problem with women producing 6, 8, 10, plus offspring or men producing hundreds. I do however have a slight problem when they expect me to play a large part in rearing their offspring for them. What I mean by this is that while I agree with a certain amount of State support, I do not agree it should encourage large families. For me this is moving away from the 'survival of the fitted' which is a natural law.
Okay, there could be collective 'survival of the fitted' but this would require a lot more intervention of Government, possibly along the lines of high IQ reproduction but again high IQ in itself without what I will call the 'drive gene' is not enough. I don't think it will happen currently as it appears the people that end up in Government have the 'drive gene' in more abundance that high IQs.
Mike
-
Mike
I think you need to clarify that auld irish speak "rareing" for the non rural Irish people on this forum!!!
Made me laugh imagining you saying that whilst looking over a gate into a field full of cattle with a stalk of grass in your mouth !!!:roflmao:
-
It is a symptom of our current human condition to take moral issue with global and remote issues while we show minimal commitment to addressing or taking an active stance against shameful instances of neglect, abuse and harm that exist in our own so called first world countries, cities and villages. It's a lazy, impotent and arrogant morality that criticizes the dispensation in another culture when we are not willing to actively become involved in the issues that affect our own communities.
-
@dermotcoll said:
Mike
I think you need to clarify that auld irish speak "rareing" for the non rural Irish people on this forum!!!
Made me laugh imagining you saying that whilst looking over a gate into a field full of cattle with a stalk of grass in your mouth !!!:roflmao:
I would not mind having a nice little piece of land with a few cattle. Maybe a way to get self sufficient! Yes, you are right, rearing or as its pronounced here 'rareing' being the upbringing youngsters.Bruce, Trying to 'educating' men would be a waste of time. While some would see the logic in limiting their procreation activity, I imagine there would be quite a contingent that would be more than happy to 'spread their genes' far and wide.
Society is most definitely changing http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-13-unmarriedbirths_N.htm . Last year approx. 33% of births here in Ireland were to single women. I dont know what the stats are on whether or not they were in partnerships but would be interested in learning. I have no problem with this but would like to see the fathers supporting their own children should it be needed. It might also be an idea to advise / supply some sort of blood testing service to the baby makers in order that we won't end up having brothers and sisters copulating and producing in the future.
-
Very interesting subject
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14744915
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14743589Both are well worth a read for some interesting observations.
-
Never forget the theories of Malthus.
-
@unknownuser said:
THOMAS MALTHUS first published his “Essay on the Principle of Population”, in which he forecast that population growth would outstrip the world’s food supply, in 1798. His timing was unfortunate, for something started happening around then which made nonsense of his ideas. As industrialisation swept through what is now the developed world, fertility fell sharply, first in France, then in Britain, then throughout Europe and America. When people got richer, families got smaller; and as families got smaller, people got richer.
Now, something similar is happening in developing countries. Fertility is falling and families are shrinking in places— such as Brazil, Indonesia, and even parts of India—that people think of as teeming with children. As our briefing shows, the fertility rate of half the world is now 2.1 or less—the magic number that is consistent with a stable population and is usually called “the replacement rate of fertility”. Sometime between 2020 and 2050 the world’s fertility rate will fall below the global replacement rate.
The same goes for all the talk of resource wars over water....
http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14743791I think Diane Francis, the author of the article in the OP, fails to see the world as it really is.
-
@petercharles said:
Never forget the theories of Malthus.
Oh boy! How can we forget? We now have (once humanist) David Attenborough now feeding this Malthian nonsense to us, via the BBC's Horizon science programme. The programme was rather biased, with no opposing views about what we have and can achieve as human beings, and almost read as a party political broadcast for the green party. The imagery of the programme used that clever telephoto lens trick, which gives the impression of people, tightly packed together. I'm sorry Sir David, this is sensationalist. I don't buy it!
Malthus predicted that the population would spiral out of control, and by the 19th century we would all be dead. He was wrong. Similarly, in the 1960's the American biologist Paul R. Ehrlich, also predicted that by the 1980's we would all be dead, as a result of an over populated world. Again, Ehrlich was wrong.
OT, but also extremely interesting is this article carried out by Experian and reported by the BBC about those who are most likely to be concerned about climate change. If you can see the video, that is also worth watching, as it shows that those in the UK who are on lesser incomes, are more concerned about education and hospitals than energy saving light bulbs.
BBC News - The rich have the biggest carbon footprints in the UK
New figures show which parts of the UK are the biggest polluters - and that those who talk most about cutting CO2 have the biggest carbon footprints.
(news.bbc.co.uk)
-
I find the article on the desalination process interesting, but the article takes into no account who will pay for this technology to be installed around the world as thirsty cities, factories and agriculture use more and more water. It also fails to take into account the expense of cleaning the water once it has been used. No minor expense for industrialized nations, all but impossible for impoverished nations.
-
tf design wrote:
@unknownuser said:
If you can see the video, that is also worth watching, as it shows that those in the UK who are on lesser incomes, are more concerned about education and hospitals than energy saving light bulbs.
I have to say, living in Hull, one of the poorest cities in the UK, that that is a very black and white view of the facts. Just because people on lower incomes are less likely to buy as many energy saving bulbs doesn't mean they are any more responsible for climate change.
For a start, energy saving light bulbs, seem to be one of the token gestures that our government can endorse, while they make excuses for not tackling massive corporate polluters and energy wasters. If they wanted to make the bulbs affordable, simple, just ban the old style and the manufacturers would have to lower the price. Secondly, most energy saving light bulbs contain mercury, so in the future we have a disposal problem on our hands. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp
Now about that lesser income thing:
Hull has a long tradition of cycling, 14% of journeys to work are by bike, because of financial necessity and relatively low levels of car ownership, Hull has the 6th highest level of cycling in the UK. source: http://www.tmsconsultancy.co.uk/hull/SaferCycling.docAlso Hull has a huge demand for allotments because more and more people want to grow their own food - I do this because I enjoy it but I know plenty of people who do it because its the only way they can afford healthy food. I'm very pleased to say that the local McDonalds, which was just opposite a large school, shut down over a year ago due to a lack of custom. source:http://static.hullcc.gov.uk/hullinprint/archive/october2008/mike_met_arthur.php
If you can't afford to heat your house 24/7, you put a sweater on. Poorer people, in my experience, whether they consider themselves green or not, know quite a bit about resources and how to save them, probably more than the average 4x4 driver in Chelsea.
-
I've been intrigued by the argument that normal filament bulbs are "bad" and fluorescent bulbs are "good".
I have a 40W fluorescent TUBE that has lasted 20 years. I originally put it in my kitchen then moved it into the garage. But NONE of my fluorescent BULBS have lasted any longer than a normal filament bulb. So on a purchase price basis they are a poor investment.Much is made of the filament bulb "wasting" energy, but I don't see that this is true in my house. I have loft insulation, cavity wall insulation and double glazed windows in an attempt to keep in heat. A recent TV programme explained that the filament bulb wasted 99% of it's energy input as heat. To illustrate they 'roasted' a chicken in a very well insulated box heated by one 100 watt bulb. Yes it was cooked (but steamed not roast, and looked very soggy). But in truth all this proved is that the better the insulation the more heat you contain and if the heat input exceeds the heat out flow then over a period of time the internal temperature will continually rise until steady state condition is reached. Sorry, in my house any heat generated from filament bulbs just means that the central heating has a bit less heating to do. And my lights are only switched on when it's dark which is also when the temperature drops (summer here is one week sometime during the months of May to September!).
-
@unknownuser said:
Educating Women?? How bout educating the men who impregnate.
Yeah, I get it. But education is empowering and leads to more equality, then to more control of one's life; and to respect and power in society, for people as a class, whether poor, minority, or women.
Advertisement