comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted about an hour ago
Re climate change.
I am no denier,but I think it is arrogant to think we know all there is to know about the effects of man on the climate. The Earth has been much hotter and much colder in its history after all.
I mean if you said the Sun was at the centre of the solar system you would have been told you were stupid by accepted Science at one point.
In 50yrs time we may well realise what we currently 'know' is wrong, and other factors are the main drivers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Err on the side of caution, perhaps?
I mean, on the one hand you have a scenario where you need to rethink your industry setup and fossil fuel-based economy.
On the other, one of the only available solutions may well be to work out how to live on Mars, and pronto.
Have you heard any of this news?
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37775622
According to these people, more than half of the wildlife that existed when I was a kid has been wiped out.
This graph:
http://xkcd.com/1338/
Total mass of humans and domestic mammals vs wild mammals.
Or this (I take it this one excludes rodents):
http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/most-populous-mammals-on-earth.html
I am somewhat skeptical about these and many of the figures environmentalist organisations throw out, but even if any of those figures were just half of what they claim, I would still find them shockingly worrying.
I honestly don't think there can be any doubt that humans are having a massive impact on the planet's ecosystems and that we're running the whole thing into the ground. Just how much time we have before it comes to a point of no return is almost a secondary issue.
What I do know is that if it comes to the worst, those currently calling the shots on these issues are those who'll have it easiest. They'll just buy up what little inhabitable land is left, relocate their mansions there and build a wall round them.
Mind you, the resulting forced downsizing of the worldwide population might be just what the planet needs.
comment by Mourinho delenda est (U6426)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted about an hour ago
Re climate change.
I am no denier,but I think it is arrogant to think we know all there is to know about the effects of man on the climate. The Earth has been much hotter and much colder in its history after all.
I mean if you said the Sun was at the centre of the solar system you would have been told you were stupid by accepted Science at one point.
In 50yrs time we may well realise what we currently 'know' is wrong, and other factors are the main drivers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Err on the side of caution, perhaps?
I mean, on the one hand you have a scenario where you need to rethink your industry setup and fossil fuel-based economy.
On the other, one of the only available solutions may well be to work out how to live on Mars, and pronto.
Have you heard any of this news?
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37775622
According to these people, more than half of the wildlife that existed when I was a kid has been wiped out.
This graph:
http://xkcd.com/1338/
Total mass of humans and domestic mammals vs wild mammals.
Or this (I take it this one excludes rodents):
http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/most-populous-mammals-on-earth.html
I am somewhat skeptical about these and many of the figures environmentalist organisations throw out, but even if any of those figures were just half of what they claim, I would still find them shockingly worrying.
I honestly don't think there can be any doubt that humans are having a massive impact on the planet's ecosystems and that we're running the whole thing into the ground. Just how much time we have before it comes to a point of no return is almost a secondary issue.
What I do know is that if it comes to the worst, those currently calling the shots on these issues are those who'll have it easiest. They'll just buy up what little inhabitable land is left, relocate their mansions there and build a wall round them.
Mind you, the resulting forced downsizing of the worldwide population might be just what the planet needs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the last two-and-a-half billion years on Earth, there have been twenty six Mass Extinction Events, identifiable through the fossil record and stratigraphy.
Although they do not appear with any pattern or regularity, as they can be caused by varied and unpredictable events, that works out about one every one hundred million years. To provide a little context, as Homo sapiens, we have been around for about one to two hundred thousand years, so about 0.1 percent of that average occurrence.
The previous Mass Extinction Event occurred in the Pleistocene, starting around 640 thousand years ago. It may have been caused by climate change, human/primate overhunting and/or the extinction of the woolly mammoth, which changed completely grassland terrain across continents and in turn the global climate. During this event, 163 of 283, an incredible 58%, of all large mammalian genera worldwide became extinct. Take a second to think about what that would mean today.
Extinction scientists are now unanimously agreed that we are currently in the middle of a man-made Mass Extinction Event, which started around 10,000 BC. Extinctions have occurred at over ***1,000 times*** the background extinction rate since 1900.
Scientists believe the present rate of extinction may be up to 140,000 species per year across all forms of life, making this Extinction Event the greatest loss of biodiversity since the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago.
There are lots of signs out there that we are already way, way too late to do anything about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by rossobianchi says WUBBA LUBBA DUB DUB! (U17054)
posted 48 minutes ago
There are lots of signs out there that we are already way, way too late to do anything about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps one of the reasons we've heard about Mars colonisation a lot more recently...?
Oddly enough, only yesterday I took my kids to our local science museum. There was a Stephen Hawking quote on one of the walls:
"Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain inward-looking on planet Earth, but to spread out into space."
I hadn't noticed it until my 15-year-old pointed it out to me, and said:
"That's a good quote. I totally agree with it."
Personally, I don't think that means we should just give up on Earth, though. Unfortunately, the suits have either given up already or simply couldn't give two fax.
Most people only care about the tiny bit of their me they're on the planet.
And to most in terms of meaningful years that's about 20-30 years ensuring their dotage is way beyond comfortable.
Hardly anyone gives a fwck about after they're gone.
Gaia keeps coming up with ways to stop the overpopulation of the planet, unfortunately doctors keep finding the cures!
I am a bit que sera with it I am afraid. Not very fashionable I know.
I think there will be a way of trapping that carbon again in the near future, and we will harness the atom properly.
If not, we die as a species. It happens to the best of them, and after the planet has spat us out it will get on with the cleanup.
If the planet dies, it dies. It will cease to be at some point when the Sun engulfs it anyways
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
I care, but not as much as I do about my day to day life. Selfish huh?
I do not think I am alone though.
I doubt there are many of those that are staunchly Green thay do not have a car, an energy guzzling TV or four, or go abroad for holidays.
If you REALLY cared you would not have/do any of these really
Gow preachy is Sting? If every human had his carbon footprint the planet would have been dead many moons ago
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
People will still want their cheap tat from China, their two holidays abroad, their car for the school run and Phil Mitchell in 60 inch HD.
The world will only get more greedy.
We are consumers. We consume. We will continue to consume until we consume the planet, or the planet consumes us
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
A cull would be the best way to do it
A ban on cars, airlines. Kids. Big TVs?
I think it is lip service. Pishing in the wind. All seems based on assumptions the usual suspects will be the main polluters. What happens when the developing world want their creature comforts?
I speak as someone who has a car but only uses it when absolutely necessary, recycles as much as I possibly can, have been on a plane once (return) in the last 6yrs and have no TV over 32 inches in size.
You don't need a cull or anything like that. Just a couple of generations of responsible levels of human breeding and you could halve the population.
You can always tell a moron when they start saying to someone who suggests human population control "kill yourself then"... literally no one has to suffer or die unnaturally, there just needs to be less births.
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 11 hours, 42 minutes ago
You don't need a cull or anything like that. Just a couple of generations of responsible levels of human breeding and you could halve the population.
You can always tell a moron when they start saying to someone who suggests human population control "kill yourself then"... literally no one has to suffer or die unnaturally, there just needs to be less births.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How exactly do you police that? Forced terminations?
Would it be a crime to have a 2nd child, and if not what carrot/stick would there be for not ignoring the rules?
Who would pay for the elderly when there are so few children being born in the generations following them?
Should someone who has a tiny carbon footprint in Africa be denied a large family because of the gluttony of those in the West?
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted 41 minutes ago
Who would pay for the elderly when there are so few children being born in the generations following them?
Should someone who has a tiny carbon footprint in Africa be denied a large family because of the gluttony of those in the West?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
People need to be responsible... it's that simple.
As you said you can always incentivise it if you have to.
As for who looks after the elderly, technology and people - same as now.
You don't need one to one care in almost any cases and if being a professional carer was paid well more people would do it.
Only the completely man made concept of modern economics would be a hindrance and lets be honest it's already a huge hindrance to billions of people so it's time for some evolution/revolution.
Gradually reduce state funded care for the elderly and children.
Makes everyone more responsible.
Eg only extend child benefit, free school meals, nursery places etc for the first 2 children.
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 4 minutes ago
Gradually reduce state funded care for the elderly and children.
Makes everyone more responsible.
Eg only extend child benefit, free school meals, nursery places etc for the first 2 children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37983948
"The memo - obtained by The Times and seen by the BBC - warns Whitehall is working on 500 Brexit-related projects and could need 30,000 extra staff"
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 9 minutes ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37983948
"The memo - obtained by The Times and seen by the BBC - warns Whitehall is working on 500 Brexit-related projects and could need 30,000 extra staff"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great news... Brexit already helping bring new jobs
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by ツ Hєиgy (U9129)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 9 minutes ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37983948
"The memo - obtained by The Times and seen by the BBC - warns Whitehall is working on 500 Brexit-related projects and could need 30,000 extra staff"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great news... Brexit already helping bring new jobs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent 30,000 civil servants being funded by our taxes. Close more hospitals quickly.
Sign in if you want to comment
LIVE: Great Britain EU Referendum
Page 390 of 395
391 | 392 | 393 | 394 | 395
posted on 14/11/16
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted about an hour ago
Re climate change.
I am no denier,but I think it is arrogant to think we know all there is to know about the effects of man on the climate. The Earth has been much hotter and much colder in its history after all.
I mean if you said the Sun was at the centre of the solar system you would have been told you were stupid by accepted Science at one point.
In 50yrs time we may well realise what we currently 'know' is wrong, and other factors are the main drivers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Err on the side of caution, perhaps?
I mean, on the one hand you have a scenario where you need to rethink your industry setup and fossil fuel-based economy.
On the other, one of the only available solutions may well be to work out how to live on Mars, and pronto.
Have you heard any of this news?
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37775622
According to these people, more than half of the wildlife that existed when I was a kid has been wiped out.
This graph:
http://xkcd.com/1338/
Total mass of humans and domestic mammals vs wild mammals.
Or this (I take it this one excludes rodents):
http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/most-populous-mammals-on-earth.html
I am somewhat skeptical about these and many of the figures environmentalist organisations throw out, but even if any of those figures were just half of what they claim, I would still find them shockingly worrying.
I honestly don't think there can be any doubt that humans are having a massive impact on the planet's ecosystems and that we're running the whole thing into the ground. Just how much time we have before it comes to a point of no return is almost a secondary issue.
What I do know is that if it comes to the worst, those currently calling the shots on these issues are those who'll have it easiest. They'll just buy up what little inhabitable land is left, relocate their mansions there and build a wall round them.
Mind you, the resulting forced downsizing of the worldwide population might be just what the planet needs.
posted on 14/11/16
comment by Mourinho delenda est (U6426)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted about an hour ago
Re climate change.
I am no denier,but I think it is arrogant to think we know all there is to know about the effects of man on the climate. The Earth has been much hotter and much colder in its history after all.
I mean if you said the Sun was at the centre of the solar system you would have been told you were stupid by accepted Science at one point.
In 50yrs time we may well realise what we currently 'know' is wrong, and other factors are the main drivers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Err on the side of caution, perhaps?
I mean, on the one hand you have a scenario where you need to rethink your industry setup and fossil fuel-based economy.
On the other, one of the only available solutions may well be to work out how to live on Mars, and pronto.
Have you heard any of this news?
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37775622
According to these people, more than half of the wildlife that existed when I was a kid has been wiped out.
This graph:
http://xkcd.com/1338/
Total mass of humans and domestic mammals vs wild mammals.
Or this (I take it this one excludes rodents):
http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/most-populous-mammals-on-earth.html
I am somewhat skeptical about these and many of the figures environmentalist organisations throw out, but even if any of those figures were just half of what they claim, I would still find them shockingly worrying.
I honestly don't think there can be any doubt that humans are having a massive impact on the planet's ecosystems and that we're running the whole thing into the ground. Just how much time we have before it comes to a point of no return is almost a secondary issue.
What I do know is that if it comes to the worst, those currently calling the shots on these issues are those who'll have it easiest. They'll just buy up what little inhabitable land is left, relocate their mansions there and build a wall round them.
Mind you, the resulting forced downsizing of the worldwide population might be just what the planet needs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 14/11/16
Over the last two-and-a-half billion years on Earth, there have been twenty six Mass Extinction Events, identifiable through the fossil record and stratigraphy.
Although they do not appear with any pattern or regularity, as they can be caused by varied and unpredictable events, that works out about one every one hundred million years. To provide a little context, as Homo sapiens, we have been around for about one to two hundred thousand years, so about 0.1 percent of that average occurrence.
The previous Mass Extinction Event occurred in the Pleistocene, starting around 640 thousand years ago. It may have been caused by climate change, human/primate overhunting and/or the extinction of the woolly mammoth, which changed completely grassland terrain across continents and in turn the global climate. During this event, 163 of 283, an incredible 58%, of all large mammalian genera worldwide became extinct. Take a second to think about what that would mean today.
Extinction scientists are now unanimously agreed that we are currently in the middle of a man-made Mass Extinction Event, which started around 10,000 BC. Extinctions have occurred at over ***1,000 times*** the background extinction rate since 1900.
Scientists believe the present rate of extinction may be up to 140,000 species per year across all forms of life, making this Extinction Event the greatest loss of biodiversity since the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago.
There are lots of signs out there that we are already way, way too late to do anything about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
posted on 14/11/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 14/11/16
comment by rossobianchi says WUBBA LUBBA DUB DUB! (U17054)
posted 48 minutes ago
There are lots of signs out there that we are already way, way too late to do anything about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps one of the reasons we've heard about Mars colonisation a lot more recently...?
Oddly enough, only yesterday I took my kids to our local science museum. There was a Stephen Hawking quote on one of the walls:
"Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain inward-looking on planet Earth, but to spread out into space."
I hadn't noticed it until my 15-year-old pointed it out to me, and said:
"That's a good quote. I totally agree with it."
Personally, I don't think that means we should just give up on Earth, though. Unfortunately, the suits have either given up already or simply couldn't give two fax.
posted on 14/11/16
Most people only care about the tiny bit of their me they're on the planet.
And to most in terms of meaningful years that's about 20-30 years ensuring their dotage is way beyond comfortable.
Hardly anyone gives a fwck about after they're gone.
posted on 14/11/16
Gaia keeps coming up with ways to stop the overpopulation of the planet, unfortunately doctors keep finding the cures!
posted on 14/11/16
I am a bit que sera with it I am afraid. Not very fashionable I know.
I think there will be a way of trapping that carbon again in the near future, and we will harness the atom properly.
If not, we die as a species. It happens to the best of them, and after the planet has spat us out it will get on with the cleanup.
If the planet dies, it dies. It will cease to be at some point when the Sun engulfs it anyways
posted on 14/11/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 14/11/16
I care, but not as much as I do about my day to day life. Selfish huh?
I do not think I am alone though.
I doubt there are many of those that are staunchly Green thay do not have a car, an energy guzzling TV or four, or go abroad for holidays.
If you REALLY cared you would not have/do any of these really
posted on 14/11/16
Gow preachy is Sting? If every human had his carbon footprint the planet would have been dead many moons ago
posted on 14/11/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 14/11/16
People will still want their cheap tat from China, their two holidays abroad, their car for the school run and Phil Mitchell in 60 inch HD.
The world will only get more greedy.
We are consumers. We consume. We will continue to consume until we consume the planet, or the planet consumes us
posted on 14/11/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 14/11/16
A cull would be the best way to do it
A ban on cars, airlines. Kids. Big TVs?
I think it is lip service. Pishing in the wind. All seems based on assumptions the usual suspects will be the main polluters. What happens when the developing world want their creature comforts?
I speak as someone who has a car but only uses it when absolutely necessary, recycles as much as I possibly can, have been on a plane once (return) in the last 6yrs and have no TV over 32 inches in size.
posted on 14/11/16
You don't need a cull or anything like that. Just a couple of generations of responsible levels of human breeding and you could halve the population.
You can always tell a moron when they start saying to someone who suggests human population control "kill yourself then"... literally no one has to suffer or die unnaturally, there just needs to be less births.
posted on 15/11/16
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 11 hours, 42 minutes ago
You don't need a cull or anything like that. Just a couple of generations of responsible levels of human breeding and you could halve the population.
You can always tell a moron when they start saying to someone who suggests human population control "kill yourself then"... literally no one has to suffer or die unnaturally, there just needs to be less births.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How exactly do you police that? Forced terminations?
Would it be a crime to have a 2nd child, and if not what carrot/stick would there be for not ignoring the rules?
posted on 15/11/16
Who would pay for the elderly when there are so few children being born in the generations following them?
Should someone who has a tiny carbon footprint in Africa be denied a large family because of the gluttony of those in the West?
posted on 15/11/16
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted 41 minutes ago
Who would pay for the elderly when there are so few children being born in the generations following them?
Should someone who has a tiny carbon footprint in Africa be denied a large family because of the gluttony of those in the West?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
People need to be responsible... it's that simple.
As you said you can always incentivise it if you have to.
As for who looks after the elderly, technology and people - same as now.
You don't need one to one care in almost any cases and if being a professional carer was paid well more people would do it.
Only the completely man made concept of modern economics would be a hindrance and lets be honest it's already a huge hindrance to billions of people so it's time for some evolution/revolution.
posted on 15/11/16
Gradually reduce state funded care for the elderly and children.
Makes everyone more responsible.
Eg only extend child benefit, free school meals, nursery places etc for the first 2 children.
posted on 15/11/16
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 4 minutes ago
Gradually reduce state funded care for the elderly and children.
Makes everyone more responsible.
Eg only extend child benefit, free school meals, nursery places etc for the first 2 children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 15/11/16
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37983948
"The memo - obtained by The Times and seen by the BBC - warns Whitehall is working on 500 Brexit-related projects and could need 30,000 extra staff"
posted on 15/11/16
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 9 minutes ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37983948
"The memo - obtained by The Times and seen by the BBC - warns Whitehall is working on 500 Brexit-related projects and could need 30,000 extra staff"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great news... Brexit already helping bring new jobs
posted on 15/11/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/11/16
comment by ツ Hєиgy (U9129)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 9 minutes ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37983948
"The memo - obtained by The Times and seen by the BBC - warns Whitehall is working on 500 Brexit-related projects and could need 30,000 extra staff"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great news... Brexit already helping bring new jobs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent 30,000 civil servants being funded by our taxes. Close more hospitals quickly.
Page 390 of 395
391 | 392 | 393 | 394 | 395