Valhalla
Established Member
As is written: necessity is the mother of invention
Lots of hot air
- Thread starter Spectric
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
RobinBHM
Established Member
Maybe but with a little practice im sure we can bloody well learn to Never say cant till you have tried and then try againare you sure….we can’t even sharpen a chisel
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
There was some talk a while back about building modern sailing ships for cargo. I haven't checked lately.
Curiously, the SS Great Britain was converted to sail
I am late to the party and have not read everything in this 28-page thread so forgive me if it has already been said but I have not seen it.
Surely we are overpopulated?
Why would we need this frenetic lifestyle if there were not so many people?
We are outliving our design spec by using our intelligence and technologies, keeping people alive way beyond what is natural, and using energy in the process.
With fewer people we would need less of everything and life would need less intensive methods to keep everyone in the style they have become accustomed to.
Just my two penneth worth!
Mick
Surely we are overpopulated?
Why would we need this frenetic lifestyle if there were not so many people?
We are outliving our design spec by using our intelligence and technologies, keeping people alive way beyond what is natural, and using energy in the process.
With fewer people we would need less of everything and life would need less intensive methods to keep everyone in the style they have become accustomed to.
Just my two penneth worth!
Mick
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
It has been said.
So why not have a cull?
Start by culling those individuals who have the biggest carbon footprint and/or the highest consumption of stuff.
I'm not sure how that would work, as those are often the same people who run things. I'm guessing the old and poor would be the first to go.
Jacob
New Luddism. Wake up and resist.
The cull is underway as we speak. It's happening naturally as climate change disrupts the way we live and pulls the carpet from under our feet. The less we intervene then the quicker it will happen. Nothing to worry about on that front at least!
Presumably there will be survivors but there is no guarantee. Those most dependent on high carbon technology have furthest to fall as they struggle to adapt to a very different world. Burbling on about "nucular" power won't help them much as their world shrinks and collapses.
About as realistic a solution as colonising outer space.
PS come to think - colonising our deep ocean bottoms would be much more viable. Nearer for a start and technologically simpler - and with a food source to hand just outside the submersible!
Last edited:
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
I tried to watch it, but had to stop and retch when the interviewer said "nukleler".
Was that an attempt at a joke?
Soilient Green or what
You have got to the bottom of the issue, overpopulation but for one reason or another this cannot be solved so instead they are trying to work round it but know there is no solution for over population. Personally I would scrap all child benefits, you want kids then pay for them, you buy a car and no one pays towards your fuel cost do they. Then have children connected to your tax code, one has minor impact, two has a bigger impact and three or more puts you into a very high taxation class. This only solves the UK, we do not breed like rabbits as in some countries who are causing bigger issues.
Valhalla
Established Member
I think it will be solved - by nature - if humans keep proliferating. There will utlmately be a shortage of space, water, food, medicine and many other resources. Mankind will have stripped the planet of all of the goodness - all the carbon storing flora will be gone - oh - and I'm sure there will another virus or two to further control the population.
I agree with your assertion that over-population is a significant problem, and I think that it is women that fundamentally need to address this problem as it is they and they alone who bring new humans on to this planet. Women need to be educated when they are young children to seriously think about the effect of the numbers of children they might bring into the world. This obviously needs to be on a global scale and especially in societies where women typically have large numbers of children.
The days of "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28) are over..... may be it should read - "be fruitful and keep the population to a sustainable level". We need to ensure those that are born are fit and strong and hopefully are able to work long into their later years so there might be less reliance on sheer numbers of people.
In fact, it saddens me when you hear about women having multiple births of 4,5,6 or more children and think it's wonderful - given the numbers of starving people on the earth and the current state of the planet and where it may be heading.
It is the ever increasing population levels that are driving demand for more and more resources that are becoming scarcer and scarcer. It is the ever increasing population levels that are causing more and more pollution in our seas, the air that we breathe and the atmosphere that we rely on to keep our planet safe
Population and population control is a female issue - ultimately it is women that are the problem and it is women that are the solution.......
Answers on a postcard please......
Jacob
New Luddism. Wake up and resist.
Yes but not in the way you think. Increased reproduction is natures solution to the problem - it increases likelihood of survival of the species when the going gets tough. It's a common strategy throughout the natural world. Good for the species, not good for most of the individual members thereof, but they all die in the end anyway.
This is why reproductive rates are greater in more deprived and unsettled communities. Rates are low to falling in the relatively unstressed and privileged parts.
Jacob
New Luddism. Wake up and resist.
Exactly. They are having more children than the better off - not from choice - it's a feature of poor, unstable, stressed etc etc communities. Always has been, always will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
Jacob
New Luddism. Wake up and resist.
Arguably an example - stressed women having babies in spite of not wanting them - because of being stressed and not in control in the first place? The fathers similarly not making "responsible" decisions. Egged on by religious nutters.
But in general it's much simpler - those most able to escape from environmental or political breakdown are more likely to be young, fit and fertile. No coincidence that boat people may include babies, young children, expectant mothers, not a lot of doddery old age pensioners.
You are confusing two different issues, being poor and overpopulation are not the same thing.
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
I was addressing Valhalla's "women are responsible" assertion. Men have the power in most societies.
