(27 April 2012, 13:47)bigpaul Wrote: [ -> ] (27 April 2012, 01:36)Scythe13 Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/2...V820120425
its about time, i'm fed up of being the only one who says the population is unsustainable!
The difference with paranoia and prophecy is the end result. If you're wrong, you're paranoid, if you're right, you're a prophet.
Sorry to disappoint you BP, you're not mad.
Time for that event to happen!
(27 April 2012, 13:51)Scythe13 Wrote: [ -> ] (27 April 2012, 13:47)bigpaul Wrote: [ -> ] (27 April 2012, 01:36)Scythe13 Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/2...V820120425
its about time, i'm fed up of being the only one who says the population is unsustainable!
The difference with paranoia and prophecy is the end result. If you're wrong, you're paranoid, if you're right, you're a prophet.
Sorry to disappoint you BP, you're not mad.
Time for that event to happen!
you mean it hasnt! i thought being a prepper meant i was paranoid anyway!
I'm reading breed less and reduce the population. (How?)
Western world to cut back on pollution, but let the third world do what they want. (Why)
Drink less water, eat less. (Recipe for constipation)
Oh, and give more to the needy. (That's ok, we're already giving out more than we have anyway)
China and Brazil like new cars (Stop that immediately, I can't have one so why should they)
Did like the point about not letting planes crash.
It makes a mess. Adds to pollution.
On the other side though it could be a method of population control.
Also liked the point about unleaded fuel being UK led. Shame it's got more chemicals in it than the old leaded stuff ever had but what the heck.
(27 April 2012, 14:00)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]I'm reading breed less and reduce the population. (How?)
Western world to cut back on pollution, but let the third world do what they want. (Why)
Drink less water, eat less. (Recipe for constipation)
Oh, and give more to the needy. (That's ok, we're already giving out more than we have anyway)
China and Brazil like new cars (Stop that immediately, I can't have one so why should they)
Did like the point about not letting planes crash.
It makes a mess. Adds to pollution.
On the other side though it could be a method of population control.
Also liked the point about unleaded fuel being UK led. Shame it's got more chemicals in it than the old leaded stuff ever had but what the heck.
There was a controversial book a few years back that basically said that as people our form of population control is war. When I'm back from the woods I'll call dad and ask what the book was called.
I think the western world cut back and 3rd world develop is quite an interesting one. Once the 'developed' world is able to produce clean fuels and things like that, the 3rd world will also be wanting the same things, and will thus direct towards a less polution filled way of life.
Drink less water, eat less. (Recipe for constipation). Also a recipe to reduce obesity. But as we are, we do over indulge, and using less water is a pretty simple thing. Steam/mist showers like Bucky F. recommended back in the 60's.
Give more to the needs is based on technology and having a surplus as a result of consuming less ourselves.
With the new cars thing, if someone can afford a new car, why shouldn't they have one? If you had enough money to get a new car and someone said you couldn't have it because someone else on earth couldn't afford one, you'd tell them where to stick it, same as I would haha.
But all points are fairly raised. I think it's the details of the report that need to be examined at a greater depth. The principles are fine, but the actuality and practicality and going to be an issue for us as a nation.
It'll never happen.It'll just keep going until it blows up. The problem is that we produce enough to eat. The 3rd world does not and they live in the dark ages. We should bring them up to our standard, educate them, show them how to look after themselves and let them get on with it. We won't though because our politicians want to look good.
Don't forget SD, money.
If their standard of living goes up, wages do too. Which means the cheap sweatshop clothes we buy for £5 will be costing £100, or the manufacturers don't make profit.
For us to live our lifestyle at it's current cost, someone else has to pay for it. And they do pay, with a lower standard of living.
But the facts don't support your theory.
Look at the standard of living we have now compared with 100 years ago. The cost may go up but the actual percentage of your salary is less. The only fly in the ointment is the governments cut. What a shocker.
I know we have more money than say 50 years ago but look at what everything costs these days, i continually hear people moaning that the cost of food seems to go up every week and not just a few pence, and thats not including the cost of housing, 40 years ago i bought a house for £3,800 now an ordinary house on this estate would cost £140-£160,000 and renting isnt much better, private rent is about £500PCM and thats in a low wage rural small town, so are we really any better off?? sure people might have money coming in, but its going out just as fast! and 40 years ago we didnt NEED food banks either!!