World population explosion

[Boob Johnson]

Ok........so there is currently 6.6 BILLION of us buggers on this wee molten rock & we are using WAY more resources than we can sustain. Global demand for many major resources are going through the roof as China & India are gearing up. So what will it be like in 2020 when the estimated population hits 9 BILLION!!!

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

Obviously some "culling" needs to happen just like happens to all the other animals.



So my questions are...........


Who will it be?

Has it already started?

Will agencies stop sending aid to natural disaster areas?

Will we return to a time with more personal responsibility? ie: survival of the smartest.



Interesting times are upon us :corn:

[cowboyz]

be a good start getting rid of all the zuki riders......... then honda........... then yamaha........... Leaving the kwakas to rule the world..


yes I know I only mentioned 4 jap makes cause the rest arent really bikes now are they?



















Out of the 6.66 BILLION how many do you think I just put off side?

[Gubb]

Logan's Run (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/) and Soylent Green (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/) have the answers.

[Boob Johnson]

Out of the 6.66 BILLION how many do you think I just put off side?
lol Cowboyz :clap:


Logan's Run (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/) and Soylent Green (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/) have the answers.
Have seen Soylent Green many moons ago, great movie & well ahead of its time. Can't remember much of Logan's Run, will have to watch it again.

[McJim]

Yes I know I only mentioned 4 jap makes cause the rest arent really bikes now are they?


Hmm... yes the 'Other' Manufacturers of whom you speak were making motorcycles when the Japs were still invading China....so the Jappas are really just copies.:rofl: :Pokey:
As for Culling - that's what world wars are for innit? Only problem is the resulting baby boom at the end of each!

[Boob Johnson]

As for Culling - that's what world wars are for innit? Only problem is the resulting baby boom at the end of each!
And the last two haven't "culled" enough

[Romeo]

If You don't think it's already happened - what do you think "Ethanol" fuel is?


Biofuel production is equivalent to a new tax on food that starves the poor in order to feed money to rich agricultural corporations.



According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, global food prices rose an incredible 40% in 2007, which qualifies as hyperinflation. The World Bank states that the cost of staple foods rose by 83% during the 3 year period from 2005 to 2008.

On December 19th, 2007, President George W. Bush signed into law the "Energy Independence and Security Act" (summary pdf 107kb), which mandates that 36 billion gallons of biofuels be produced in the United States every year by 2022, a nearly fivefold increase over current production levels. Ethanol (vodka minus H2O) and "biodiesel" (a.k.a. cooking oil) are made from food or inedible crops which displace normal agricultural activity. Biofuel crops include corn, soybeans, rapeseed (canola oil), sugarcane, palm trees (palm oil), and cassava, as well as experimental "second generation" crops such as switchgrass, jatropha, giant reed, hemp, and algae.

In 2007, 54% of the world's corn was grown in the United States, and an ever increasing percentage of that crop ended up in gas tanks instead of stomachs. The corn required to fill the 18.5 gallon gas tank of a Toyota Camry with ethanol could feed a human being for 270 days. Ethanol production took only about 6 to 7% of American corn in 1998, but has grown as a cancer on our food supply, taking somewhere between 30 to 38% by 2008. Readers should be warned that it is very difficult to get an honest figure on exactly how much U.S. corn is currently being turned into fuel, because ethanol is such a hot political issue for the Bush Administration, Bush appointees at the United States Department of Agriculture, and the giant biofuel manufacturers themselves.


Biofuel production will contribute to the avoidable deaths of at least
between 10 and 20 million people in the year 2008. Economists
estimate that 30 million people could be going hungry in Bangladesh
alone. 4 billion humans live in poverty, and biofuel production will
push millions of the poorest families into the clutches of death,
thanks to our leaders turning mountain's of food into fuel. Unless
the biofuel bandwagon is stopped, by the year 2020 the world will be
diverting 400 million tons of grain each year into ethanol production,
which is equal to the entire current global rice harvest. There have
been food riots in 22 countries, and 33 nations face political
instability as staple food prices have risen 83% in the last 3 years
according to the World Bank. Biofuel production is equivalent to a
new tax on food that starves the poor in order to feed money to rich
agricultural corporations.

[Dargor]

Yea, this is an issue that we as a civilization need to address.

[Coyote]

be a good start getting rid of all the zuki riders......... then honda........... then yamaha........... Leaving the kwakas to rule the world..

Then they might start winning races! :D


Bio fuels are shit, they're just a way for governments to be seen as giving a shit about the environment.

[Coyote]

Out of the 6.66 BILLION how many do you think I just put off side?
Perfect number innit? :p

[Boob Johnson]

Perfect number innit? :p
668 - The neighbour of the beast :headbang:

[Dave Lobster]

KFC is killing off the lowest life forms, isn't it?

:mellow:

[Boob Johnson]

KFC is killing off the lowest life forms, isn't it?

:mellow:
You're still alive ain't ya Dave? :shutup:


:clap:

[NinjaNanna]

The answer seems simple to me, HAVE LESS CHILDREN.

If the global birth rate can be kept under 2 then the global population should fall in a consistant manageable manner.

Sure there will be short term financial burdens as there will be an over abundance of older citizens that will require suppurt through their twilight years but it should only be temporary.

[Edbear]

:jerry: :jerry: :jerry:... :whistle:

[Boob Johnson]

The answer seems simple to me, HAVE LESS CHILDREN.

If the global birth rate can be kept under 2 then the global population should fall in a consistent manageable manner.

Sure there will be short term financial burdens as there will be an over abundance of older citizens that will require support through their twilight years but it should only be temporary.
If only it was that easy. I would imagine it would take an incalculable length of time to make that a reality, not saying that we shouldn't be striving towards that goal.

[riffer]

You know, while we're on the subject of Soylent Green:

I got a really bad reception the other day in the work lunchroom when I mused that a possible solution to some of these problems would be to convert the world's dead people to biofuels.

But I reckon it could be a goer. We just have to get over our cultural problems with it. It's the ultimate organ donation.

Or am I just sick?

[Dave Lobster]

You're still alive ain't ya Dave? :shutup:


:clap:

I can't get in KFC.. wrong colour..

[Boob Johnson]

I can't get in KFC.. wrong colour..
:blink::crazy::psst::scratch::slap::ride:

[NinjaNanna]

If only it was that easy. I would imagine it would take an incalculable length of time to make that a reality, not saying that we shouldn't be striving towards that goal.

Why shouldn't it be that simple, unless you believe the world has already past the point of no return, then halting the population growth then reversing it should be all it takes.

[Boob Johnson]

Why shouldn't it be that simple, unless you believe the world has already past the point of no return, then halting the population growth then reversing it should be all it takes.
The devil is in the details ;)

[Manxman]

Pffft. Wind the clock back however far you like and there will always have been comments that the world is overstocked with humans.

Funny though, cos we always seem to get by, either through technological innovation, farming efficiency or some other smart invention through the ages.

Isn't the problem around who is in charge? Unfortunately, the people who need food the most have dipshit leaders, who couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag and have no idea about providing for their people, or managing the population through improved sex education/contraception, etc.

Slightly off topic, but yesterday I came across an article that said back in 1972, Time Magazine (no less) was publishing articles about how the world's most eminent scientists were worried about - guess what - global cooling!!!:clap: and how we all were heading for imminent demise (flared trousers and all). Does the theme sound familiar? Oh, they also said that there was no proof that humans were the cause of this (one theory was that it was caused by comets - no shit :wacko:).

So, where's the proof the we're causing global warming? Hang on, that last sentence assumes that global warming is a fact... I say: who conclusively knows this, particularly given how scientists have sort of been wrong in the past (flat earth, global cooling, etc)? Heck, we went through a Little Ice Age between 1500 and 1800, where the Thames froze over for 2 months and ice was 11 inches thick. Methinks nature has more control over the planet than we give it credit for and has its own way of re-balancing things...

I'm a sceptic (did ya guess;)). After all, who really knows what is happening and what the real causes are. Maybe there aren't any and it's all a natural cycle...after all who caused the last Ice Age???? And the subsequent global warming (cos that's what it would have felt like, relatively, if you'd been living in an igloo in the middle of Edinburgh at the time)???

This ETS thing is fundamentally flawed in my opinion and simply another means of extracting $ out of taxpayers pockets into this, and other, government's pockets - thereby becoming the first global tax in history. <Evil laugh: Ah, Ah, Ah>

Dr /thingy/ was on telly the other day saying it was a rort and that it could cost NZ between 20 and 80 BILLION dollars in the next 30 years, depending on how quickly this government sign us up...and guess who's paying? You and me and our kids. Bloody good onya mate for challenging the assumptions that are put in front of us as fact.

Sure, live less wastefully, more responsibly and more socially. That's great, but you & I aren't going to change the world. Fact. There are problems closer to home on that front - just have a look at the side of the road next time you're a passenger in a car or on a bus/coach. The plastic bags, bottles, big mac packets parked up in the gutters and grass verges in good ol' 'clean, green' NZ is nowt short of a national disgrace (I'm really into the rant thing now, eh?). That's something we can change.

There aren't enough people who query and challenge these dangerous assumptions - and that's because the social 'climate' isn't right (although I believe the pendulum is swinging back) and it's simply too easy to accept the latest trend. For every doomsayer, there'll be one (only less vocal, cos it ain't fashionable) that says it isn't so.

I'm more than happy to do my bit if someone can objectively and conclusively prove it to me...

[Laava]

Ever seen the Ben Elton movie, "Stark". Was basically when the worlds resources became unable to cope and some millionaire sets off into space in a Star Ark, hence the name, and sets off nukes on earth so he can come back and repopulate. Good idea really, coined the term Total Toxic Overload which was the basic premise for the movie. Shot in Aussie too so lots of "yeah,nah!"

[Mikkel]

be a good start getting rid of all the zuki riders......... then honda........... then yamaha........... Leaving the kwakas to rule the world..

Amen brother! I have 2 - I'll live for 200 years! :Punk:


As for over-population - I'm sure mother earth is going to sort us out if we get out of line.

Truth be told, it's not so much a matter of 'how many people can this planet sustain' as 'how many people can this planet sustain with a lifestyle that matches ours'...

[Dargor]

Funny though, cos we always seem to get by, either through technological innovation, farming efficiency or some other smart invention through the ages. Thats true, but it would be alot better to improving our max-population through science before we step over it and have it impact on everybodys quality of life.


Isn't the problem around who is in charge? Unfortunately, the people who need food the most have dipshit leaders, who couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag and have no idea about providing for their people, or managing the population through improved sex education/contraception, et Yes and that is unfortunate, but why would those contries change when we with our prosperity dont even have a stance on the issue.


So, where's the proof the we're causing global warming? Here (http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html) and here (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=human+impact+on+climate+change) Or are you some amazing scientist with a good reputation who wants to argue that.


-snip-
particularly given how scientists have sort of been wrong in the past (flat earth, global cooling, etc)?People believe whatever they want, good scientist will work out the truth though. Like the scientist back in the 6th century BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth#Classical_Antiquity) who worked out that the earth was round.


I'm a sceptic (did ya guess;)). After all, who really knows what is happening and what the real causes are. Maybe there aren't any and it's all a natural cycle...after all Maybe some of it is but some of it sure is us and we should be doing something about it, for future generations.
You should watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI) it might help you make up your mind.



Dr /thingy/ was on telly the other day saying it was a rort and that it could cost NZ between 20 and 80 BILLION dollars in the next 30 years, depending on how quickly this government sign us up...and guess who's paying? You and me and our kids. Oh so now you care about our kids, when its there money where talking about not the state of the earth!.


Sure, live less wastefully, more responsibly and more socially. That's great, but you & I aren't going to change the world. Fact. False i think thats a one of those assumptions that you hate so much, what you do does change the world, and what changes the world lots is what everyone does and guess what, you and i are included in everyone!



There are problems closer to home on that front - just have a look at the side of the road next time you're a passenger in a car or on a bus/coach. The plastic bags, bottles, big mac packets parked up in the gutters and grass verges in good ol' 'clean, green' NZ is nowt short of a national disgrace (I'm really into the rant thing now, eh?). That's something we can change. There you go, you already know how you could help change the world. :)


There aren't enough people who query and challenge these dangerous assumptionsYour quite right, and there are even less who challenge their disbelief for what they think to be assumptions. Perhaps we should kill them to help solve the problem.


--------------
A commic (http://xkcd.com/406/) to describe how i feel about having responded to that post.

[Manxman]

Thats true, but it would be alot better to improving our max-population through science before we step over it and have it impact on everybodys quality of life. What "max population"? What scientist derived this figure? Based on what? Someone's theory? Who affirms that theory is right or wrong? Other scientific theorists?

Yes and that is unfortunate, but why would those contries change when we with our prosperity dont even have a stance on the issue. Our prosperity? Aren't there many in this country who cannot even feed their own families...so why should we tax those people even more to assist others who can't feed their families somewhere else.
Here (http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html) and here (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=human+impact+on+climate+change) Or are you some amazing scientist with a good reputation who wants to argue that. I once managed to get a Pepsi bottle to produce a fountain when I dropped a Mentos in, but otherwise nope. However, there are plenty out there, whose message isn't being listened to because it isn't fashionable right now. Give it time however...until then I remain a growing sceptic, who is annoyed at the torrent of force-fed doomsaying being shoved down my throat, without valid, contrary opinion being voiced. Did I mention Time Magazine in 1972...

People believe whatever they want You got that right:shifty:, good scientist will work out the truth though. Like the scientist back in the 6th century BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth#Classical_Antiquity) who worked out that the earth was round. Right with ya there...and do you know how much convincing the establishment took to persuade them that their previously unquestioning viewpoint was wrong...

Maybe some of it is but some of it sure is us Really? OK, you convinced me... and we should be doing something about it, for future generations.
You should watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI) it might help you make up your mind. Thanks, I did...and remain even less convinced. What forms his basis for assuming that the bottom right box will result in CATASTROPHIC consequences????? Why can't it be something considerably less? Does it HAVE to be so disastrous...? I will however, continue to live as unwastefully as possible. Do we really think that the NZ (you know, this fantastic, beautiful, but contextually very, very small country at the bottom of the south Pacific) stance on ETS will make a difference to whatever it is people think might be happening on a world scale - whilst taxing its population like a wounded bull in the meantime). I'd prefer not to be on the bleeding edge on this one.

Oh so now you care about our kids, when its there money where talking about not the state of the earth!. You lost me here. Of course I care about my kids...:hug:

False i think thats a one of those assumptions that you hate so much, what you do does change the world, and what changes the world lots is what everyone does and guess what, you and i are included in everyone! Of course were included with everyone, but again I remain unconvinced that we, in NZ can make any semblance of change (aside from not throwing our litter out of our car windows and treating the side of the road as our collective waste bin. If (if) this is happening, then larger countries must have pressure exerted on them at inter govt level. So what did dear old Helen just do...he signed a free trade deal with China whilst muttering (but not very loudly, so as not to be heard) something about Tibet and global warming. There's hypocracy right there in action for ya. "I care enough to tax my own people, but don't want to upset my big industrial behemoth neighbour on the same issue..."

There you go, you already know how you could help change the world. :) Yep, changing the world in a much more realistic and 'local' kind of way ;). BTW, part of my point is: who really knows? Bottom line... n.o-o.n.e r.e.a.l.l.y k.n.o.w.s.

Your quite right, and there are even less who challenge their disbelief for what they think to be assumptions. Perhaps we should kill them to help solve the problem. If you insist.:2guns:;)


--------------
A commic (http://xkcd.com/406/) to describe how i feel about having responded to that post.1234567890

[Zuki Bandit]

I reckon all the Subaru, Evo and Skyline drivers should go. Geez that would just about half NZ's population!!!

[Maki]

No need for any culling. Just make it so that no couple can have more than one child until the worlds population reaches a sustainable level. Of course I understand that kind of idea is far too radical for people to accept. Most would prefer to continue on our present course of disease, famine, war, pollution and destruction of our beautiful planet.

[NinjaNanna]

No need for any culling. Just make it so that no couple can have more than one child until the worlds population reaches a sustainable level. Of course I understand that kind of idea is far too radical for people to accept. Most would prefer to continue on our present course of disease, famine, war, pollution and destruction of our beautiful planet.

China did that and it turned into a major problem for them, at present there are sfa chinese girls as so many of them were killed at birth because their culture demanded boys.

Personally I think a tax would be the best way to go:

Tax subsidy for "couples" with less then 2 children
Tax Nuetral for 2 children
Tax on more than 2 children


Seems fair enough to me, incentive and choice rolled into a policy that aims to adjust the problem of global population growth.

[MisterD]

China did that and it turned into a major problem for them, at present there are sfa chinese girls as so many of them were killed at birth because their culture demanded boys.

Personally I think a tax would be the best way to go:

Tax subsidy for "couples" with less then 2 children
Tax Nuetral for 2 children
Tax on more than 2 children


Seems fair enough to me, incentive and choice rolled into a policy that aims to adjust the problem of global population growth.

Now there's a quick way to a society that can't afford to pay for itself...it's a big enough problem that the middle (tax paying) classes aren't replacing themselves already.

The solution is to shut the doors on Africa and don't let anyone out until they've learnt to govern themselves.

[EJK]

People should really read the condom instruction... :(

[Boob Johnson]

Hows this for a solution.....

Let people hurt/kill themselves. A return to ages of old where there is no warning signs, survival of the smartest. If you are stupid you will probably wipe yourself out early. Might not totally control the population but would certainly "cull" the idiots & that has to be a positive thing doesn't it?

[Edbear]

Hows this for a solution.....

Let people hurt/kill themselves. A return to ages of old where there is no warning signs, survival of the smartest. If you are stupid you will probably wipe yourself out early. Might not totally control the population but would certainly "cull" the idiots & that has to be a positive thing doesn't it?


Unfortunately, the rate of death among the stupid is not fast enough to counter the rate of birth, and too often they take out a smart person with them, or instead of them...:pinch:

I found Romeo's post rather disturbing, and intend to investigate further. I do love a good conspiracy...:niceone:

[Boob Johnson]

Unfortunately, the rate of death among the stupid is not fast enough to counter the rate of birth, and too often they take out a smart person with them, or instead of them...:pinch:

I found Romeo's post rather disturbing, and intend to investigate further. I do love a good conspiracy...:niceone:
Yeah as mentioned certainly not the silver bullet, but what is? It will however make humans smarter in the long run & get rid of this bloody nanny state mentality. What's wrong with learning things the hard way?

[Dargor]

What's wrong with learning things the hard way?
People dont pay attention to history thus are doomed to repeat it.

[Dave Lobster]

Why not just sterilise rough people when they've had one child.. without them knowing?

[Maki]

China did that and it turned into a major problem for them, at present there are sfa chinese girls as so many of them were killed at birth because their culture demanded boys.

Personally I think a tax would be the best way to go:

Tax subsidy for "couples" with less then 2 children
Tax Nuetral for 2 children
Tax on more than 2 children


Seems fair enough to me, incentive and choice rolled into a policy that aims to adjust the problem of global population growth.

Not a major problem compared to overpopulation. Without the measures taken in China to curb overpopulation they really would have major problems. In most western countries people have no clue what major problems really are. A major problem is not having enough food, and watching your children slowly die of hunger, while begging you for food, when you may not have had anything substantial to eat for weeks. That my friend is a major problem. A problem millions of people face today, as you read this.

Would it be a problem if there was no overpopulation? No, it wouldn't.

[marty]

I'm pretty septical - unlike the recent volcanic eruption in Chile, and the forest fires in Auzzie, I have been unable to see any long term atmospheric influence that man has created.

Watched some debunking documentary a few weeks back.

The entire USA rubbish disposal for the next 100 years, including all recycling not being recycled, could fit into a concrete lined 10 x 10 x 10km hole dug in the middle of the Arizona desert. In the bigger picture, that is a small hole, even though it is 1000km3. The energy potentially produced off this hole of waste would be equal to the Hoover Dam output.

The eruption of Lake Taupo 25000 years ago heavily infulenced the atmosphere, blowing an estimated 1000km3 of ash into the sky. This does not take into account the further influence of fire and coverage of green O2 producing plant material. Humans could not even get close to creating that kind of influence - another super-eruption will occur before we even get to try.

[Dave-]

SELF SERVICE CHECKOUTS ARE THE NEW POPULATION CONTROL!

H'okay

I was standing at the chocolate bars the other day and something caught my eye...the self service line was moving faster....then the express line...

now it stands to reason that 4 check out chicks cannot process the same number of customers than 6 people at 6 self service machines.

6x self service checkouts takes up about the same room as a 4x express lane.

so i did an experiment, I stood in the express lane, and watched an elderly women go through self service faster than i get to the till (she was long gone).

now she's lucky, she can clearly operate technology, there has to be a few free radicals, but what we need to do is lay off 90% of the check out chicks and replace them with robots, and don't wank on about human interaction, how you like the smile they give you, when was the last time someone being paid minimum wage to scan, stuff and total your groceries gave you a smile?

these people will die off as a result of lack of skill, and their inability to get a job, a follow through will be that people who cannot operate self service will also die out.

[Maki]

I'm pretty septical - unlike the recent volcanic eruption in Chile, and the forest fires in Auzzie, I have been unable to see any long term atmospheric influence that man has created.

Watched some debunking documentary a few weeks back.

The entire USA rubbish disposal for the next 100 years, including all recycling not being recycled, could fit into a concrete lined 10 x 10 x 10km hole dug in the middle of the Arizona desert. In the bigger picture, that is a small hole, even though it is 1000km3. The energy potentially produced off this hole of waste would be equal to the Hoover Dam output.

The eruption of Lake Taupo 25000 years ago heavily infulenced the atmosphere, blowing an estimated 1000km3 of ash into the sky. This does not take into account the further influence of fire and coverage of green O2 producing plant material. Humans could not even get close to creating that kind of influence - another super-eruption will occur before we even get to try.

Wow, all our problems are solved. Hurry up and dig that 10x10x10km hole so we can all start throwing our trash into it...

And your logic is perfect, you must be a scientist...

The Taupo eruption heavily influenced the atmosphere. It therefore follows that humans are NOT heavily influencing the atmosphere, even though we are burning fossil fuels deposited over millions of years and concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are measurably increasing by significant amounts.

I heave a sigh of relief when I think that whatever we are doing it will not be as bad as the Taupo eruption. I guess we can all sleep soundly from now on...

[Boob Johnson]

H'okay

I was standing at the chocolate bars the other day and something caught my eye...the self service line was moving faster....then the express line...

now it stands to reason that 4 check out chicks cannot process the same number of customers than 6 people at 6 self service machines.

6x self service checkouts takes up about the same room as a 4x express lane.

so i did an experiment, I stood in the express lane, and watched an elderly women go through self service faster than i get to the till (she was long gone).

now she's lucky, she can clearly operate technology, there has to be a few free radicals, but what we need to do is lay off 90% of the check out chicks and replace them with robots, and don't wank on about human interaction, how you like the smile they give you, when was the last time someone being paid minimum wage to scan, stuff and total your groceries gave you a smile?

these people will die off as a result of lack of skill, and their inability to get a job, a follow through will be that people who cannot operate self service will also die out.
lol love the post :clap:

Got a good giggle from me.

When was the last time a minimum wage check out person smiled at you? Most times, as I always at minimum make an attempt to smile & be polite, man in the mirror n all that.

[Owl]

be a good start getting rid of all the zuki riders......... then honda........... then yamaha........... Leaving the kwakas to rule the world..


yes I know I only mentioned 4 jap makes cause the rest arent really bikes now are they?

I'd normally have something to say here, but with my current situation I think I'll shut up. Nothing brings you down more than riding with bent bars and your arms pointing in different directions!

[Pixie]

668 - The neighbour of the beast :headbang:

.................

[Pixie]

Logan's Run (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/) and Soylent Green (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/) have the answers.

"Now with more girls"

[Edbear]

I'm pretty septical - unlike the recent volcanic eruption in Chile, and the forest fires in Auzzie, I have been unable to see any long term atmospheric influence that man has created.

Watched some debunking documentary a few weeks back.

The entire USA rubbish disposal for the next 100 years, including all recycling not being recycled, could fit into a concrete lined 10 x 10 x 10km hole dug in the middle of the Arizona desert. In the bigger picture, that is a small hole, even though it is 1000km3. The energy potentially produced off this hole of waste would be equal to the Hoover Dam output.

The eruption of Lake Taupo 25000 years ago heavily infulenced the atmosphere, blowing an estimated 1000km3 of ash into the sky. This does not take into account the further influence of fire and coverage of green O2 producing plant material. Humans could not even get close to creating that kind of influence - another super-eruption will occur before we even get to try.

And the entire world's population could fit in the state of Texas with room to have each family its own house and section...

[inlinefour]

Pffft. Wind the clock back however far you like and there will always have been comments that the world is overstocked with humans.

Funny though, cos we always seem to get by, either through technological innovation, farming efficiency or some other smart invention through the ages.

Isn't the problem around who is in charge? Unfortunately, the people who need food the most have dipshit leaders, who couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag and have no idea about providing for their people, or managing the population through improved sex education/contraception, etc.

Slightly off topic, but yesterday I came across an article that said back in 1972, Time Magazine (no less) was publishing articles about how the world's most eminent scientists were worried about - guess what - global cooling!!!:clap: and how we all were heading for imminent demise (flared trousers and all). Does the theme sound familiar? Oh, they also said that there was no proof that humans were the cause of this (one theory was that it was caused by comets - no shit :wacko:).

So, where's the proof the we're causing global warming? Hang on, that last sentence assumes that global warming is a fact... I say: who conclusively knows this, particularly given how scientists have sort of been wrong in the past (flat earth, global cooling, etc)? Heck, we went through a Little Ice Age between 1500 and 1800, where the Thames froze over for 2 months and ice was 11 inches thick. Methinks nature has more control over the planet than we give it credit for and has its own way of re-balancing things...

I'm a sceptic (did ya guess;)). After all, who really knows what is happening and what the real causes are. Maybe there aren't any and it's all a natural cycle...after all who caused the last Ice Age???? And the subsequent global warming (cos that's what it would have felt like, relatively, if you'd been living in an igloo in the middle of Edinburgh at the time)???

This ETS thing is fundamentally flawed in my opinion and simply another means of extracting $ out of taxpayers pockets into this, and other, government's pockets - thereby becoming the first global tax in history. <Evil laugh: Ah, Ah, Ah>

Dr /thingy/ was on telly the other day saying it was a rort and that it could cost NZ between 20 and 80 BILLION dollars in the next 30 years, depending on how quickly this government sign us up...and guess who's paying? You and me and our kids. Bloody good onya mate for challenging the assumptions that are put in front of us as fact.

Sure, live less wastefully, more responsibly and more socially. That's great, but you & I aren't going to change the world. Fact. There are problems closer to home on that front - just have a look at the of the road next time you're a passenger in a car or on a bus/coach. The plastic bags, bottles, big mac packets parked up in the gutters and grass verges in good ol' 'clean, green' NZ is nowt short of a national disgrace (I'm really into the rant thing now, eh?). That's something we can change.

There aren't enough people who query and challenge these dangerous assumptions - and that's because the social 'climate' isn't right (although I believe the pendulum is swinging back) and it's simply too easy to accept the latest trend. For every doomsayer, there'll be one (only less vocal, cos it ain't fashionable) that says it isn't so.

I'm more than happy to do my bit if someone can objectively and conclusively prove it to me...

I agree with the above and think this preformance is just a bunch of old hippies from the 60s actually realising that "make love and not war" has caused a problem but trying to make excuses. Mother nature goes in cycles and I have read that this global warming has occurred before. Would be kool if we had another ice age and that would help with the over population for sure. Just need one of those eyes on the storm to come over here like out of the movie The Day After and I'll happily wheel myself outside for a gander and some ice. :devil2:

[Hitcher]

Yea, this is an issue that we as a civilization need to address.

Tui moment.

[Toaster]

Simple solution - eliminate everyone who doesn't have a motorcycle licence.

And eliminate all other forms of transportation (except motorcycle carrying boats and planes... so we can get to Sturgis).

Planet saved.:yes:

[Hitcher]

There is a simple solution. It is called eugenics. All it requires for success is dogged determination and political will.

[Mikkel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGoi1MSGu64

[Pwalo]

There is a simple solution. It is called eugenics. All it requires for success is dogged determination and political will.

And preferably not getting caught.

[mstriumph]

be a good start getting rid of all the zuki riders......... then honda........... then yamaha........... Leaving the kwakas to rule the world..


.......................






.............

you are more than welcome to try ...... ;)

and no, i'm not offside - i'm a Celt - we enjoy a good scrap :wari:

[Hitcher]

And preferably not getting caught.

It's preferable to dupe, I mean persuade the majority of voters that it just makes sense.

[rainman]

And the entire world's population could fit in the state of Texas with room to have each family its own house and section...

Texas area = 678051 sq km
World population from the pop clock = 6,667,082,993
Sq Km's per person resulting = 0.000101701 sq km
... = 101.70100 sq meters
... = a box 10 and a bit sq m per side. Cosy.

Hmmmm. You might need some of Oklahoma too. And maybe some space to grow some food. And some primary industries. And places that make and sell the things that you use to build the houses. And workplaces for jobs to pay the mortgages. And recreation spaces. And... a long list besides. What you posted seems to be saying, "don't worry, there's PLENTY of space and not too many people" in a lighthearted and half-ridiculous manner, and allows us to dismiss the overpopulation/resource issues unexamined.

This lecture (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY) is worth a watch - 8 parts on youtube though. I think there's a transcript about, maybe this one here (http://globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/645).

[Edbear]

Texas area = 678051 sq km
World population from the pop clock = 6,667,082,993
Sq Km's per person resulting = 0.000101701 sq km
... = 101.70100 sq meters
... = a box 10 and a bit sq m per side. Cosy.

Hmmmm. You might need some of Oklahoma too. And maybe some space to grow some food. And some primary industries. And places that make and sell the things that you use to build the houses. And workplaces for jobs to pay the mortgages. And recreation spaces. And... a long list besides. What you posted seems to be saying, "don't worry, there's PLENTY of space and not too many people" in a lighthearted and half-ridiculous manner, and allows us to dismiss the overpopulation/resource issues unexamined.

This lecture (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY) is worth a watch - 8 parts on youtube though. I think there's a transcript about, maybe this one here (http://globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/645).

Somewhat lighthearted, granted, but not in any way intending to lightly dismiss the mess the world's in and the need to do something about it.

The world is currently, or was a few years ago from reports, producing enough food to feed 13b people, yet 1/5th of the world is starving and the problem is getting worse.

[rainman]

Somewhat lighthearted, granted, but not in any way intending to lightly dismiss the mess the world's in and the need to do something about it.

My apologies then, I'm obviously in too serious a mood today... :)

[Mikkel]

If everyone who are willing to die for their faith did I'm sure we'd be getting somewhere along the right track.

[Edbear]

My apologies then, I'm obviously in too serious a mood today... :)

Sokay, I got a wierd sense of humour at times...


If everyone who are willing to die for their faith did I'm sure we'd be getting somewhere along the right track.

Yeah, funny thing... everyone wants to go to heaven but no-one wants to die..

[Marmoot]

Just thought of these suddenly, but these headlines might make valid points:

- United Nations anti-war stance to blame on global food crisis
- World Peace primary cause of overpopulation
- Sudanese government commended on population control method
- Government on Food Shortage: we need more genocide!
- Miss Universe sends wrong message to World

[Boob Johnson]

If everyone who are willing to die for their faith did I'm sure we'd be getting somewhere along the right track.
lmfao Mikkel :laugh:


Something tells me you're an Atheist :innocent:



Just thought of these suddenly, but these headlines might make valid points:

- United Nations anti-war stance to blame on global food crisis
- World Peace primary cause of overpopulation
- Sudanese government commended on population control method
- Government on Food Shortage: we need more genocide!
- Miss Universe sends wrong message to World
Yeah that's kinda what I was digging at in the original post. At what point will the critical mass of the worlds population be "comfortable" with the above headlines.

[Bonez]

If there's a male draught who the fuck is getting it then? Ban artificial insemination. Problem solved.:wari:

[Hitcher]

If there's a male draught

Is that caused by men who can't close doors, fart too much or both?

[Bonez]

Is that caused by men who can't close doors, fart too much or both?te dyslexic dicksunary sed tit twas rite.

[Mikkel]

lmfao Mikkel :laugh:


Something tells me you're an Atheist :innocent:

Nah, I prefer not to use any labels - haven't found one that fits yet...

But you are correct about one thing, I don't believe that there is an omniscient entity that have any opinion about what we do with our lives.

[Boob Johnson]

Nah, I prefer not to use any labels - haven't found one that fits yet...

But you are correct about one thing, I don't believe that there is an omniscient entity that have any opinion about what we do with our lives.
You'll find out one day :shifty:

[cowboyz]

I don't believe that there is an omniscient entity that have any opinion about what we do with our lives.

proof you havent met me!!!!!!!!!