Aio ki te Aorangi
Earth Overshoot states that we use 1 years worth of resources every 7 months or 1.7 sustainable planets for life to exist as it does today.Originally Posted by pete376403
Out of 7.6 billion people, 20% reportedly consuming 80% of that which is produced.
Kill the non consuming 80% of the population and you still end up living on an unsustainable planet.
Is population really the problem?
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
Anarchic Wild Child
Might help if they share the increased profits with the workers too - in terms of higher wages ..
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Bogeyman
Oh aye. 'Cause the employees would absolutely bail the company out if they had a bad year.
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
Hardcore Biker
I certainly take your point, mashman, but yes, population is a problem. Not THE problem, but A problem, and a very big one. The notion that if we all became a lot more efficient in our use of the earth's resources, the planet could continue to support increasing numbers of humans is badly misguided, in assuming efficiency is politically, or even HUMANLY realizable. Population control is more nearly possible, as the Chinese used to at least attempt to do. Their solution (among others) will eventually have to be widely adopted.
Aio ki te Aorangi
I agree, it is A problem... however instead of population control, were the 20% come to consume like the 80% we go from living on an unsustinable planet to a sustainable one without any population control. We don't need to be more efficient to achieve that, we merely stop producing that which serves no life purpose that that 80% of the population don't have but have survived without access to. The energy saved will be more than enough to cater for our needs and for us to grow as a population. Then it's merely a case of adding to the education system something that teaches the reasons that we stopped production, and hence the reason for human re-production to be undertaken more thoughtfully (booze and quiet corners may put a damper on things there lol).
Were we address THE problem, so we have a chance to educate population control (as China kind of did) without a Logans Run style death lottery of some form or another, heh. As you say, we'll have to adopt "control" at some point. It'd be useful to educate it into the upcoming generations, but that just isn't profitable. Anyhoo... population control on a planet that's growing in a manner that all but ensures ecocide/genocide, is kind of a moot.
Hardcore Biker
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...general-972776
It will be interesting to see not only what political actions that the Democrats
chose to trigger in the coming months (impeachment?), but more importantly
how the Democrats decide to market themselves for 2020. Does anyone have
a clear picture what the Democrats actually stand for any longer ?
https://eurasiafuture.com/2018/11/07...l-john-waynes/
"channellling the Pleideans"
When did an employed CEO on a contract EVER do that? No, obscene CEO salaries just can't be justified. When the company goes well its down to them (they say) but when the company goes badly its anyone's fault but theirs. Recent example: Fucking Theo Speerings at Font error.
I thought elections were decided by angry posts on social media. - F5 Dave
"channellling the Pleideans"
What do the Republicans "stand for"? Because the fucking mango fucking mussolini stands for fuck all.
a clear picture what the Democrats actually stand for any longer ?
[url
I thought elections were decided by angry posts on social media. - F5 Dave
Just faidin away!
Glimpsing at this article I espied a word for which I had had no previous exposure, so I checked it out then read the article to ascertain correct use etc?
The writer seemed to have got it spot on (in my humble opinion) - here endith the lesson. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/201...tion-is-about/
Anorak
Remember the wall street bail outs
Tax power money to bail out private companies who then gave themselves massage bonus's even though they would have been bankrupt.
The lobby of AIG's headquarters in the American International Building.
The AIG bonus payments controversy began in March 2009, when it was publicly disclosed that the American International Group (AIG) insurance corporation was going to pay approximately $218 million in bonus payments to employees of its financial services division.
AIG is notable for having received taxpayer bailouts and in the fourth quarter of 2008 posted a loss of $61.7 billion, the greatest ever for any corporation. Beyond the $165 million in bonus payments that were announced, total bonuses for the financial unit could reach $450 million and bonuses for the entire company could reach $1.2 billionine of the financial firms that were among the largest recipients of federal bailout money paid about 5,000 of their traders and bankers bonuses of more than $1 million apiece for 2008, according to a report released Thursday by Andrew M. Cuomo, the New York attorney general.
At Goldman Sachs, for example, bonuses of more than $1 million went to 953 traders and bankers, and Morgan Stanley awarded seven-figure bonuses to 428 employees. Even at weaker banks like Citigroup and Bank of America, million-dollar awards were distributed to hundreds of workers.https://www.theguardian.com/business...k-bonuses-tarpCitigroup, one of the biggest recipients of US government bailout money, gave employees $5.3bn in bonuses for 2008, New York's attorney general said today in a report detailing the payouts by nine big banks.
The report from attorney general Andrew Cuomo's office focused on 2008 bonuses paid to the initial nine banks that received loans under the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program (Tarp) last fall. Cuomo has joined other government officials in criticising the banks for paying out big bonuses while accepting US taxpayer money.
A bit closer to home
we also bailed out insurance companies.South Canterbury was by far the biggest, though taxpayers have also footed the bill for Allied Nationwide (about $130m) and Equitable Mortgage ($188m).
Other smaller finance companies to be bailed out were Mascot, Strata, Vision Securities, Rockford, Viaduct Capital and Mutual Finance.
Before that, the last big taxpayer bailouts were Air New Zealand ($885m in January 2002) and a $1b bailout of the BNZ in the early 1990s.
The original deposit guarantee scheme had $133b under guarantee. An extended version of the scheme was put in place in October and will run to the end of this year.
Only three companies have cover: PGG Wrightson Finance, Fisher & Paykel Finance and the Wairarapa Building Society.
nother $250 million of taxpayers' money has been set aside for Southern Response, as the bill heads towards $1.25 billion.
After it was found AMI didn't have enough reinsurance to cover its 2010/11 Canterbury earthquake claims, AMI's non quake-related business was sold to IAG, leaving the taxpayer with Southern Response, which is responsible for settling outstanding quake claims.
At the time of the quakes, AMI was the country's second largest residential insurer and had a 35% share of Christchurch's residential insurance market.
A document released under the Official Information Act reveals that in March 2012, Treasury's "best estimate of the likely cost of the AMI support package over its life" was only $98m. While the Government in April 2011 subscribed to $500m of convertible preference shares in AMI, Treasury thought it would only need to cough up for $98m of these.
Yet the cost to the taxpayer is ballooning, as Southern Response’s estimated gross cost of settling claims before reinsurance (including project management and claim management costs) has increased from $1.86b in June 2011, to $3.03b in March this year.
The government in its latest Budget allocated an additional $250m to go towards helping Southern Response settle its outstanding quake claims.
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Bogeyman
Well actually I did. Which sorta did justify my subsequent comparatively reasonable remuneration, 'cause as I said, the rank and file contributed squat.
And by all means fuck Theo Speerlings at Font error, but let's not do that 'cause he's a CEO, let's do it 'cause he's a grasping, lying prick who contributes fuck all to the bottom line.
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
Anarchic Wild Child
Unhappy and demoralized staff are less productive - and a good way to help the company have a bad year ...
I'm with Richard Branson who said "Train your staff so they can leave, treat them well so they don't want to."
He's made millions implementing that approach ..
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Bogeyman
Turns out remuneration has fuck all to do with whether employees are unhappy or demoralised.
But say it did. Why wouldn't you parse that as "A good way to help the company have a good year is to be happy and productive"?
See, the socialist outlook "the company/govt/taxpayer is responsible for my morale and income" fails. Every time. Demonstrably and repeatedly. And yet from exactly the same starting point, the other one doesn't.
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
The Majestic Metal Wizard
So when are you going to practice what you preach and kill yourself?
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Anorak
So all those climate surveys top performing companies use are in your opinion a waste of time, seems a bit odd they keep doing them then doesnt it.
Have you never figured out unhappy staff are not particularly productive. Just maybe you don't know as much as you think you do.
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks