Cycling vs. Death of Humanity!
jim
'good thing', I was rather stunned to read this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3762634.stm
Some of it says:
Globally...humans are consuming the Earth's resources at a pace that
outstrips its capacity to support life.
...
If everyone on Earth consumed at the level Britons do, it says, we should
need almost three planets to support ourselves.
...
The report says our ecological footprint has increased two and a half times
since 1961. It says the average global footprint is 2.2 hectares (5.4 acres)
per person, while there are only 1.8 hectares (4.4 acres) of land to provide
resources for each of the planet's people.
This makes for pretty grim reading, I think.
As a father of three young girls I find it hard to put things into
proportion when reading an article such as this. What kind of world will my
kids inherit? I know that sounds like cheesy eco-pap, but when reading the
cold hard statistics it does make you wonder.
How does me riding a bike more often counter something like this:
On a return flight from London to New York an aircraft produces about 800
tonnes of CO2. It would take an average family car 200 years at 12,000 miles
per annum to produce the same amount of CO2.
That is incredible. My neighbour was working nr. Heathrow recently, and said
that the jets came in to land every 90 seconds during the day, and about
every 3 mins at night. All day, all night. It is truly breathtaking to
consider the implications of this - then you add up the effect of cars,
industry, farting cows, and you think, well, maybe me riding my bike will
make no difference, but I do like riding for ridings sake, so that's one
thing to be positive about I suppose!
David Hansen
<j...@jim.com> wrote this:-
>It is truly breathtaking to
>consider the implications of this - then you add up the effect of cars,
>industry, farting cows, and you think, well, maybe me riding my bike will
>make no difference,
If everyone says, "it's all too difficult, I can do nothing", then
assuredly nothing will happen.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
DSK
It won't make any significant difference if a few people did something
as it requires many people to take action and getting thge necessary
quantity to take positive action is probably close to impossible.
--
DSK
Nick Kew
"jim" <j...@jim.com> writes:
> Globally...humans are consuming the Earth's resources at a pace that
> outstrips its capacity to support life.
> ...
> If everyone on Earth consumed at the level Britons do, it says, we should
> need almost three planets to support ourselves.
Yep. It's worse than that: we make great efforts to preserve human life,
but in the third world that hasn't been matched by limiting birth rates.
So that "everyone" is growing, and with it the number of planets needed.
As for that "three planets", does it mention whether the entire planet
is assumed to be good, fertile land with a benign climate, like the UK?
> ...
> The report says our ecological footprint has increased two and a half times
> since 1961. It says the average global footprint is 2.2 hectares (5.4 acres)
> per person, while there are only 1.8 hectares (4.4 acres) of land to provide
> resources for each of the planet's people.
[ aside: I just got 4.01 acres in a back-of-envelope calculation ]
Indeed. Far too many people. And politically hard to do anything about
it, because we have to provide for the old. That is to say, unprecedented
numbers of old people, at unprecedented levels of affluence, and intensive
care for those who are reduced to zombies beyond their realistic lifetime.
Can't combine that with a shrinking population.
> This makes for pretty grim reading, I think.
>
> As a father of three young girls
Then you're probably in mid-life yourself. Don't expect the comfortable
retirement your parents and maybe grandparents (probably) have. And
don't expect your girls to live in a late-20th-century-like world where
we try to provide for everyone who happens to be born human.
> I find it hard to put things into
> proportion when reading an article such as this. What kind of world will my
> kids inherit? I know that sounds like cheesy eco-pap, but when reading the
> cold hard statistics it does make you wonder.
> How does me riding a bike more often counter something like this:
It's the best thing you can do at a personal level. Along with things
like not using heating when you can put a pullover on instead.
> On a return flight from London to New York an aircraft produces about 800
> tonnes of CO2. It would take an average family car 200 years at 12,000 miles
> per annum to produce the same amount of CO2.
So use the Internet to communicate, and cut down on travel. If you
get to make decisions on employing people, employ them to work from
or locally to their homes, not to commute. Use the 'phone and the 'net
for your business meetings. Move your body only when you want to go
somewhere for your own pleasure - on the bike.
> That is incredible. My neighbour was working nr. Heathrow recently, and said
> that the jets came in to land every 90 seconds during the day, and about
> every 3 mins at night. All day, all night. It is truly breathtaking to
> consider the implications of this - then you add up the effect of cars,
> industry,
Industry is different. It could be sustainably powered if we had the
political will to use more nuclear power - as for example the french do.
> farting cows,
Red herring. Methane is not being produced at unsustainable levels.
> and you think, well, maybe me riding my bike will
> make no difference, but I do like riding for ridings sake, so that's one
> thing to be positive about I suppose!
Support Dubya's bio-weapons programmes. They look like the most
realistic prospect for reducing the earth's population to a
sustainable level while leaving the survivors relatively intact.
That can happen without telling people; anything else wants
political will that doesn't exist.
--
Nick Kew
Succorso
> As a cyclist who feels that riding a bike more, and using the car less is a
> 'good thing', I was rather stunned to read this:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3762634.stm
>
> Some of it says:
>
> Globally...humans are consuming the Earth's resources at a pace that
> outstrips its capacity to support life.
> ...
> If everyone on Earth consumed at the level Britons do, it says, we should
> need almost three planets to support ourselves.
I wouldn't worry about it, most of the worlds population will be wiped
out in the coming war over the last remains of obtainable oil. Many
would argue the first battle in this war is being fought in Iraq right now.
Or
Nature will have a way of redressing the balance. The future may or may
not involve humans, but I'm pretty relaxed about that really. As I cycle
around the countryside (he says, in a lame attempt to remain OT) and see
just how much crap is dumped in the hedges and laybys - you realise how
much better off the planet would be without the disease of the human
race. Something will sort it - avian flu, dubya or his ilk, sars...
Lucky you catch me in an "up" mood... :)
--
Chris
Martin Wilson
station forecourt many years ago and got a 'tut' sound from someone
behind. I looked around and there was a bearded hippie type with a
huge volvo and about 8 kids in the back obviously annoyed that I was
using leaded petrol in my tiny little mini with its 850cc engine.
What amazes me is there are still people out there that don't realise
its having children which is by far the most damaging thing to the
environment. The world needs to reduce its population probably
somewhere in the region of 30-50% and encouraging people to not have
kids seems to be the better option compared to wars, famine, disease
etc. The almost exclusive reason why traditional forest and jungle is
being lost is new homes/settlements.
Governments however know it will be unpopular to make people's working
lives longer and actively discourage people having kids by removing
benefits etc and therefore they don't do it. The fact that its not
even on the table of discussion most of the time shows how politicians
avoid it. Yet I've seen it discussed about africa as if its only the
african's causing the problem when of course the problem is mainly the
usa and industrialised nations who not only produce large amounts of
people who live long lives but also consume massive amounts of
resources and produce massive pollution.
The reality is that people will always be in denial. They create gods
so they don't have to deal with the reality of non existance and death
and they divert attention away from the actual overpopulation of the
earth everywhere by talking about minor elements of the problem like
fuel consumption.
The problem won't really be faced until we are deep in the shit as
always. The true environmentalists are those with no kids. The most
damaging people to the environment are those with large families and
anyone who says otherwise is basically in denial unless they can
guarantee their children are going to be spending their time killing
off other humans, planting trees and not being typical modern
consumers.
Now where can I hide ;-)
Tony B
Hmm... we could be even better environmentalist of course and top
ourselves, thereby taking a bit of pressure off the earth. Or maybe we
could top people that fly, especially those bastards that fly-drive ;-)
I see the point you are trying to make though, but a life without kids
is no life, IMHO. I have learned so much from my kids; they have been
the lens through which I've seen the world in a new (positive!) light.
The fact that they may turn out to be litle bastards (or big bastards if
you're name is Bush Snr, Grandpa Blair etc.) is really a cop out. There
is also the potential that they'll be the next Ghandi as well. Large
families are a problem, as is the institutionalised resistance to birth
control espouced by various religions. But
of course, we need to make plenty of soldiers for the coming conflicts...
bfn,
Tony B
Martin Wilson
>I see the point you are trying to make though, but a life without kids
>is no life, IMHO. I have learned so much from my kids; they have been
>the lens through which I've seen the world in a new (positive!) light.
>The fact that they may turn out to be litle bastards (or big bastards if
>you're name is Bush Snr, Grandpa Blair etc.) is really a cop out. There
>is also the potential that they'll be the next Ghandi as well. Large
>families are a problem, as is the institutionalised resistance to birth
>control espouced by various religions. But
>of course, we need to make plenty of soldiers for the coming conflicts...
>
>bfn,
>
>Tony B
It doesn't really matter if they are good or bad they will be part of
the problem in that the environment has too many people to support.
Your point about a life without kids is no life is the important one.
You see having kids as crucial/highly important to your existance.
Thats the problem the world faces the need for people to have kids for
their own emotionally needs etc. We need to get people to have no kids
or one kid max for starters and even that may not be enough
considering lifespans may soon exceed five generations. A country like
Britain ought to work out its ideal population which is probably
something like 35 million and work towards that with benefits and
taxes that discourage child birth. Of course the reality is that those
who don't have kids won't have to worry about the reality of the world
their kids will inherit and those that do have kids will be the cause
of the problem anyway.
I'd also like to point out I am not anti-kids and the world would seem
pretty horrible without lots of children.
Arthur Clune
: but a life without kids is no life, IMHO
s/without/with/
IMHO.
--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
"Blogs are neither necessary nor sufficient for evil to triumph.
They're just what we call an enabling technology" - Danny O'Brien
Tony Raven
>
> As a father of three young girls I find it hard to put things into
> proportion when reading an article such as this. What kind of world will my
> kids inherit? I know that sounds like cheesy eco-pap, but when reading the
> cold hard statistics it does make you wonder.
>
When I was a kid I wondered whether there would be a viable world for me
to grow up into. Looking back I needn't have worried. These scare
stories have been around at least as long as I have.
> How does me riding a bike more often counter something like this:
>
It doesn't in practice because for every one of you there are a thousand
Chinese aspiring to move from a bike to a car.
> On a return flight from London to New York an aircraft produces about 800
> tonnes of CO2. It would take an average family car 200 years at 12,000 miles
> per annum to produce the same amount of CO2.
Yes but an average family car does not carry 300+ people. its more like
1.2 so factor that in and they are worse but not that much worse. And
as has been discussed here before, trains and buses are not that much
better than the family car.
>
> That is incredible. My neighbour was working nr. Heathrow recently, and said
> that the jets came in to land every 90 seconds during the day, and about
> every 3 mins at night. All day, all night. It is truly breathtaking to
> consider the implications of this - then you add up the effect of cars,
> industry, farting cows, and you think, well, maybe me riding my bike will
> make no difference, but I do like riding for ridings sake, so that's one
> thing to be positive about I suppose!
>
I ride it because I enjoy cycling. Pure and simple. There are other
ways I can do my bit to improve the planet. Incidentally if you work
out the extra CO2 you produce from the effort of cycling its not an
order of magnitude different from that produced by a modern car for the
same journey.
Tony
Arthur Clune
: On a return flight from London to New York an aircraft produces about 800
: tonnes of CO2. It would take an average family car 200 years at 12,000 miles
: per annum to produce the same amount of CO2.
Yeah, but.
If it's full, then per passenger mile, it's about the same as car.
So my own justification is that my not having a car means
my one long haul flight every year or two is doing no more damage
than a car with average milage.
Pointing out the logical flaws in this is left as an exercise for
the reader.
Arthur
Just zis Guy, you know?
<mart...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
<8s3pn0hlna29hpj14...@4ax.com>:
>Governments however know it will be unpopular to make people's working
>lives longer and actively discourage people having kids by removing
>benefits etc and therefore they don't do it.
Speaking as a serial parent...
Acksherly the UK birthrate is below one per head, as it were, so the
BRITONS would, left to our own devices, die out :-) Don't tell the
Daily Mail, though, as it might undermine their ongoing campaign to
stem the tide of nasty furriners coming in and taking our jobs.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
Tony Raven
>
> So my own justification is that my not having a car means
> my one long haul flight every year or two is doing no more damage
> than a car with average milage.
>
Yes but what about all that extra CO2 you produce by cycling round in
big loops on your bike "for the fun of it"? ;-)
Tony
Arthur Clune
: Acksherly the UK birthrate is below one per head, as it were, so the
: BRITONS would, left to our own devices, die out :-)
And this is bad why?
Arthur (Irish :)
MSeries
I like it Arthur
KakenBetaal
(j/k!!)
--
KakenBetaal
Jeremy Collins
> Acksherly the UK birthrate is below one per head, as it were, so the
> BRITONS would, left to our own devices, die out :-)
That's the first time I've heard this. You're saying that if you
take a random sample of 100 people, then they will have less than
100 kids in their lifetime, right?
I'm in my 30's, with no immediate plans to have children, but I
always feel like I'm in a small minority.
I thought I was up on current affairs, but I had no idea that the
population was in decline. What caused the shift? More single-child
families?
--
jc
Remove the -not from email
James Annan
> Then you're probably in mid-life yourself. Don't expect the comfortable
> retirement your parents and maybe grandparents (probably) have.
I wonder if people really _want_ several decades of thumb-twiddling and
gardening. I certainly don't. Obviously I'm in the odd situation of
having a job that I enjoy. A bit more spare time would be welcome, but
not 24/7/365 for the rest of my life.
James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
Tony Raven
>
> I thought I was up on current affairs, but I had no idea that the
> population was in decline. What caused the shift? More single-child
> families?
>
The population is not in decline because increasing life expectancy is
(temporarily) offsetting the falling birth rate as is immigration.
The estimated 2004 birth rate is 10.88 births per 1000 population while
death rates are 10.19 and immigration rates are 2.19
Birth rates are 1.66 per female which, given that the female to male
ratio is virtually 1:1 means 0.83 births per person. The shift is the
trend to having fewer children and having them later in life thanks to
the wonders of modern contraception allowing people to plan how many
they want and when..
The problem is worst in Scotland who will therefore be the first to go ;-)
Tony
Simon Mason
"jim" <j...@jim.com> wrote in message
news:417c19a7$0$80685$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
> As a cyclist who feels that riding a bike more, and using the car less is
> a
> 'good thing', I was rather stunned to read this:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3762634.stm
>
> Some of it says:
>
> Globally...humans are consuming the Earth's resources at a pace that
> outstrips its capacity to support life.
> ...
> If everyone on Earth consumed at the level Britons do, it says, we should
> need almost three planets to support ourselves.
>
Doesn't really matter. In 5 billion years ( a blink of any eye in
cosmological terms) the Earth will be inside the Sun anyway.
--
Simon M.
David Martin
Annan" <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Nick Kew wrote:
>
>
>> Then you're probably in mid-life yourself. Don't expect the comfortable
>> retirement your parents and maybe grandparents (probably) have.
>
> I wonder if people really _want_ several decades of thumb-twiddling and
> gardening. I certainly don't. Obviously I'm in the odd situation of
> having a job that I enjoy. A bit more spare time would be welcome, but
> not 24/7/365 for the rest of my life.
Absolutely. I think the shift will be towards downgearing rather than
retirement.
In the professions, experience costs money. however, Experience is not
always needed so could be made more cost-effective by a reduced working
week. There is nothing that insists we have to work 40 hours a week
(notional) or not at all.
I'd love to have more free time but I also enjoy what I do (and it also pays
the bills). A balance between the two that can be adjusted as careers
develop would be great.
..d
Tony Raven
>
> I wonder if people really _want_ several decades of thumb-twiddling and
> gardening. I certainly don't. Obviously I'm in the odd situation of
> having a job that I enjoy. A bit more spare time would be welcome, but
> not 24/7/365 for the rest of my life.
>
You are still young but you'll get there. I had a conversation with my
father shortly before he died and he had lots of things he still wanted
to do and regretted that at his age he would not have time to do them
all. As I get older I start to think more about trying to make the most
of the time left as there won't be enough of it.
Tony
Brian G
Not so. The first meenister of the Scottish Parliament has solved the
glitch by declaring that all future Scots will be born in Latvia. ;-)
--
Brian G
James Annan
>
> In the professions, experience costs money. however, Experience is not
> always needed so could be made more cost-effective by a reduced working
> week. There is nothing that insists we have to work 40 hours a week
> (notional) or not at all.
I reckon that in my line of work, salary increases at a lower rate than
productivity. But in any case, a gradual winding-down seems much more
logical than an abrupt cut off - especially at age 60 which my UK
imployer currently imposes (likely to change, but at the moment early
retirement is a favoured method of "cutting costs" cos someone else
picks up the pension tab).
> I'd love to have more free time but I also enjoy what I do (and it
also pays
> the bills). A balance between the two that can be adjusted as careers
> develop would be great.
Of course for the relatively young, there is also the risk of falling
off the career ladder (cf women taking time off for children). Me, I
never got on it...
James Annan
> The shift is the
> trend to having fewer children and having them later in life thanks to
> the wonders of modern contraception allowing people to plan how many
> they want and when..
...and then finding out that they left it too late and are now infertile :-)
David Martin
<still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I'd love to have more free time but I also enjoy what I do (and it
> also pays
>> the bills). A balance between the two that can be adjusted as careers
>> develop would be great.
>
> Of course for the relatively young, there is also the risk of falling
> off the career ladder (cf women taking time off for children). Me, I
> never got on it...
Who said anything about a ladder? Career implies hurtling downhill out of
control.
..d
JohnB
> I'm in my 30's, with no immediate plans to have children, but I
> always feel like I'm in a small minority.
That's dreadful for you to have to endure.
Send me your address and I'll post you some of mine ;-)
John B
Simon Brooke
('j...@jim.com') wrote:
> As a cyclist who feels that riding a bike more, and using the car less
> is a 'good thing', I was rather stunned to read this:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3762634.stm
>
> This makes for pretty grim reading, I think.
>
> As a father of three young girls I find it hard to put things into
> proportion when reading an article such as this. What kind of world
> will my kids inherit? I know that sounds like cheesy eco-pap, but when
> reading the cold hard statistics it does make you wonder.
We are the richest generation that has ever lived and very probably the
richest generation that will ever live. The faster we consume, the
sooner and harder the crash will come. Exactly when it will come, who
knows; that it will be, in historical terms, soon, is inevitable. In
our lifetime? Possibly, but possibly not. In you children's lifetime?
Pretty likely.
This is one of the big reasons I am opposed to further nuclear power.
When the economy collapses (and it's not if, it _is_ when, just as it
did at the end of the Roman Empire), there aren't going to be the
resources to safely maintain, decommission or guard nuclear power
stations. A population that is scrabbling to grow enough barley and
root vegetables to feed itself doesn't have any resources left for that
sort of thing.
> How does me riding a bike more often counter something like this:
It's a good question, and one which worries me from time to time. If you
ride a thirty year old bike with an all-steel, long lasting
transmission line, you're probably riding pretty lightly on the planet.
But most of us who read this group don't. A car, allegedly, consumes
half its total lifetime energy consumption in manufacture (which is yet
another reason why it makes sense to keep your car well maintained and
keep it going as long as possible). With our bicycles, many of us
(certainly I) buy new ones pretty regularly, and scrap worn
transmission parts pretty early (and use parts made of light, soft
metals that wear faster, too).
> On a return flight from London to New York an aircraft produces about
> 800 tonnes of CO2. It would take an average family car 200 years at
> 12,000 miles per annum to produce the same amount of CO2.
So don't fly. And (equally importantly) don't buy fresh peas from Kenya
and fresh asparagus from Chile or Thailand.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
-- mens vacua in medio vacuo --
Simon Brooke
('tonySPAMT...@involutedesign.fsnet.co.uk') wrote:
> > The true environmentalists are those with no kids.
>
> Hmm... we could be even better environmentalist of course and top
> ourselves, thereby taking a bit of pressure off the earth. Or maybe we
> could top people that fly, especially those bastards that fly-drive
> ;-)
>
> I see the point you are trying to make though, but a life without kids
> is no life, IMHO.
Speaking as someone who has never had kids and never wanted them, I
disagree totally. Yes, I agree children are wonderful, and (from a
selfish point of view) it would be a sad world if there were none. But,
beyond the fact that the poster upthread who said that we urgently need
to reduce the population was right, this is a _terrible_ society to
bring children into. I don't know about you but my experience of
childhood was such that I could not on my conscience put another human
being through it; and that's before you face up to the fact that while
we have lived in a world of gradually improving wealth and opportunity,
our kids are inevitably going to live in a world of gradually (or, if
we're greedy enough and unlucky enough, very rapidly) declining wealth
and opportunity.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; all in all you're just another click in the call
;; -- Minke Bouyed
Simon Brooke
('DSK.1...@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com') wrote:
>
> It won't make any significant difference if a few people did something
> as it requires many people to take action and getting thge necessary
> quantity to take positive action is probably close to impossible.
To quote Chairman Mao's Little Red Book:
The longest journey starts with a single step
Yes, individual action in the face of a crisis like this is,
individually, pretty pointless. But if one person in ten takes serious
individual action, it might make a bit of a difference. If one person
in two does, it will make some difference. If nine people in ten do, we
can substantially delay and soften the eventual economic crash.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
<p>Schroedinger's cat is <blink><strong>NOT</strong></blink> dead.</p>
Clive George
news:8v7v42-...@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
> in message <DSK.1...@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com>, DSK
> ('DSK.1...@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com') wrote:
>
> >
> > It won't make any significant difference if a few people did something
> > as it requires many people to take action and getting thge necessary
> > quantity to take positive action is probably close to impossible.
>
> To quote Chairman Mao's Little Red Book:
>
> The longest journey starts with a single step
>
> Yes, individual action in the face of a crisis like this is,
> individually, pretty pointless. But if one person in ten takes serious
> individual action, it might make a bit of a difference. If one person
> in two does, it will make some difference. If nine people in ten do, we
> can substantially delay and soften the eventual economic crash.
Agreed. I think of it like this:
If I choose an action, then all those who think like me will probably choose
the same. So my choice is in fact much more effective than it would appear.
(Ok, there are major problems with this line of thought, but it does for me
as an excuse to at least try!).
cheers,
clive
Elisa Francesca Roselli
Martin Wilson wrote:
> It doesn't really matter if they are good or bad they will be part of
> the problem in that the environment has too many people to support.
> Your point about a life without kids is no life is the important one.
> You see having kids as crucial/highly important to your existance.
> Thats the problem the world faces the need for people to have kids for
> their own emotionally needs etc. We need to get people to have no kids
> or one kid max for starters and even that may not be enough
> considering lifespans may soon exceed five generations.
On a positive note though, you're not taking into account that people actually
want fewer and fewer kids. As soon as they have a _real_ choice, especially as
soon as _women_ have a real choice, they choose children more and more rarely.
In fact, there is a strong inverse ratio between life-opportunities for women
in terms of literacy, health care, access to higher education, access to
professions, equality of representation in positions of power, and the birth
rate. Even those who really do want children see that it is far more loving
and responsible to raise one child really well than to keep churning them out
into the gutter. Enlightened people will choose quality rather than quantity
for human life.
Moreover, just consider the apparatus of oppression needed to keep women
having children even just at replacement rate. Denial of birth control, denial
of body-ownership, invalidation by religious ideologies that classify us as
impure and damned in any other function but the relentlessly maternal,
sentimentalization and sacralization of mothers.
Even here in the developed West, I had to agitate for TEN years before I could
get a doctor to sterilize me - and you have no idea the kind of incrimmination
and guilt trips and invalidation and insult that I had to put up with just to
be able to express that simple choice. You should pay a visit to
alt.support.childfree, where all the participants are telling similar stories.
I have been an active member of the Childfree Movement since the 80's, and I
am amazed at how far it has come along in just that short time. Back when it
started, it was estimated that only 5% of women would not have children. Now
an estimated 1 in 3 women in Western societies will never produce a child, and
reactionary political camps are starting to panic that we are getting too
uppity and trying to reinstate force mechanisms to make us have kids we don't
want.
I agree with you that there is not that much hope, between Dubbya and the oil
cartels and religions and poverty and ignorance and all the rest. But
mentalities _can_ change very fast, and the rise of the Childfree movement is
an example, as is the rise of the cycling lobbies.
EFR
Ile de France
Simon Brooke
('mart...@ukonline.co.uk') wrote:
> A country like
> Britain ought to work out its ideal population which is probably
> something like 35 million and work towards that with benefits and
> taxes that discourage child birth.
That's an *enormous* overestimate. We _could_ feed 35 million, but we
don't have anywhere near the resources to provide 35 million with a
decent standard of living, and a bad summer would mean famine.
The last time Britain was self sufficient in food was in the seventeenth
century, with a population under 10 million. There were occasional but
not frequent food shortages. Many of the 'agricultural improvements'
since then depend on unsustainable energy inputs, but not all do, so
agricultural efficiency will have improved a little. But at the same
time we have concreted over much of our best and most productive
farmland. Some of this could be brought back into use, of course, but
the effort/cost of cleaning it up would be enormous.
Possibly we could now reliably produce food for 15 million while having
enough productive land left over to produce timber for fuel and
construction, and other crops for chemical feedstocks to make the
plastics and composite materials we have come to depend on. But I think
that would be about the limit. A little bit of global warming might
improve this slightly, but if (as serious oceanographers now predict)
the oceanic conveyer stops and the climate in Britain gets sharply
colder, then even two million might be an optimistic guess.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
The trouble with Simon is that he only opens his mouth to change feet.
;; of me, by a 'friend'
Henry Braun
> ('mart...@ukonline.co.uk') wrote:
> > A country like
> > Britain ought to work out its ideal population which is probably
> > something like 35 million and work towards that with benefits and
> > taxes that discourage child birth.
> That's an *enormous* overestimate. We _could_ feed 35 million, but we
> don't have anywhere near the resources to provide 35 million with a
> decent standard of living, and a bad summer would mean famine.
The last time I recall anyone on u.r.c. warming to this theme it was the
infamous P>>l Sm>th, who conjectured that if the population of Scotland
fell by 90%, he could afford ten times as many cars and would have ten
times the road space to speed on with them. Is that sufficient indication
that this line of thinking is utterly wrongheaded?
Jeremy Collins
Er, thanks, but you'd be better off selling them on eBay ;-)
David Martin
Roselli" <NOS...@free.fr> wrote:
<pigeon><cat><pigeon>
Of course it is everyones right t choose whether or not they will attempt to
have children. However, that choice must be backed up with the appropriate
safeguards in other areas, ie. pensions. Whilst we continue to run on
pensions == benefits, the children of today are those who will pay for the
things you will use in retirement. So you stand to benefit from other people
bringing children into the world.
If you are confident that you have made arrangements for your retirement
that do not require younger people to pay for it, then fine. Otherwise there
is a necessity for the replacement of the workforce.
Add to that the increased competition for every job that society can make
available, due in part to increased automation and in part to the release of
women from domestic chores to participate in the employed workforce, and one
can see a demographic timebomb looming.
..d
James Annan
> You are still young but you'll get there. I had a conversation with my
> father shortly before he died and he had lots of things he still wanted
> to do and regretted that at his age he would not have time to do them
> all. As I get older I start to think more about trying to make the most
> of the time left as there won't be enough of it.
I'd still swap a day a week now for say a 2-3 day week from 60 to 70,
and I doubt very much that I am alone. Actually for various reasons I've
been having a few 4(ish) day weeks recently, and very pleasant they are too.
Nick Kew
Henry Braun <br...@maths.ox.ac.uk> writes:
> The last time I recall anyone on u.r.c. warming to this theme it was the
> infamous P>>l Sm>th,
Logical fallacy. Support from an unwanted source doesn't make something
wrong.
Think of something you believe strongly in - and practice. Think of who
else shares or shared that belief. You can probably come up with someone
far worse than P.S. Should that stop you living that way? I'm not about
to start eating meat just because Hitler was vegetarian.
> Is that sufficient indication
> that this line of thinking is utterly wrongheaded?
I'm deeply shocked at such a line of unreason coming from within a
semi-respectable maths department.
--
Nick Kew
Arthur Clune
: Logical fallacy. Support from an unwanted source doesn't make something
: wrong.
True enough. Henry Kissenger was against the invasion of Iraq, but that doesn't
make it wrong to oppose the war.
Arthur
Simon Brooke
<Pine.OSF.4.58.041...@cream-puff.maths.ox.ac.uk>, Henry
My father in his lifetime was a senior civil servant in, successively,
the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and later the
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. From time to time
ministers required him to come up with plans for how Britain would feed
itself in the event of a 1940s style naval blockade. Answer: not
possible. Not enough land, even assuming all possible land planted with
either barley or root crops (wheat doesn't grow sufficiently reliably
in the United Kingdom to bet the population on, and produces fewer
calories per acre on average than barley).
Even through the height of the Battle of the Atlantic, a very
substantial proportion of the food eaten in Britain was imported.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they
;; do it from religious conviction." -- Pascal
Simon Brooke
('d.m.a....@dundee.ac.uk') wrote:
> <pigeon><cat><pigeon>
>
> Of course it is everyones right t choose whether or not they will
> attempt to have children. However, that choice must be backed up with
> the appropriate safeguards in other areas, ie. pensions. Whilst we
> continue to run on pensions == benefits, the children of today are
> those who will pay for the things you will use in retirement. So you
> stand to benefit from other people bringing children into the world.
I've never assumed the system would provide me with a pension. That's
always seemed to me to put unrealistic faith in an unreliable economic
system run largely by dishonest people. The evidence thus far seems to
prove me right. I've always expected to keep earning my crust until the
day I die, and I still do.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.
Henry Braun
> Henry Braun <br...@maths.ox.ac.uk> writes:
> > The last time I recall anyone on u.r.c. warming to this theme it was
> > of thinking is utterly wrongheaded?
>
> wrong.
>
> semi-respectable maths department.
Oh dear, Nick, your capacity to detect fallacy has over-ridden your
ability to detect frivolity. Happily I can point to the words "sufficient
indication" to show that I was not engaged in deductive argument but
inviting the inductive leap from the available evidence---suggesting that
everything PS ever says is to be treated as wrong. Thus, thus do I uphold
the honour and rigour of my institute, in which I have belonged to the
Mathematical Logic group, no less.
If you care to google for "trolls get up and dance" in this newsgroup
you'll find quite a good little rant on the subject that I wrote in
January.
> just because Hitler was vegetarian.
Ooh look, a Godwin!
Tony Raven
>
> ...and then finding out that they left it too late and are now infertile
> :-)
>
...because they spent to many of the intervening years on a bicycle
saddle ;-)
Tony
Tony Raven
>
> This is one of the big reasons I am opposed to further nuclear power.
> When the economy collapses (and it's not if, it _is_ when, just as it
> did at the end of the Roman Empire), there aren't going to be the
> resources to safely maintain, decommission or guard nuclear power
> stations. A population that is scrabbling to grow enough barley and
> root vegetables to feed itself doesn't have any resources left for that
> sort of thing.
In that case it won't have the resources then to exploit any resources
left so we might as well use them up while we can or they'll just go to
waste ;-)
> A car, allegedly, consumes
> half its total lifetime energy consumption in manufacture (which is yet
> another reason why it makes sense to keep your car well maintained and
> keep it going as long as possible).
That fallacy has been discussed here before. Far better for the planet
to buy a modern fuel efficient car than run an old inefficient and
polluting one.
>
> So don't fly. And (equally importantly) don't buy fresh peas from Kenya
> and fresh asparagus from Chile or Thailand.
>
Or fresh bicycles shipped in from Taiwan or their running gear shipped
in from Japan ;-)
Tony
Tony Raven
>
> Speaking as someone who has never had kids and never wanted them, I
> disagree totally. Yes, I agree children are wonderful, and (from a
> selfish point of view) it would be a sad world if there were none. But,
> beyond the fact that the poster upthread who said that we urgently need
> to reduce the population was right, this is a _terrible_ society to
> bring children into. I don't know about you but my experience of
> childhood was such that I could not on my conscience put another human
> being through it; and that's before you face up to the fact that while
> we have lived in a world of gradually improving wealth and opportunity,
> our kids are inevitably going to live in a world of gradually (or, if
> we're greedy enough and unlucky enough, very rapidly) declining wealth
> and opportunity.
>
I have kids and they have a great life despite what the Daily Depress
would have its readers believe about the world out there. I would not
deny them that opportunity for a life whatever the future may or may not
bring.
If my parents had taken your view with the then inevitability of nuclear
holocaust, the retreat into the next ice age and the imminent end of the
oil age I would probably not be here now to type this.
Did I hear cries of "Shame they didn't" ;-)
Tony
Tony Raven
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> You are still young but you'll get there. I had a conversation with
>> my father shortly before he died and he had lots of things he still
>> wanted to do and regretted that at his age he would not have time to
>> do them all. As I get older I start to think more about trying to
>> make the most of the time left as there won't be enough of it.
>
>
> I'd still swap a day a week now for say a 2-3 day week from 60 to 70,
> and I doubt very much that I am alone. Actually for various reasons I've
> been having a few 4(ish) day weeks recently, and very pleasant they are
> too.
>
> James
I've always thought careers should be inverted. You finish your
education, then you have your retirement and then you start work on a
high salary that tapers off to a starting salary while working till you
drop. At present its all back to front in that you have the most
opportunities and costs when you can least afford them and most money
when you least need it.
Tony
Tony B
> being through it;
How depressing. I had kids late in life, I had a very lovely life before
and have a very lovely life now. My kids are great, they teach me so
much about life, the planet, optimism, enthusiasm - all sorts. I only
started to give a toss about things after having (planned!) kids, for me
it's worked out great. We have two, and I have now had the old plumbing
removed so that will be that from me.
If we as a people feel that the world is truly so bad we shouldn;t bring
in any more kids, it's time to say sod it and turn off the lights,
surely...
Anyway it's a moot point because Euro populations are falling, it's the
developing world that's expanding gut luckily (!) Dubbya has a plan to
sort that out...
A deep subject, no right or wrong for sure but each with his/her own take.
Tony B
Call me Bob
wrote:
>I've never assumed the system would provide me with a pension. That's
>always seemed to me to put unrealistic faith in an unreliable economic
>system run largely by dishonest people. The evidence thus far seems to
>prove me right. I've always expected to keep earning my crust until the
>day I die, and I still do.
The situation currently seems to be even worse... it looks unsafe
nowadays to assume your /pension/ will provide you with a pension.
--
"Bob"
'The people have spoken, the bastards'
Email address is spam trapped.
To reply directly remove the beverage.
Tumbleweed
"David Martin" <d.m.a....@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:BDA2ADB7.2457F%d.m.a....@dundee.ac.uk...
http://www.nightimeuk.com/humour/quotes/comedians/tommy_cooper/
(3rd one down)
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
Monkey Hanger
news:2u3tn9F...@uni-berlin.de:
<snip>
> Incidentally if you work out the extra CO2 you produce from the effort
> of cycling its not an order of magnitude different from that produced by
> a modern car for the same journey.
Do you have any sources for this?
--
Chris
Monkey Hanger
news:G1adnfLaqIr...@karoo.co.uk:
>
> Doesn't really matter. In 5 billion years ( a blink of any eye in
> cosmological terms) the Earth will be inside the Sun anyway.
What a cheery thread.
:-)
--
Chris
Tony Raven
No but out of curiosity once I did a Google on CO2 output of cyclists
and compared it with published figures for cars. It was about 1/5th per
mile IIRC
Tony
Clive George
news:2u54i9F...@uni-berlin.de...
Does that for cars include the occupants?
cheers,
clive
David Martin
Unless the cyclist eats oil or coal, this CO2 was from mobile carbon sources
so shouldn't affect the overall balance. Releasing 'fixed' carbon as CO2 is
a far worse proposition. (ie. in the short term, what is the overall CO2
deficit for a cyclist, taking into accont the CO2 absorbed by growing the
food they eat)
..d
--
This is my signature
David Hansen
<ju...@raven-family.com> wrote this:-
>out of curiosity once I did a Google on CO2 output of cyclists
>and compared it with published figures for cars.
The CO2 output of a cyclist will be much the same as that of a
motorist, probably a little more.
The CO2 output of a cycle itself is zero, unlike a car.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Tumbleweed
"Monkey Hanger" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns958DD23A753...@130.133.1.4...
If its any consolation, the sun will heat up enough in a mere 10% of that
time that the oceans will evaporate killing just about all life anyway, so
by the time we hit 5 billion years from now it wont matter :-)
BTW,latest theory, AIUI, is that the sun will lose enough matter towards the
end of that 5 billion year period that the earth and possibly even venus
will move outwards due to reduced gravitational pull. Hence, the fried and
sterile planet earth wont be swallowed up after all...a happy ending!
Tumbleweed
"David Hansen" <SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e1rqn01s30oc1767l...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:04:24 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
> <ju...@raven-family.com> wrote this:-
>
>>out of curiosity once I did a Google on CO2 output of cyclists
>>and compared it with published figures for cars.
>
> The CO2 output of a cyclist will be much the same as that of a
> motorist, probably a little more.
>
How come I dont feel as knackered when arriving at the top of a steep hill
via my car as via my bike then?
James Annan
>
> No but out of curiosity once I did a Google on CO2 output of cyclists
> and compared it with published figures for cars. It was about 1/5th per
> mile IIRC
What matters is not the food but the fossil fuel cost of the food.
James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
Tumbleweed
"David Martin" <martin...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2u54peF...@uni-berlin.de...
But as we were told earlier on, a lot of that food was produced using energy
from fossil sources, as there isnt apparently) enough non-fossil energy to
produce the food for the current population. Not to mention the fossil fuel
used in its transportation, packaging, advertising etc.
Steph Peters
(http://www.plus.net) wrote:
>Think of something you believe strongly in - and practice. Think of who
>else shares or shared that belief. You can probably come up with someone
>far worse than P.S. Should that stop you living that way? I'm not about
>to start eating meat just because Hitler was vegetarian.
not stop him eating meat.
--
No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary.
William of Occam
Steph Peters delete invalid from in...@sandbenders.demon.co.uk.invalid
Tatting, lace & stitching page <http://www.sandbenders.demon.co.uk/index.htm>
Nick Kew
Tony Raven <ju...@raven-family.com> writes:
> When I was a kid I wondered whether there would be a viable world for me
> to grow up into. Looking back I needn't have worried. These scare
> stories have been around at least as long as I have.
The big difference in our times is what is really happening
around us. Now, not at some unspecified time in the future.
When in the past did fish stocks collapse completely in major areas
of the oceans?
When in the past did the earth's forests disappear at a rate that
points to complete extinction within a human lifetime?
When in the past did a whole country with nine-figure population
become well-nigh uninhabitable due to failure of the water supply?
Above all, when were surplus people (i.e. too many for the local
ecosystem to support) kept alive and breeding in huge numbers,
so that the world's population is growing massively out of control?
Yes, that's not happening any more in Europe, because when it happened
here we solved it by expanding into the rest of the world.
Every time an ecosystem collapses, it puts more pressure on what's
left. Something of England's green and pleasant land may survive,
but not as we know it, and certainly not with 60 million people on it.
> It doesn't in practice because for every one of you there are a thousand
> Chinese aspiring to move from a bike to a car.
Exactly.
--
Nick Kew
Nick Kew
Call me Bob <usenet...@toomanypenguins.co.uk> writes:
>
> The situation currently seems to be even worse... it looks unsafe
> nowadays to assume your /pension/ will provide you with a pension.
Nothing new there. It was obvious 20 years ago that the pension
regime we were being strongly encouraged to join could not survive
long enough for those of us then in the early part of our working
life to benefit from it.
At least that particular bubble has been deflated now rather than
growing another decade for a huge catastrophe.
--
Nick Kew
David Martin
>
> "David Martin" <martin...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2u54peF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
>> Unless the cyclist eats oil or coal, this CO2 was from mobile carbon
>> sources
>> so shouldn't affect the overall balance. Releasing 'fixed' carbon as CO2
>> is
>> a far worse proposition. (ie. in the short term, what is the overall CO2
>> deficit for a cyclist, taking into accont the CO2 absorbed by growing the
>> food they eat)
>
> But as we were told earlier on, a lot of that food was produced using
> energy from fossil sources, as there isnt apparently) enough non-fossil
> energy to produce the food for the current population. Not to mention the
> fossil fuel used in its transportation, packaging, advertising etc.
>
Like my home grown organic veggies? I take a moderately strong stance to try
to reduce the number of food miles I consume. The best ones are when I can
cycle or walk to *all* the producers and still enjoy a good meal (in
season).
If people will insist on eating out of season vegetables that have been
flown half way round the world and are tasteless tatt then one would expect
the CO2 use to go up; eating locally has a minimal net input on CO2.
(and don't motorists eat as well..)
Mark Thompson
> left. Something of England's green and pleasant land may survive,
> but not as we know it
Erm, England's eco-system has already collapsed. We destroyed it over the
last few thousand years when we converted the country from its natural
state to predominantly farmland. Anything else we do to it is just
stabbing the ashes.
AndyMorris
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:05:02 GMT, Simon Brooke <si...@jasmine.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> I've never assumed the system would provide me with a pension. That's
>> always seemed to me to put unrealistic faith in an unreliable
>> economic system run largely by dishonest people. The evidence thus
>> far seems to prove me right. I've always expected to keep earning my
>> crust until the day I die, and I still do.
>
> The situation currently seems to be even worse... it looks unsafe
> nowadays to assume your /pension/ will provide you with a pension.
It always seemed to me that its only a matter of bookkeeping if you got your
pensions from the state or the Pru. You still use resources that have to be
made by working people.
--
Andy Morris
AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK
Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
Nick Kew
"Simon Mason" <si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> writes:
>
> Doesn't really matter. In 5 billion years ( a blink of any eye in
> cosmological terms) the Earth will be inside the Sun anyway.
That's more than ample time for a SciFi scenario of colonising
- and terraforming - many other planets to become reality.
But we don't have that time before we've terraformed Earth into an
atmosphere that won't support warm-blooded life forms such as humans.
--
Nick Kew
Sam
> In article <417c19a7$0$80685$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>,
>
> Don't expect the comfortable
> retirement your parents and maybe grandparents (probably) have.
Personally I'm not even expecting to make it past the next US
electoral cycle, depending on who gets in.
Nick Kew
Mark Thompson <pleasegive...@warmmail.com> writes:
>> Every time an ecosystem collapses, it puts more pressure on what's
>> left. Something of England's green and pleasant land may survive,
>> but not as we know it
>
> Erm, England's eco-system has already collapsed. We destroyed it over the
> last few thousand years when we converted the country from its natural
> state to predominantly farmland.
Yes. We got away with it for three reasons. One is that we're so tiny
in world terms that we can get away with it if the rest of the world is
more-or-less intact. Another is that we have an extremely forgiving
climate, that kept our land green and fertile despite abuse. The third
is that the transition is ongoing: even just quarter of a century back
things were very different - our towns and cities were heavily polluted,
but agriculture was not putting most of our land under chemicals or
overgrazing to the same extent.
--
Nick Kew
Colin Blackburn
<ur...@sandbenders.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> ni...@hugin.webthing.com (Nick Kew) of Customer of PlusNet plc
> (http://www.plus.net) wrote:
>> Think of something you believe strongly in - and practice. Think of who
>> else shares or shared that belief. You can probably come up with
>> someone
>> far worse than P.S. Should that stop you living that way? I'm not
>> about
>> to start eating meat just because Hitler was vegetarian.
> If you google that, you'll soon find out that his claim to be vegetarian
> did
> not stop him eating meat.
Indeed. He was the Carol Vorderman of his day, though to Carol's credit
she has yet to invade any East European countries, in that his dietary
choice was through a belief in the detoxification effects of a vegetarian
diet. He did, from time to time, intoxicate himself on wurst.
Colin
Henry T F Braun
> Indeed. He was the Carol Vorderman of his day, though to Carol's credit
> she has yet to invade any East European countries, in that his dietary
> choice was through a belief in the detoxification effects of a vegetarian
> diet. He did, from time to time, intoxicate himself on wurst.
If only he'd cut out the dictatorship and stuck to writing faddy nutrition
manuals about how to detoxify by alternating a German spa with German
sausage, he could have published "From Bad to Wurst".
Richard Bates
<thisaccoun...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Monkey Hanger" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:Xns958DD23A753...@130.133.1.4...
>> "Simon Mason" <si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:G1adnfLaqIr...@karoo.co.uk:
>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't really matter. In 5 billion years ( a blink of any eye in
>>> cosmological terms) the Earth will be inside the Sun anyway.
>>
>> What a cheery thread.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> --
>> Chris
>
>If its any consolation, the sun will heat up enough in a mere 10% of that
>time that the oceans will evaporate killing just about all life anyway, so
>by the time we hit 5 billion years from now it wont matter :-)
>
>BTW,latest theory, AIUI, is that the sun will lose enough matter towards the
>end of that 5 billion year period that the earth and possibly even venus
>will move outwards due to reduced gravitational pull. Hence, the fried and
>sterile planet earth wont be swallowed up after all...a happy ending!
I recommend anybody who is following this thread to read Bill Bryson's
A Short History of Nearly Everythying. This kind of futuristic topic
is covered in the latter third of the book.
--
Warning: This user suffers from narcolepppppppppp
ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp
ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp
Call me Bob
wrote:
>That's more than ample time for a SciFi scenario of colonising
>- and terraforming - many other planets to become reality.
>
>But we don't have that time before we've terraformed Earth into an
>atmosphere that won't support warm-blooded life forms such as humans.
Can't we all just wear an extra pullover?
David E. Belcher
>
> Indeed. He was the Carol Vorderman of his day, though to Carol's credit
> she has yet to invade any East European countries
Hmm - unusual comparison. Sheds a whole new light on Countdown, that's for sure....
David E. Belcher
Simon Mason
"Nick Kew" <ni...@hugin.webthing.com> wrote in message
news:911152-...@hugin.webthing.com...
I'm afraid the SF scenario of gallivanting off around new stars is just
that - fiction. I mean, we haven't got the manned spacecrafts to get to the
Moon anymore, never mind the means of travelling light years during a
person's lifetime. The only trace that humankind will leave will be a few
space probes like Pioneer + Voyager drifting in empty space. A remarkable
feat in itself for a species that was living in caves not so long ago.
--
Simon M.
Simon Mason
"Tumbleweed" <thisaccoun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2u59vdF...@uni-berlin.de...
> BTW,latest theory, AIUI, is that the sun will lose enough matter towards
> the end of that 5 billion year period that the earth and possibly even
> venus will move outwards due to reduced gravitational pull. Hence, the
> fried and sterile planet earth wont be swallowed up after all...a happy
> ending!
Brilliant! I'll start booking my holidays.
--
Simon M.
Zog The Undeniable
> I remember filling up my old Mini with leaded petrol at a petrol
> station forecourt many years ago and got a 'tut' sound from someone
> behind. I looked around and there was a bearded hippie type with a
> huge volvo and about 8 kids in the back obviously annoyed that I was
> using leaded petrol in my tiny little mini with its 850cc engine.
>
> What amazes me is there are still people out there that don't realise
> its having children which is by far the most damaging thing to the
> environment. The world needs to reduce its population probably
> somewhere in the region of 30-50% and encouraging people to not have
> kids seems to be the better option compared to wars, famine, disease
> etc. The almost exclusive reason why traditional forest and jungle is
> being lost is new homes/settlements.
>
> Governments however know it will be unpopular to make people's working
> lives longer and actively discourage people having kids by removing
> benefits etc and therefore they don't do it. The fact that its not
> even on the table of discussion most of the time shows how politicians
> avoid it. Yet I've seen it discussed about africa as if its only the
> african's causing the problem when of course the problem is mainly the
> usa and industrialised nations who not only produce large amounts of
> people who live long lives but also consume massive amounts of
> resources and produce massive pollution.
>
> The reality is that people will always be in denial. They create gods
> so they don't have to deal with the reality of non existance and death
> and they divert attention away from the actual overpopulation of the
> earth everywhere by talking about minor elements of the problem like
> fuel consumption.
>
> The problem won't really be faced until we are deep in the shit as
> always. The true environmentalists are those with no kids. The most
> damaging people to the environment are those with large families and
> anyone who says otherwise is basically in denial unless they can
> guarantee their children are going to be spending their time killing
> off other humans, planting trees and not being typical modern
> consumers.
>
> Now where can I hide ;-)
>
>
Who's going to pay your pension, for a start? The Italians are dying
out because they've stopped having kids and their economy is going to be
right up the creek in 20 years' time because of this.
If immigration stopped, the population of the UK would fall slowly. The
average birth rate is less than 2 per couple.
Zog The Undeniable
> I thought I was up on current affairs, but I had no idea that the
> population was in decline. What caused the shift? More single-child
> families?
>
Primarily house prices necessitating dual incomes, and more women
choosing careers.
Jeremy Collins
I'll take your word for it, but I sense a bit of a chicken-and-egg
situation in that argument.
--
jc
Remove the -not from email
Alan Braggins
>ni...@hugin.webthing.com (Nick Kew) of Customer of PlusNet plc
>(http://www.plus.net) wrote:
>>Think of something you believe strongly in - and practice. Think of who
>>else shares or shared that belief. You can probably come up with someone
>>far worse than P.S. Should that stop you living that way? I'm not about
>>to start eating meat just because Hitler was vegetarian.
>If you google that, you'll soon find out that his claim to be vegetarian did
>not stop him eating meat.
http://tafkac.org/celebrities/hitler_vegetarian.html
"Hitler wasn't a vegetarian, *was* a big fan of roasted game birds, but
didn't eat them because they made him feel extremely ill, at least while
he was Fuehrer (as if that weren't enough in itself), and was virtually
indistinguishable from a vegetarian in the last 10-12 years of his life."
Alan Braggins
>
>"Nick Kew" <ni...@hugin.webthing.com> wrote in message
>news:911152-...@hugin.webthing.com...
>> In article <G1adnfLaqIr...@karoo.co.uk>,
>> "Simon Mason" <si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>> Doesn't really matter. In 5 billion years ( a blink of any eye in
>>> cosmological terms) the Earth will be inside the Sun anyway.
>>
>> That's more than ample time for a SciFi scenario of colonising
>> - and terraforming - many other planets to become reality.
>>
>> But we don't have that time before we've terraformed Earth into an
>> atmosphere that won't support warm-blooded life forms such as humans.
>
>I'm afraid the SF scenario of gallivanting off around new stars is just
>that - fiction.
That's very different from "fiction, and will remain so for 5 billion
years". As you said, it's not very long ago (in comparison) we were
living in caves with flint tools. There were fictional accounts of a trip
to the moon for hundreds of years before we actually went there.
I mean, we haven't got the manned spacecrafts to get to the
>Moon anymore,
No-one doubts that such things could be built again if we wanted to.
never mind the means of travelling light years during a
>person's lifetime.
On one hand such trips needn't be limited to a single lifetime, on the
other hand there are existing technologies which (scaled up) would allow
us to do so. http://www.planetary.org/interstellar/forward.html
http://www.isas.jaxa.jp/e/snews/2004/0809.shtml