Originally Posted by
Dark Stanley
we start by accepting that a few tens of millions less on the planet at the end of this year is probably no bad thing for the planet.
ten million equates to about 0.1% of the worlds population. That’s not going to make that much of a difference.
if you want nature in the form of disease and illness to make a real difference then why stop there. Stop the fight against Ebola, stop the cancer treatments, the terrible truth is that for many cancers the 10 year survival rate is 50%. So just delaying the future burden on the economy. Stop antibiotics. The list could go on. Or do you cherry pick the demographic, the most useful?
So ten million die, then what, carry on regardless. It’s like a smoker losing a leg to thrombosis then buying twenty Marlboro on the way out of hospital. Except in this case ten million is like losing a toe nail. But if we carry on then maybe the next loss to mankind may well be a collective leg. The outcome from such an occurrence and indeed carrying on with our current rate of consumption is bleak.
A systematic change is desperately needed, not just a temporary reduction in population...
you have completely missed my point haven’t you?The only solution to your proposed predicament (not mine, it’s called getting on the Greta bus) is a long term significant reduction human population. But you lack the balls of your convictions to face up to what that means.
edit: worth pointing out that the price of
a barrel of oil on the futures market got down to -37 dollars. If that isn’t a sign of impending doom for the environmentalists, I don’t know
what is. The cost effectiveness of renewables have just been blown out of the water. All secondary effects of this ridiculous shutdown.