PDA

View Full Version : Mea


Grandpa
31st Mar 2005, 21:40
Millenium Ecosystem Assesment :1360 experts have worked for 5 years to gather all informations about conservation of world ressources.

Their conclusions are not very pleasant : in 2035/2045 human beings will be threatened by ressources extinction.

May be there is no need for a nuclear war or a fat astero´d to kill us all..................since we are able to commit mass suicide by consuming to much of what our tiny beautifull island is offering to our gluttonry.

Do you think we should do something to protect our species before it's too late?

airship
31st Mar 2005, 21:49
Yes. One couple, 1 child policy worldwide for at least 5 to 10 generations. And remove all immigration controls. But it might already be too late for many other species with whom we share this blob in space anyway. Humanity? I couldn't care less...

tony draper
31st Mar 2005, 22:33
Extinction is on the cards for all species eventualy, ours will be one of the short lived one's is all, mankinds has come up fast, modern man possibly as little as 200,000 years, we will prolly go out a lot faster.
Mankind and all his works will be represented by a couple of inches of rock in the geological record.
Besides the universe ends for all of us as individual, we will all pass through our own personel little event horizon after a life so short it does not even register on the clock of geology, so cheer up chaps,enjoy your time wandering the earth its all you are going to get.
:rolleyes:

16 blades
1st Apr 2005, 00:09
Their conclusions are not very pleasant : in 2035/2045 human beings will be threatened by ressources extinction.

Yes, and in 1999 we will have people living on a moonbase, being whisked about in flying cars, and all meals will be taken in the form of a single pill.

As I already stated on another thread, these kinds of threats are mrerly intended to allow lefty govts to impose HIGHER TAXES on sources of energy, to fund their redistribution agendas.

BUT - if our current resources are running out, why the do the lefties object so heavily to Nuclear power - it's clean (zero emissions - good environmental argument) and lasts for ages (good resource preservation argument).

16B

BlueDiamond
1st Apr 2005, 01:15
These prophecies of gloom and doom are rarely fulfilled, Grandpa. The major flaw in the equation is that these predictions are based only on the information we have at this moment. Just because we cannot think of anything that will happen to change this prediction, it doesn't mean that no such factor exists.

I am quite sure that if we had had computers two hundred years ago, the "experts" would have predicted that Great Britain would, by the year xxxx, be buried under a mountain of horse-shit due to the increasing numbers of these animals required to cope with the growing population's transport/farming needs.

"Experts" are frequently responsible for disseminating the most wildly inaccurate "information." When they are shown to be wrong, it is easy for them to say something like, "Ah, yes, but when these predictions were made, we didn't know about ...."

Take it all with a large pinch of salt, mate ... provided we have any left.

airship
1st Apr 2005, 04:32
Q. Why did dinosaurs have especially long necks?
A. Like ostriches today, they felt better... :}

Send Clowns
1st Apr 2005, 08:09
The only part of your bizarre post approppriate for the thread, airship, is that it is based on incomplete information, and common misapprehension! What relevance have dinosaurs?

[I was trying to add a picture of an early ceratopian, but can't get the damn thing to work, but think Triceratops without horns. No long neck].

eal401
1st Apr 2005, 08:22
One couple, 1 child policy
No kids would suit me...

The problem is dole-soaking chavs, how do you stop them breeding like rabbits? Free condoms clearly isn't good enough!

Grandpa
1st Apr 2005, 09:37
................and questions rise in my poor head.

Tony: may be it's too personnal..............Have you got any child?

16B: Are the "lefties" the only one who care for our planet's future?

Blued D: Hope you don't worry if I use the term "forecast" instead of "prophecies"...............
We all use met-forecast and are used to weigh their degree of fiability.
What else can we do than "use the information WE HAVE AT THIS MOMENT" for example :
Stop our car at the red light...........
.............or run for sake when we see the big tsunami wave.......
Do you suggest we use informations we haven't got now, or don't use these we allready can read?

BlueDiamond
1st Apr 2005, 11:08
Well no, we can't use information we don't have, Grandpa but what I'm saying is that these "experts" ... in whatever field ... are always being proved wrong. It usually happens because new information comes to light that was not available previously and what irritates me is that it never seems to occur to these experts that they might NOT be in possession of all the information they need. This never seems to stop them from making their predictions/prophecies/forecasts though.

And no, it's not only lefties who are concerned about the condition of this planet. Most people these days are aware of the need for conservation, recycling, reforestation, preservation and all the many other ecology-based ideas for helping planet earth.

airship
1st Apr 2005, 11:48
SC: The dinosaurs disappeared...and not all of them had long necks...but then again, not everyone prefers to bury their heads in the sand...like uhmmm, ostriches.

Well anyway, it made sense to me at 5 this morning. It still does... :O

tony draper
1st Apr 2005, 11:55
The trouble with the human race is it has no natural predators, except war, famine disease and acts on nature, war is all but impossible with the advent of nuclear weapons, except in areas where the people don't matter anyway, in that they are not large consumers of resourses due to povety, the killer diseases of childhood have all but been eliminated in the consuming part of the world, likewise famine is unlikely in the developed world due to the market economy,and we int got many volcanoes round here either.
My personell take on it is that in the UK there are 40 million to many of us talking monkeys, and more heading our way, so what do we do about it??
:rolleyes:

Caslance
1st Apr 2005, 21:17
The trouble with the human race is it has no natural predators Except for Homo Sapiens itself, of course.

Grandpa
1st Apr 2005, 21:18
.....more "christian" to drop 50% of our cars............

Caslance
1st Apr 2005, 21:19
more "christian" to drop 50% of our carsHeretic!!!! :ooh:

tony draper
1st Apr 2005, 21:39
One has posted this on other occasions,but its worth pondering these numbers again.

World Population 1804, 1 billion
Population 1927 2 billion----- 123 years
Population 1960 3 billion-------33 years
Population 1974 4 billion-------14 years
population 1987 5 billion-------13 years
Population 1999 6 billion-------12 years

:uhoh:

scanscanscan
1st Apr 2005, 21:50
Too many crew are enjoying their time off duty.

ATRIXO
1st Apr 2005, 22:13
...and I thought that MEA was an airline!
However, having been enlightened on what it really stands for and looking at all the views, even the religious ones, which supposidly entrust Men to look after the World , unless we take measures to preserve this planet, it will not survive.
My brother in law is certain that the future is in electic cars, which he is developing, however even he cannot think of a way of heating them without fuel!
Personally I think that the world is such a wonderous place that it would be entirely selfish for us not to do what we can to preseve the planet for future users. But, how many people apart from the Swiss will give up their 4 wheel drives or put out their rubbish for recycling?
How many people really care?

:confused:

Lon More
2nd Apr 2005, 01:06
The problem is dole-soaking chavs, how do you stop them breeding like rabbits? Free condoms clearly isn't good enough!

They're OK in a white-wine sauce

Grandpa
2nd Apr 2005, 07:16
PLEASE!!!!!

Wait until John Paul rests in peace!

flapsforty
2nd Apr 2005, 10:02
Gramps, one of us is missing something here 'cause I don't see any reference to the Pope in Lon's post. :confused:
As far as I know, and please anyone feel free to correct me, chavs is what the UK posters call the uneducated brit citizens who wear training gear all day long and who do not work nor pay taxes but have many children which they bring up haphazardly while claiming social benefits from the state.

Chav (http://www.worldwidewords.org/topicalwords/tw-cha2.htm) & More Chav (http://www.chavscum.co.uk/)

Solid Rust Twotter
2nd Apr 2005, 10:46
Lon More

Condoms work well to keep chav numbers down. You just have to wait until they stop kicking before removing the little rubber obstruction from their throats.:E

airship
2nd Apr 2005, 13:52
I may be getting old and senile too. But I believe that Grandpa was remarking on the last part of Lon More's post Free condoms clearly isn't good enough! I think most of us are aware of the RC position on the use of condoms. Whether that involves birth control or as a protection against AIDS. Hence the post invoking JPII. Call it lateral thinking or just a twisted mind if you so wish. But if you truly believe that Grandpa's post warrants the use of the term senility, perhaps you ought to cut down on your own beef consumption... :}

Pilgrim101
2nd Apr 2005, 14:03
Grandpa

Or, we could breed only shorter, smaller people - just like the new Japanese compact version ?

I'm giving your morose posting the benefit of the doubt since we all get depressed sometimes ;)

Cheer up and have another glass of your favourite tipple tonight, pear brandy was it ?

airship
2nd Apr 2005, 15:21
Anyway, to get back on subject. I think my 1 couple / 1 child (hereafter referred to as 1C1C) policy applied worldwide is worth some debate as a possible solution. Expanding on the idea...

Many 1st world nations are already experiencing negative population growth anyway, especially if you strip out the immigration effects. With some effort, it should be relatively straight-forward to implement 1C1C once we accept that there really is no other way forward. Of course, there would be huge economic considerations due to ageing populations on pensions and services etc. which have to be taken into consideration.

In order to mitigate these effects which would become apparent quite rapidly, I propose that 1st world countries gradually open their doors to immigrants from the 3rd world. The reasons of this immigration are numerous.

As an incentive to poorer nations to adhere to 1C1C. Their people would be allowed to legally emigrate to a 1st world country in a controlled manner. Once there they would be paid well, albeit at a fraction of what a 1st world person earns, in order to provide the necessary care and services to the ageing population and manpower in other areas. But paid sufficiently in order to contribute to the support of their dependants back home. However, any child born on the soil of that 1st world nation (in accordance with 1C1C) would automatically have the same rights as a citizen. And there's no reason why a young handsome African worker in an OAP home shouldn't wed a 1st world girl, even if she looks like the back of a bus...!

Ageing 1st worlders will finally experience the joys of having someone to help around the house which will enable them to stay in their properties comfortably for longer. With the knowledge that their "servant's" child may well end up a 1st time buyer in what would otherwise be a housing market with no bottom in sight! Younger 1st worlders will hugely benefit too, with home help on hand to babysit the kid and cook real meals when they get home from their demanding jobs.

Once people get over their hangups about "exploiting" other people, there should be a gradual intermingling of the races which will benefit humanity no end. There's no reason why new immigrants shouldn't be selected on the basis of their good looks after all...! And I can imagine people retiring in 2050 deciding to spend the rest of their days on the property of their son-in-law in some beautifully unspoiled corner of Africa.

Anyway, I reckon that within 2 generations of 1C1C implementation, the effects would already produce important benefits. In terms of quality of life for people as well as for everything else we share the planet with. And things will get better the longer we persist. In fact, probably after 4 or 5 generations, some people may be questioning just how much longer 1C1C should continue. After all, it may have been paradise for Adam & Eve but we don't necessarily want history to repeat itself... :O

I think 1C1C could catch on. I'm so enamoured by the idea that I think I'll shorten the concept to 1C▓...beat that Einstein! :ok:

Grandpa
2nd Apr 2005, 16:38
Not in any way: cars have become a general nuisance, and there is less hope they may improve in a near future, while there is a chance to educate human beings.

As for pear brandy, make sure it's a dry one (Williamine is OK)