Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Extinction Rebellion

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Extinction Rebellion

Old 2nd Jul 2020, 10:30
  #501 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: France
Posts: 412
What's "rather superior" about expecting a person, country or continent to live within their means?
I might be showing my age, but isn't it just common sense?

After all, Charles Dickens often made references of the consequences of debt, such as in this quote from David Copperfield,
“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”
Alsacienne is online now  
Old 2nd Jul 2020, 10:42
  #502 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 49
Posts: 284
Originally Posted by 419 View Post
Did I state that?
No. You are totally changing what I did state to try to make a point.
What I actually stated was that Africa needs is a decline in the annual population growth rate, something that is not reducing the population, simply increasing it at a lower rate than is currently happening.
If their infrastructure and finances can't cope with the current increase, what's wrong with attempting to limit that increase until such time as it can be accommodated?




Another poster who reads what they want rather than what was actually written.
I did not say anything about cutting the population, simply limiting the increase in population.
As to your question "how do you propose to do that"? education and contraception would be a good start.

What's "rather superior" about expecting a person, country or continent to live within their means?
Yes, Europe has a higher population density than Africa but in general, Europe has the infrastructure, food and finances to cope with the higher population density.
Well that’s a non starter. Better think again as the church (European organisation) has banned it. Again those pesky westerners screwing up Africa.

It had its problems before the west showed up but then back then so did every continent. Be honest Africa is much more messed up “because” of the west rather than in spite of it.
highflyer40 is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2020, 12:36
  #503 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by 419 View Post
I would say that what Africa needs more than electricity is a decline in the annual population growth.
Cut the population and the demand for electricity, food, medicine etc will all fall.
419

You actually said both, referring to reducing population growth and cutting population.

Only an absolute reduction in the population will result, other things being equal, in a reduction in the demand for electricity, food, medicine etc. So if you didn’t mean that, you need to be clearer.

It is also not at all clear what the consequences for a country reducing its population growth rate might be. “Living within existing means” is always going to be an appealing argument because it is begging the question as you are defining the logic of being right. But what would such a change mean in terms of trade and revenues? A nation’s infrastructure is not fixed sum and depends on the revenues generated. Fewer people means less revenue, other thing being equal. So a country may be able to afford less infrastructure as a result. These issues are so much more complex than arguments about “too many people” (now or later) can encompass.

It also doesn’t help to talk about an entire continent as if it was one country. Africa is made up a many nations and their circumstances vary widely. Any argument is going to suffer badly from over-generalisation and examples of exception

Torquetalk is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2020, 12:57
  #504 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by currawong View Post
I agree.

But my question regarding his statement and your graph stands.
Which I addressed by pointing out that it's the global impact that matters, not just that of developed countries over the past decade. What the "first world" does barely makes any difference overall, now, as shown in that graph. He's chosen to cherry pick snippets of information to support his arguments, whilst ignoring the elephant in the room.
VP959 is online now  
Old 2nd Jul 2020, 13:07
  #505 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Age: 45
Posts: 267
Funny how quiet XR have been since BLM kicked off
trident3A is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2020, 13:19
  #506 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: A place in the sun
Age: 78
Posts: 875
It's because the same bunch of 'disruptive varmints' have merely moved on to the latest thing to protest about. They are not interested in any particular cause other than being able to use it as an excuse to create havoc. You would probably have found their parents up trees objecting to the Newbury bypass, and outside Greenham Common.
Bergerie1 is online now  
Old 2nd Jul 2020, 13:41
  #507 (permalink)  
419
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 403
Originally Posted by Torquetalk View Post
419

You actually said both, referring to reducing population growth and cutting population.

Only an absolute reduction in the population will result, other things being equal, in a reduction in the demand for electricity, food, medicine etc. So if you didn’t mean that, you need to be clearer.

It is also not at all clear what the consequences for a country reducing its population growth rate might be. “Living within existing means” is always going to be an appealing argument because it is begging the question as you are defining the logic of being right. But what would such a change mean in terms of trade and revenues? A nation’s infrastructure is not fixed sum and depends on the revenues generated. Fewer people means less revenue, other thing being equal. So a country may be able to afford less infrastructure as a result. These issues are so much more complex than arguments about “too many people” (now or later) can encompass.

It also doesn’t help to talk about an entire continent as if it was one country. Africa is made up a many nations and their circumstances vary widely. Any argument is going to suffer badly from over-generalisation and examples of exception
I may have initially referred to Africa in general but later on in the post, I did refer to the individual countries:
Originally Posted by 419 View Post
I would say that what Africa needs more than electricity is a decline in the annual population growth.
Cut the population and the demand for electricity, food, medicine etc will all fall.

As it currently stands, just about every African country has far higher population growth than most European countries and this is something that is quite simply, unsustainable in the long run.
but even so, it's a simple fact that just about every African country has population growth figures that exceed just about every European country so I don't see anything with generalising about the continent if that generalisation is, in the main, correct.

Is it an easy problem to solve?
Without a doubt the answer must be no but if there is not enough food and other resources, enough energy and basic infrastructure for the people already living in a country, surely making some sort of effort to stop the number spiraling upwards must be one of the simplest steps to take.
419 is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2020, 13:46
  #508 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,304
Obviously, just one quote among many but ...
the civilized world, for the want of a better term, the members thereof have mostly chosen to self limit the number of children,
Now there's an interesting viewpoint to offer for discussion in the upper echelons of Government! I can certainly see the merits of such an argument in at least two instances!
Cornish Jack is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2020, 14:06
  #509 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,304
Originally Posted by Bergerie1 View Post
It's because the same bunch of 'disruptive varmints' have merely moved on to the latest thing to protest about. They are not interested in any particular cause other than being able to use it as an excuse to create havoc. You would probably have found their parents up trees objecting to the Newbury bypass, and outside Greenham Common.
It would require an 'open' mind to do such a thing (rare enough to make it unlikely) but the author of this, and any like-minded, could educate themselves with a documentary film on youtube titled "The Trial". It is Austrian in origin but sub-titled for easy reading. No synopsis is necessary, it uses sequences from the actual events and the actual characters and offers a glimpse of how (in this case Austrian but equally applicable in any other 'civilised' State) the 'power-base' operates against its citizenry. I venture to suggest it will neither be viewed nor considered for discussion. It's conclusions, just like so much of our own various dealings with non-conformist society, produce the same "economy with the actualité", as the late Alan Clark so hypocritically put it.
Cornish Jack is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2020, 14:10
  #510 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by 419 View Post

Is it an easy problem to solve?
Without a doubt the answer must be no but if there is not enough food and other resources, enough energy and basic infrastructure for the people already living in a country, surely making some sort of effort to stop the number spiraling upwards must be one of the simplest steps to take.
No point in repeating points made. If you are convinced that controlling population growth in Africa is both the problem and solution to the problem you have defined then have at it 419. You can rest assured in the knowledge that many people will also understand the issues as you do.
Torquetalk is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2020, 15:17
  #511 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 965
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
Which I addressed by pointing out that it's the global impact that matters, not just that of developed countries over the past decade. What the "first world" does barely makes any difference overall, now, as shown in that graph. He's chosen to cherry pick snippets of information to support his arguments, whilst ignoring the elephant in the room.
Cherry picked but factually correct, as a statement in its own right.

Personally, I think ER should take their protests to where most of the emissions are coming from...
currawong is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2020, 18:48
  #512 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 90
Originally Posted by 419 View Post
Did I state that?
No. You are totally changing what I did state to try to make a point.
What I actually stated was that Africa needs is a decline in the annual population growth rate, something that is not reducing the population, simply increasing it at a lower rate than is currently happening.
If their infrastructure and finances can't cope with the current increase, what's wrong with attempting to limit that increase until such time as it can be accommodated?




Another poster who reads what they want rather than what was actually written.
I did not say anything about cutting the population, simply limiting the increase in population.
As to your question "how do you propose to do that"? education and contraception would be a good start.

What's "rather superior" about expecting a person, country or continent to live within their means?
Yes, Europe has a higher population density than Africa but in general, Europe has the infrastructure, food and finances to cope with the higher population density.
Just for the record: Cut the population and the demand for electricity, food, medicine etc will all fall.

That is from your post. To achieve it means killing people.


Lets assume you didn't mean that and wait for the retraction.

And leave it at that​.

Extinction Rebellion are a bunch of nutters with some alarming ideas about how the world should be run. I hope you are not a paid up member.
Islandlad is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2020, 06:51
  #513 (permalink)  
419
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 403
Originally Posted by Islandlad View Post
Just for the record: Cut the population and the demand for electricity, food, medicine etc will all fall.

That is from your post. To achieve it means killing people.


Lets assume you didn't mean that and wait for the retraction.

.
Utter rubbish.
Cutting the population does not automatically mean killing people.
If the annual birth rate is 100 people and the annual death rate from natural causes is 110 people, the net result will be a cut in the overall population.
It's not really that hard to understand is it?
419 is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2020, 07:54
  #514 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,651
It seems to be fairly well established that birth rates fall as wealth increases. If we want to reduce population growth we need to help the poorer countries to become wealthier.
pulse1 is online now  
Old 3rd Jul 2020, 08:22
  #515 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 49
Posts: 284
Originally Posted by pulse1 View Post
It seems to be fairly well established that birth rates fall as wealth increases. If we want to reduce population growth we need to help the poorer countries to become wealthier.
Maybe it’s the cynic in me but that will never happen. There is a finite source of wealth,
so by making the poorer countries richer you are going to have to be taking wealth from the developed worlds wealthy. They won’t take to kindly to that.
highflyer40 is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2020, 08:43
  #516 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by highflyer40 View Post
Maybe it’s the cynic in me but that will never happen. There is a finite source of wealth,
so by making the poorer countries richer you are going to have to be taking wealth from the developed worlds wealthy. They won’t take to kindly to that.
Wealth is fixed sum? Really? How are you defining wealth? Time? Physical comfort? Money in the bank? Value of assets? Material goods? Space? Health? Longevity? Etc etc.

That assertion is so demonstrably false and fixed-sum, that I am amazed you posted it.
Torquetalk is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2020, 08:48
  #517 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,651
hf40, I'm sure that you are right that it will never happen although I'm not sure that the source of wealth is finite. I don't understand enough about economics to know whether this is true or not. When I hear reputable scientists claiming that we would benefit from higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to stimulate food production I am even less sure.
pulse1 is online now  
Old 3rd Jul 2020, 09:06
  #518 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 49
Posts: 284
Originally Posted by Torquetalk View Post
Wealth is fixed sum? Really? How are you defining wealth? Time? Physical comfort? Money in the bank? Value of assets? Material goods? Space? Health? Longevity? Etc etc.

That assertion is so demonstrably false and fixed-sum, that I am amazed you posted it.
Stop being so pedantic. If you read the post I was quoting and my post together you would know how I was defining it. There is a finite amount of wealth on the planet. We will get to a point where any wealth generated will have to be taken from someone else.

In case you really are that thick we are talking
an abundance of valuable possessions or money.”, and not the other meaning as in a wealth of experience...
highflyer40 is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2020, 09:34
  #519 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,651
The trouble with your definition hf40 is that the value of possessions can change very quickly in today's fast moving world. e.g. art, minerals, oil, even labour etc.
pulse1 is online now  
Old 3rd Jul 2020, 09:39
  #520 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 49
Posts: 284
Originally Posted by pulse1 View Post
The trouble with your definition hf40 is that the value of possessions can change very quickly in today's fast moving world. e.g. art, minerals, oil, even labour etc.

Those objects you mentioned above have no value by themselves. Only what someone is willing to pay for them. So again wealth is money. If someone values a family picture greatly that is fine but it’s true value is only what someone else would pay for it.
highflyer40 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.