The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

blackgang · 15-03-2007, 11:53 AM

Surasak said,

Quote:

You're going to have to convince me that a poor person clearing a patch of land using fire is worse than another person in one of the industrialized countries who buys a new computer every year because his old one is infected with pop-ups and porn.

Do you realize the amount of environmental destruction caused by someone in Southen California, for example, by the time he or she burns up one gallon of gasoline (including the destruction caused to produce the car they replace every few years as well)? I seriously doubt that on a per capita basis that the guy in Issan burning the rice paddy comes even remotely close to the typical lifestyle of a Westerner when it comes to CO^2 production let alone liquid or solid waste.

Overfishing? Do you not think the real cause of overfishing is caused by the hungry appetites of those in restaurants in aflluent societies thousands of miles away? Every bit of the frozen seafood I see in my local markets comes from either China, Vietnam, or Thailand. How wasteful is it to carry those items nearly 10,000 miles from their point of origin?

What about the typical method in the West of using tons of chemicals and petroleum based fertilizers to produce the same food that is grown without those items in the poor parts of the world because the poor cannot afford them?

From local papers,

Quote:

There is widespread criticism of the cabinet decision on Tuesday to give the smog problem another week to clear up before the government takes any action.

Traditionally, before the rains and at the end of the hot, dry season, local farmers in the mountains burn off the preceding season's accumulation of vegetation to provide nutrients for the soil.

This year, however, the region has been especially dry, and vulnerable, to having such fires spread out of control.

Together with burn-off fires moving east and south from neighbouring Myanmar's Shan State, Thailand is besieged with conflagrations and smoke accumulation over a wide area of the region, and is on the edge of declaring an emergency zone in the northern provinces due to spreading clouds of choking smoke, clogged with dust and micro-particles of partially-burned wood, leaves and other vegetation fed by raging brushfires and forest fires.

This is done every year and the whole north of Thailand is so smoke polluted that it puts a lot of people in hospitals.

A lot of the fish and sea foods sold there are farm raised in rivers and ponds that are in themselves polluted and not caught at sea.
Japan has fished the continental shelf of the US so heavily that it is almost depleted of marine life, They have almost depleted the Marlin fishery in Mexican waters with huge long lines that catch and kill not only Marlin but massive amounts of Shark,
Russia has had a hand in doing that also and has completely devastated the HAKE fishery in the north pacific that were supposed to be used in the fish flour plant at Aberdeen WA. to furnish protien flour to the poor countrys of the world, plus the wild salmon runs have been depleted by Japan and Russian fisheries.

Thailand also uses tons of chemicals both fertilizers herbicides/pesticides yearly.
what with cess pools at almost all houses, all the water is polluted in wells as in ponds and streams.
Poor country's are not immune to doing their share of polluting the land as well as the atmosphere.

You seem to think that it is only the rich country's that are doing it, but every country has a hand in it and sometimes it is the poor that do a lot more of certain types than the rich..

blackgang · 15-03-2007, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackgang

Does anyone know of a place in the world that has a lot of jobs and no people living there that can do the work?? I don't mean jobs and a lot of people not working, but where everyone that wants a job can have one??

Yes, Ireland, we have to import people to fill all the available vacancies.
The only unemployed are those who can't work or don't want to.

Yes, but you still have people that do not want to work/refuse to work that add to the world population count, But some places they have massive amounts of people that would work if jobs were available.

Quote:

Hootad BinkyLabour shortage here too (British Columbia); plenty o' panhandlers on the street, though.

But we don't want to get SURASAK started on BC for pollution by the rich because of the huge labor force working the oil sands jobs.555

DrB0b · 15-03-2007, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackgang

Quote:

Originally Posted by drb0b

Yes, Ireland, we have to import people to fill all the available vacancies.
The only unemployed are those who can't work or don't want to.

Yes, but you still have people that do not want to work/refuse to work that add to the world population count, But some places they have massive amounts of people that would work if jobs were available.

They don't want to work because they're rich enough to have the
choice. I'd make the same choice given the option.

man with no head · 15-03-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by attaboy

Like I said I don't want to sound like I'm beating up on the poor but they aren't saints. So I guess that aspect of discussion (one-third of the CO2 released into the atmosphere) is out of bounds else I'll sound like a capitalist pig. You stated the poor are most likely to gather things locally. They can and do devastate the environment locally I don't know about you but when I change my oil I don't pour it out on the side of the house. I don't have a garbage dump in my backyard where I throw all my paint cans and solvents. Have you ever seen a toilet which is a plank of wood extending over a river so you shit right in the water? The poor can be educated and they can participate in reforestation programs. It's a form of a farming and it's low tech. You make good points. But don't word them as if I personally believe the burden should be on the poor to clean up the mess so I can sip water from France.

Here's a couple of pics of the deforestation and subsequent erosion of Haiti's landscape. It's caused by a demand for charcoal. Can the land be restored or is it lost? Where will the funds come from to restore it after the damage is done? The mud from the hills rushes down into the sea and destroys the fishing grounds. The silt drifts out into the ocean and chokes reefs as it settles. In November of 1994 they had mudslides which killed 800 people. I don't have that obvious of an impact on my local environment and I don't know if I do on the earth overall. The Haitians are doing a hell of a job destroying things around them.

Here's a pic of the Haitian/Dominican Republic border. Granted somewhere else along the border might not show such a glaring difference in the two methods of stewardship.

Also the Dominicans have designated certain reefs out of bounds for fishing. Those specific reefs renew the fish stock in other areas so the available food source is sustainable. They also regulate size limits for fish and the type of nets used. The Haitians don't do any of these things and their waters are nowhere near as productive. (note I have not personally been to Haiti or the Dominican Republic so I must rely on media sources for information)

As you pointed out the devestation is largely a local issue.

What about all the electronics destined for the U.S. or Europe which are produced in countries such as China? The kinds of pollution that are created during those processes from start to finish so we can buy cheap crap at Wal-Mart are far more devestating on a global level (especially because subsequently those products are either flown or shipped very long ways) than localized burning of vegetation (which is a natural process, by the way, commonly caused by lightning, volcanoes, etc).

Is dumping tons of benzene in a river a natural process? The poor aren't doing this; a company providing products for the consumers of North America or Europe is doing this.

Much of the pollution in Asia is due to consumption outside of Asia. We think we have solved the issue of dirty air and water in the West, but, we simply placed the burden on someone else to deal with it.

The key question is thus: can we stop overpopulation while at the same time ensuring that the economic mobility of that population doesn't cause them to all consume just like we do?

It won't be a question of telling them that a wooden plank over a river is unsuitable for use as a toilet. The question will be to ensure progress without overconsumption (as we unfortunately are guilty of doing).

Look at the price of oil simply because India and China are moving up in the world. If they consume as much as we do what then?

Milkman · 07-05-2007, 11:10 PM

Children 'bad for planet'

By Sarah-Kate Templeton in London
May 07, 2007 12:00am

Quote:

By Sarah-Kate Templeton in London
May 07, 2007 12:00am
Article from:

HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank.
The paper by the Optimum Population Trust will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: "The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights.
"The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child."

In his latest comments, the academic says that when couples are planning a family they should be encouraged to think about the environmental

consequences.

"The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account," he added.
Professor Guillebaud says that, as a general guideline, couples should produce no more than two offspring.

The world's population is expected to increase by 2.5 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050. Almost all the growth will take place in developing countries.
The population of developed nations is expected to remain unchanged and would have declined but for migration.

The British fertility rate is 1.7. The EU average is 1.5. Despite this, Professor Guillebaud says rich countries should be the most concerned about family size as their children have higher per capita carbon dioxide emissions.

Link: Children 'bad for planet' | NEWS.com.au

-
I agree. There are too many people here on Earth already. If people took a break from popping out kids to feed their own egos and perpetuate their own genes, we'd have lots of room and less pollution. It would only take 70 years.

Marmite the Dog · 10-05-2007, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milkman

I agree. There are too many people here on Earth already. If people took a break from popping out kids to feed their own egos and perpetuate their own genes, we'd have lots of room and less pollution. It would only take 70 years.

Just sterilise all the South Asians and Chinks. The Africans are doing a fine job of controlling their population already.

Milkman · 10-05-2007, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milkman

I agree. There are too many people here on Earth already. If people took a break from popping out kids to feed their own egos and perpetuate their own genes, we'd have lots of room and less pollution. It would only take 70 years.

Just sterilise all the South Asians and Chinks. The Africans are doing a fine job of controlling their population already.

Yeah,

Their populations are growing way, way, too much.

Food, water, and migration to the cities.

Even the U.S. is overpopulated, IMO.

Frankenstein · 11-05-2007, 10:03 AM

Solution: We all need to masturbate more.

sabang · 11-05-2007, 10:07 AM

Onan agrees!

Milkman · 30-05-2007, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milkman

If people are irresponsible enough to pop out kids on a planet with 6.1 Billion and counting, then they can pay for it.

Kerux:

Quote:

You don't think the world is over crowded, do you?

Yes, I do.

blackgang · 30-05-2007, 05:15 PM

Now on the news the other day those that count said that Singapore need to have more kids, people have slowed down on having kids and they are falling behind and will not have enough people to do the work and have to import immigrant labor soon.
So big deal, if world population would slow down there would be no use for whatever shit that Singapore was making to sell for profit that needed labor.
Should do like they did a few years back in the US about wild fires, said that they should be allowed to burn as nature intended,,should do the same thing with such shit as AIDS and H5N1, leave it alone and let nature take its coarse. With a natural pandemic of record proportions unequaled in history, even surpassing the flu and bubonic plagues of history, Deaths of 200K a month for a few years would surely do this world good.
, The smoke from the Pyres burning the bodys would cloud the atmosphere and cause a cooling trend and the advanced use of energy for the pyres would be offset by lack or industrial energy consumption and would only last as long as the piles of bodys lasted then come to an end.
When shit was produced and then not sold and kept in storage, soon production would stop, so would pollution that Sursak is worried about, and the use of energy to run SUV's that sursak is worried about

, and so would the rampant fighting and killing that I do not like, there would be no natural need, so it would stop.

Milkman · 20-06-2008, 08:01 AM

It took only 13 years to add 1 billion people. As water, food, and other resources become more scarce and expensive, I will again reiterate. They got too many people here.

Quote:

World population to hit 7 billion in 2012

Jun 19 03:25 PM US/Eastern
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The world's population will reach 7 billion in 2012, even as the global community struggles to satisfy its appetite for natural resources, according to a new government projection. There are 6.7 billion people in the world today. The United States ranks third, with 304 million, behind China and India, according to projections released Thursday by the Census Bureau.

The world's population surpassed 6 billion in 1999, meaning it will take only 13 years to add a billion people.
By comparison, the number of people didn't reach 1 billion until 1800, said Carl Haub, a demographer at the Population Reference Bureau. It didn't reach 2 billion until 130 years later.

Link and Entire: World population to hit 7 billion in 2012

Panda · 20-06-2008, 09:20 AM

A few years back there was an add on TV from one of those organizations that solicit sponsorship for starving people in Africa. It featured a lady (call her Mrs X), who had 13 kids and showed the daily struggle she had to feed her family. The kids were malnourished and sick. In desperate need of food aid. The add showed how a relatively small monthly sponsorship amount of cash could make a huge difference in these kids lives.

But the thing I remember most was the way the add finished off. It said; -- Mrs X herself was lucky enough to be a sponsored child when she was young.
Had she recieved no food aid sponsorship of course she would have probably died as a child and there would not be 13 more little kids suffering and starving.
Its a real catch 22 situation.

Milkman · 20-06-2008, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Panda

A few years back there was an add on TV from one of those organizations that solicit sponsorship for starving people in Africa. It featured a lady (call her Mrs X), who had 13 kids and showed the daily struggle she had to feed her family. The kids were malnourished and sick. In desperate need of food aid. The add showed how a relatively small monthly sponsorship amount of cash could make a huge difference in these kids lives.

But the thing I remember most was the way the add finished off. It said; -- Mrs X herself was lucky enough to be a sponsored child when she was young.
Had she recieved no food aid sponsorship of course she would have probably died as a child and there would not be 13 more little kids suffering and starving.
Its a real catch 22 situation.

Serious question on the motivation to have 13 kids.

More to help her when she is old?

Help on agricgultural/famr work?

Ignorance?

Lack of access to birth control?

Cultural reasons: more children is better?

Perhaps more than one of these reasons and one that is not even noted.

Whiteshiva · 20-06-2008, 11:01 AM

I remember seening something similar from a Iraqi refuge camp where this family had been for more than three years. The family consisted of several children, two of which had been born in the camp, and the reporter (and the father of the family) kept going on about how hard it was, especially for the children. My immediate though was why the heck do they keep on breeding when they are living in such conditions? Why not cut out intercourse (if prophylactics are not available) while they wait for the situation to improve? I feel genuinely sorry for the kids, but for the parents - som nam nah!

Anchovy · 21-06-2008, 02:20 PM

I think we put too much emphasis on trying to save lives and should just stand back and let nature take it's course instead of phoning an ambulance when a joyrider/car thief crashes into a ditch.

floorpotato · 21-06-2008, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrB0b

A lot depends on whether you look at it on a global scale or on a national scale. Overpopulation is the ratio of population to available resources. On a global scale, given fair distribution of resources, there shouldn't be any overpopulation problem. .. The blame doesn't lie with those at the bottom of the heap but with those who take more than their fair share.

Regardless of how resources are distributed, there is the larger problem of ecological sustainabilty. An increasing population would degrade the air, water and accelerate deforestation. Additionally, that ratio of population to resources would still be increasing over time. Wouldn't the quality of life slowly degrade regardless of how equitible the resources were distributed? There is only so much arable land, beachfront and fresh water in the world. The more people, the fewer resources available for each person to enjoy.

30-05-2007, 05:15 PM	#31 (permalink)
blackgang Senior Member Last Online: Yesterday 08:57 PM Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Phetchabun city Posts: 6,961	Now on the news the other day those that count said that Singapore need to have more kids, people have slowed down on having kids and they are falling behind and will not have enough people to do the work and have to import immigrant labor soon. So big deal, if world population would slow down there would be no use for whatever shit that Singapore was making to sell for profit that needed labor. Should do like they did a few years back in the US about wild fires, said that they should be allowed to burn as nature intended,,should do the same thing with such shit as AIDS and H5N1, leave it alone and let nature take its coarse. With a natural pandemic of record proportions unequaled in history, even surpassing the flu and bubonic plagues of history, Deaths of 200K a month for a few years would surely do this world good. , The smoke from the Pyres burning the bodys would cloud the atmosphere and cause a cooling trend and the advanced use of energy for the pyres would be offset by lack or industrial energy consumption and would only last as long as the piles of bodys lasted then come to an end. When shit was produced and then not sold and kept in storage, soon production would stop, so would pollution that Sursak is worried about, and the use of energy to run SUV's that sursak is worried about, and so would the rampant fighting and killing that I do not like, there would be no natural need, so it would stop.

20-06-2008, 11:01 AM	#35 (permalink)
Whiteshiva Elite Member Last Online: Yesterday 01:58 PM Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Nontaburi Posts: 3,802	I remember seening something similar from a Iraqi refuge camp where this family had been for more than three years. The family consisted of several children, two of which had been born in the camp, and the reporter (and the father of the family) kept going on about how hard it was, especially for the children. My immediate though was why the heck do they keep on breeding when they are living in such conditions? Why not cut out intercourse (if prophylactics are not available) while they wait for the situation to improve? I feel genuinely sorry for the kids, but for the parents - som nam nah! __________________ Any error in tact, fact or spelling is purely due to transmissional errors...

11-05-2007, 10:03 AM	#28 (permalink)
Frankenstein Elite Member Last Online: Yesterday 10:54 PM Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: The land of milking honeys Posts: 2,678	Solution: We all need to masturbate more.

11-05-2007, 10:07 AM	#29 (permalink)
sabang Watching the Wheels Last Online: Today 05:53 AM Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: east of Pattaya Posts: 8,428	Onan agrees!

20-06-2008, 09:20 AM	#33 (permalink)
Panda Elite Member Last Online: Today 04:47 AM Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,051	A few years back there was an add on TV from one of those organizations that solicit sponsorship for starving people in Africa. It featured a lady (call her Mrs X), who had 13 kids and showed the daily struggle she had to feed her family. The kids were malnourished and sick. In desperate need of food aid. The add showed how a relatively small monthly sponsorship amount of cash could make a huge difference in these kids lives. But the thing I remember most was the way the add finished off. It said; -- Mrs X herself was lucky enough to be a sponsored child when she was young. Had she recieved no food aid sponsorship of course she would have probably died as a child and there would not be 13 more little kids suffering and starving. Its a real catch 22 situation.

21-06-2008, 02:20 PM	#36 (permalink)
Anchovy I am in Jail Last Online: 11-11-2008 07:06 PM Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: In the tin Posts: 103	I think we put too much emphasis on trying to save lives and should just stand back and let nature take it's course instead of phoning an ambulance when a joyrider/car thief crashes into a ditch.