Thread: Lovelock: 'We can't save the planet'

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Originally Posted by wefearourdespot

you mean encouraging couples to kill their female firstborn ?

What are you talking about? Nobody is encouraging that. It is an unwanted side-effect. But what are the alternatives? Do you think letting the population grow unchecked is better?

Really with only 1 child for couple the population doesn't simply stop growing, but decreases...I guess it's a matter of limiting the poor ones to 1 child in order to allow the "elite" couples all the children they want.
Anyway your worries are spot off, apart those crazy Chinese no one really wants children , they are just the unwanted side effect of sex, so the progressive spreading of condom use will wipe off the population in the end ... it's a matter of three/four centuries at most.

Originally Posted by wefearourdespot

Really with only 1 child for couple the population doesn't simply stop growing, but decreases...I guess it's a matter of limiting the poor ones to 1 child in order to allow the "elite" couples all the children they want. Anyway your worries are spot off, apart those crazy Chinese no one really wants children , they are just the unwanted side effect of sex, so the progressive spreading of condom use will wipe off the population in the end ... it's a matter of three/four centuries at most.

To this I can say no less than you are an idiot.

China is proof that the population keeps expanding with one child per couple. That is because when they started the population was very young at average. So the children then now have their child and many alredy grandchild but very few have died. So the population may have almost doubled even with the one child policy. With time of course the very flat population pyramid has changed. There are more elderly now and not so many very young. I checked a short time ago and China is planning to keep the one child policy in place for another 10 years and then change the policy to allow more children to keep the population stable.

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Originally Posted by aras

Takeovers, you lost me...lol. why would warming up of the climate destroy technology? microwaves and satelites cant take the heat, but humans do?

That is not the problem.

When the earth is transformed in a major way, that the coastlines disappear, that agriculture breaks down in many regions, then many millions of people will be displaced, millions will die of starvation. Wars will be fought over resources and habitable land. The explosion of the world population makes such a scenario more likely.

Yeah. Or something entirely different happens. If the climate is impossible to predict - which it is - then it's also impossible to think of our reaction. I have some faith in adaptability of humans. We can deal with changes that come slowly. The climate change might in the end just appear as an inconvenience in 100 year's time.

Now if a huge asteroid hits the Earth, that's different...

The climate is predictable and temperatures will increase substantially due to human activities even if we cannot say how much exactly in which year. But the worst effect of total melting of the two major inland ice masses, the Greenland Ice and the South Polar Ice cap won't happen in one or two hundred years. So yes it is likely that New York, Singapore and Hamburg will still exist 150 years from now.

But it will affect our grandchildren as more than an inconvenience. But I agree as stated before that climate change is not a disaster on the scale of an asteroid hit or a supervolcano blowing.

Originally Posted by Takeovers

climate change is not a disaster on the scale of an asteroid hit or a supervolcano blowing.

it's only similar to dinosaur farts ...



(remember that old theory that dinosaurs disapeared because the methane produced by their farts changed the air composition ?)

Originally Posted by Takeovers

The biggest problem being the runaway population. How to bring it down to below 2.000.000.000?

America are world leaders at this. They're the only ones putting some effort into the whole depopulation business. I blame the UN for starting the over population problem in the first place... Encouraging peace talks here, banning WMDs there. Their typical response will be to make Megan Fox a UN ambassador put her in cut-off shorts and a tight top and send her round the world encoraging people not to have sex.

Que sera sera, whatever will be, will be ,,the future's not ours to see, que sera sera . The planet will survive though.

Originally Posted by Takeovers

So yes it is likely that New York, Singapore and Hamburg will still exist 150 years from now.

how disappointing, huh ?

Originally Posted by ChristySweet

Originally Posted by wefearourdespot

Originally Posted by SunTzu

^^ agreed, especially on overpopulation issue. No politician today would have the balls to do what the chinese did with the single child policy,

you mean encouraging couples to kill their female firstborn ? A good policy to prevent feminazi overtaking , though...

Actually in China, because so many female fetus are aborted or killed they are having a severe shortage of young women which means they are calling the shots !!

Might it be that even you can get a shag over there, Lily ?

^ nah, just wish she could...

We do not have aircon.

We use buckets to shower.

We grow some of our own food, that that does not die or eaten by bugs.

We do fart a lot but.

We also planted around 150 trees.