John U
MTB Precision
It is not possible to have infinite growth on a finite planet. He comes across as an old man shouting at clouds but he’s right. A lot of the problems on the planet now can be brought back to ‘too many humans’.
The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.
- Thread starter johnny
- Start date
I'd only seen the internet a couple of times at that point. Seems bizarre now, but at the time I had no interest in it at all.
pink poodle
気が狂っている男
I remember hearing about it, vague stuff, in later high school years. Then in 1995 while in year 11 one of my teachers suggested we use the 1 computer in the school that had internet access to look some stuff up...well he put me in the driver's seat and after a few moments had to leave the room...
I have no idea why he thought I was trust worthy of such responsibility. I certainly had a reputation to the contrary. The moment he left the room I punched in those fateful words that all young boys wish to see...big tits! This is when the cockatoo let me down and the teacher was back in and we were all glued go the screen.
I was swiftly relieved of my internet responsibilities and didn't look at it again until a few years later. And you bet it was the boobs again.
Mr Crudley
Glock in your sock
I built an ISP long ago for an ex-customer once. The amount of pr0n downloads was mind boggling and really clogged up the whole network.
People used to casually call and ask me to check why they couldn't download whatever they wanted to jerk off over from bigbazoomas.com.
'No sir, I don't know why that group sex movie cannot be viewed on your pc. I won't be testing it here either. Please wash your mouse when you are done.'
Sent from my F5121 using Tapatalk
pink poodle
気が狂っている男
"I've never seen a donkey beastiality video" fuck I want that on a t-shirt with Don Burke's face!
link1896
Mr Greenfield
It is but it fails the greed test. Only way we can sustain such strong GDP growth is immigration.
Dick and co's message is a hard one to articulate without someone thinking it's racist.. I personally think the underlying message of infinite growth being unsustainable is a good one.
Even the left media ie Fairfax has been pushing the issue since the census data came out showing how ridiculous the growth is in Melb and Syd.
High population growth and concentration in our major cities is a big issue, if this growth was spread across rural oz maybe the issue wouldn't be so bad.. But that ain't going to happen while immigrants have a high bar to jump over and aren't going to settle in lower paid country jobs..
No one believes infinte growth is the thing though. Current trends see demographics groing to around 11-12 billion worldwide and then going backwards pretty significantly. It's not a straight line. Economic growth is also cyclical in the way the economy evolves agriculture-manufacturing-services-knowledge-etc.
There are far more kangaroos in Australia, far, far more birds in the world [etc. etc.] than there are people yet their environment hasn't been wiped out by them. Why not, because their existence is sustainable or evolves. So that might suggest that the problem isn't numbers but is behaviour. If your existence isn't a massive drain on resources then your numbers matter rather little. If you want to impact this issue you're probably better off focusing on a realisitic alternative like sustainability than limiting birth rates or life spans. Try getting any politician (outside of authoritarian countries) to sell that policy.
There are far more kangaroos in Australia, far, far more birds in the world [etc. etc.] than there are people yet their environment hasn't been wiped out by them. Why not, because their existence is sustainable or evolves. So that might suggest that the problem isn't numbers but is behaviour. If your existence isn't a massive drain on resources then your numbers matter rather little. If you want to impact this issue you're probably better off focusing on a realisitic alternative like sustainability than limiting birth rates or life spans. Try getting any politician (outside of authoritarian countries) to sell that policy.
You nailed it. Sustainability. We, speaking locally, are getting better but there is still enormous amounts of waste generated. Resources are consumed that dont need to be. No politician can sell that. Greed is.... us.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-12/population-growth-masking-australian-economic-weakness/8700288
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-12/population-growth-masking-australian-economic-weakness/8700288
johnny your kangaroo analogy isn't a good one, kangaroos are regularly culled. Also I think you're confusing global population issues with the Australian ones Dick Smith is drawing attention to.
scblack
Leucocholic
That was nothing to do with internet, it was for pay TV.
Facts people facts, lets get them right.
Yes the economy is naturally cyclical just like everything in the universe. The issue I see is this growth and contraction phases are being artificially propped upwards.
Ask an company ceo to tell their shareholders there will not be profit growth this half and see what happens. The only way certain sectors are producing year on year growth is by selling more to more people.. Hence where the population growth comes in, for example developers and real estate/construction would plummet in the big cities if population growth slowed. Developers wouldn't be building stuff that wouldn't be economically viable in a normal cyclical market.. High rise towers are being built with the smallest profit margins at present and the lack of quality is evident. Do we want all this crap expansion/pollution/waste going on for no other reason other than companies producing a profit-> for their "growth"..
So many companies have been caught relying on aquiring other businesses to create the illusion of growth every year.
Population growth is part of the issue which I think is getting lost in the whole sustainability debate.
I think market forces will control growth for the sake of growth.
The sustainability debate and population debate are the same thing though. The expansion/pollution/waste is the problem, right? If you control that then numbers become less and less relevant. The problem is the damage we're doing to our environment and that is caused by our behaviour. A city of a million that uses only coal, oil, doesn't recycle, dumps waste into rivers, etc. etc. will have more of an impact than a city of 5 million that uses wind/tide/solar/whatever, recycles at low cost, treats any waste, etc. etc.
Numbers are the wrong argument for so many reasons. I'll take 100 butterflies in my loungeroom over one wasp because their behaviour and consequences are totally different.
The sustainability debate and population debate are the same thing though. The expansion/pollution/waste is the problem, right? If you control that then numbers become less and less relevant. The problem is the damage we're doing to our environment and that is caused by our behaviour. A city of a million that uses only coal, oil, doesn't recycle, dumps waste into rivers, etc. etc. will have more of an impact than a city of 5 million that uses wind/tide/solar/whatever, recycles at low cost, treats any waste, etc. etc.
Numbers are the wrong argument for so many reasons. I'll take 100 butterflies in my loungeroom over one wasp because their behaviour and consequences are totally different.
John U
MTB Precision
I think our biggest problem will be unintended consequences of reducing biodiversity. If a single species is removed from a system the results could be bad. If multiple species are removed, the consequences could be dire. Problem is we have little idea of these things until they’re done.
Asked in total ignorance: haven't species been coming and going since day dot, though?
Not to trivialise the risks arround reducing biodiversity as I understand that shocks to the ecosystem can have grave consequences (I also understand that 'grave' is a value judgement and many occurrances in the evolution of earth that are considered grave for one species have been of benefit to another)
Not to trivialise the risks arround reducing biodiversity as I understand that shocks to the ecosystem can have grave consequences (I also understand that 'grave' is a value judgement and many occurrances in the evolution of earth that are considered grave for one species have been of benefit to another)
John U
MTB Precision
Yeah, that’s true. The problem this time is the rate it’s occurring. At a slower rate species have time to evolve and not necessarily be wiped out.
The balance is always changing, change is usually gradual. If change happens quickly change will be larger. The extreme example of this would be a meteor strike.
Edit
My real concern is increasing ocean temperatures and overfishing of the oceans, and the impact this has on terrestrial life. All this stuff is linked.
Yep, I work with a complex systems scientist when we do futures work and his #1 priority is the acidity of the oceans and how the consequences of a large and dramatic shift there, which is possible, are unfathomable.
That stuff scares me much more than DPRK nukes and suicide bombs.
That stuff scares me much more than DPRK nukes and suicide bombs.
hifiandmtb
Sphincter beanie
As stated earlier, it’s the unprecedented rate of change that will undo us.
Rate of increase in CO2. Rate of increase in overall global temperature. Rate of extinction.
Nothing can adapt to this calamity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rate of increase in CO2. Rate of increase in overall global temperature. Rate of extinction.
Nothing can adapt to this calamity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk