blonde poker forum

“When the Last Tree Is Cut Down, the Last Fish Eaten, and the Last Stream Poisoned, You Will Realize That You Cannot Eat Money.”


Canadian forestry

Californian oilfield

Surfing in Indonesia

Melting ice caps

Greenhouses in Almeria

Overdeveloped Mexico City , 20  million inhabitants

Mining in Alberta

Mir Mine in Russia

New Delhi , 22 million inhabitants

Power plant contaminating the air

This polar bear starved to death in Svalvard, Norway. Disappearing ice caps are robbing polar bears of both their living space and food.

Well that's the problem nicely illustrated Boo, what's the solution?

I have my opinion but it isn't a popular one, esp @ Chez Red.

Reducing the population would be a good start, but apparently politicians refuse to address this issue.

I agree with this but how do we do it?

It's impossible. I think the Chinese have a law about only being allowed one child (I could be being completely ignorant here) in an attempt to keep numbers down, but it goes against human rights. The overall problem will only get worse and worse.

600,000 hectares of forest were harvested in 2012, but nature itself does far more damage.

4.3m hectares burned and 8.2m hectares were damaged by beetles.

There is 400m hectares of forest so I think the 0.15% that was cut down won't make too much of a dent (350,000 were replanted too)

Some amazing pictures, makes ya wonder dont it

WWIII

Warmonger  :o

give me a chance to dust off my SLR

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O5h4enjrHw

The peanut allergy thing

Very good :D

Mr Red Dog, I have given a lot of thought to the issue. Whilst Kmac's suggestion is not without merit, and we may want to add guests on Jeremy Kyle and contestants on all bar the 1st 3 series of Big Brother, I think a slightly more acceptable solution is needed.

First off, a realisation by politicians that it is a huge problem and an independent committee should be formed to come up with solutions. For my twopenneth I would advocate 2 strategies to start immediately.

1.Anyone imprisoned for the 3rd time should be sterilised.

2. I would stop all forms of fertility treatment on the NHS as well as any development of new techniques.

I recognise that our population problem is but a small fraction of those faced by other countries, but it is a start.

Why do you start a Eugenics program whilst you're at it.

Ban people from having kids who won't promise to have the kids goose stepping by the age of two?

Surely the effect of stopping fertility treatment would be infinitesimally small and would prevent the tiny percentage of the population who desperately want a child but can't conceive from having one?


I seem to have worded that badly but you know what I mean.

Exactly - fertility treatment is a drop in the ocean.

If you really want to reduce the world's population, then educate the developing world and get the backward cultures to stop treating women as mere baby-making machines. Once women get on a level playing field as men, and develop their own careers, then the birth rate plummets.

It seems that 1.5% of all births in the UK are as a result of IVF and it is rising, so it is not an infinitesimal amount.

And those are the people we should prevent from having children?

So you would prefer it if we just sterilised the stupid and the uncaring? Or sterilise their offspring when they are born?

It is a massive problem that no one is acknowledging. I think there should certainly be less emphasis on fertility at this moment in time.

We are talking as if we have a right to be here forever. Preventative measures will only work for so long. We are like any other species- eventually we won't exist

No. Of course I wouldn't, and I would like to point out that those are your words and thoughts, not mine.

I would rather we didn't sterilise anyone, but if we were to, I would rather it be perhaps someone who has half a dozen children already than someone who is desperate for just one.

I understand that there is an environmental point being made, but I'm not clear what it is and I don't understand some of the photos posted. Aren't the oilfield, mines, glasshouses essentially just factories. Most factories are not very pretty. Is the OP saying that those facilities should be closed? Don't we need the stuff they produce? I would understand the point better if the OP commented on each picture and said what he objected to. I assume these are just examples and he wants them and similar facilities to be closed? What would then happen? Does he want us to do without the oil, fruit, etc being produced?

I can't even guess what the point is regarding the photos of the cities. They are too big?

Dear Sirs,

The wonderful solution proposed in last week's paper by Outraged of Puntsville, Arizona causes me some concerns in its reach. Whilst a good start, it doesn't go far enough. In addition to sterilising the criminals, what about the Jews, the Gypsies and the Gay?

The programme also doesn't stop the problem of those who have already been born. They contribute to the population growth far more than the unborn kids in an IVF program.

Also, in also to economise on future savings, allow anyone to have any number of children, but refuse them vaccinations and medical treatment, then they'll all die naturally and we won't have any population to speak of.

Problem solved.

Yours eugenically.

Adolf

Of course, there is a guaranteed much better answer to the problem.

(http://www.scifi-movies.com/images/contenu/data/0002180/affiche2.jpg)

It has only been less than 100 years since Spanish Flu wiped out nearly 5% of the worlds population , Black Death did about a third of the global population in the Middle Ages , only a matter of time before the next one restores the balance to the human infestation of the planet

 :goodpost: ;iagree;

Especially the request for some comment on the pictures, along with some source references. A significant amount of the news reports about the state of our planet come from sources with a vested interest in the continuing development of low-efficiency, high-subsidy energy sources.

I get the logic, but hasnt modern medicine and modern tech mean that whatever comes up we have decent chance of catching it earlier and constraining it better in those days as we develop the anti-virus etc.

Would be nice if they could get a move on with the things that are already known about :D

OK, i was meaning more epidemics. Bird flu, ebola etc. 100years ago they'd both had been a lot worse than they were/are