Being "green" is not the best way forward.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Obviously a managed reduction won't be abrupt so will work, so this isn't a survivor situation.
Competition for supplies is what my solution solves, not what it causes, since the world's resources remain the same but with everyone having six times as much available.
The fact that the more difficult to recover resources wont be immediately necessary means lower prices as well with only the easily available ones used. A one sixth population means food need travel much less, since there's a higher proportion of agricultural land at closer distances, again meaning lower prices.
It all adds up to a better life. Even the risk of Big Brother is reduced, history showing the direct relationship between population size and the application of controls, both grow together.
.
Just seen your further response Jontee. I don't think Sudan is in any way relevant to what I proposed. That's what my proposal prevents, since these marginal lands wont even be necessary with plenty of better space nearby.
Obviously I'm speaking of replacing Kyoto with this plan instead. I acknowledged before that it has a slim chance, but that's better than what's happening at present which has no chance.
.
Obviously I'm speaking of replacing Kyoto with this plan instead. I acknowledged before that it has a slim chance, but that's better than what's happening at present which has no chance.
.
Would'nt Fleccs ideology require a massive change in human nature/behavior?
It is afterall basic greed that only ever drives a civilisation forward - i think.
My self i would truly love to see such a change - but modern times only illustrate that we are still just the same species but with much less room!
I'm starting to get political now - must be growing up.
It is afterall basic greed that only ever drives a civilisation forward - i think.
My self i would truly love to see such a change - but modern times only illustrate that we are still just the same species but with much less room!
I'm starting to get political now - must be growing up.
This is a very important question and one I sadly feel will lead to failure in any attempts to manage a reduced population/economy etc.....It is afterall basic greed that only ever drives a civilisation forward - i think.
As we stand, the world is a hugely divided place, in terms of population, wealth and natural resources. If we take a proposed 1billion global population, how do we distribute those people and ensure that their population remains in check? How do we ensure each us has an equal share.
Personally I think the elite will do whatever it takes to ensure that the majority of us are enslaved in form or another. A very interesting discussion though!
I think that the time-scales here don't compare. Koyoto runs for just 7 years ( with a view to further phases though), and is looking to stabilise CO2 this century to prevent the worst affects of climate change.
Any (gentle) reduction of population would take many decades, even centuries, probably too late for any real affect. In fact, if you are thinking along the lines of birth control, surprisingly this would have a very minor impact, as much of the current population increase is not so much due to an increase in berth rates but more to a reduction of death rates. We are all living a lot longer.
Who is 'the elite' in this case? Don't you think it is us (for now at any rate)? It is not intentional of course but does that make a difference?
We really are stuck for choices are'nt we? We can carry on as we are,birth control,war,euthanasia,genocide,change our nature and behaviour and actually all work for the common good, or wait for the next natural disaster.
I would love to see any other alternatives that the world would be willing to put into practice - it might even be worth taking part oneself.
Of course, but the time span of Kyoto is just returning to the minutiae again. I gave a concept, not a detailed plan of course, and a Kyoto style plan would need to run open ended.
However, I'm not thinking of being as gentle as that with population reduction, nor am I thinking of quite the cruel measures the Chinese have used. However, the Chinese model with some humanitarian allowances could produce fairly rapid results. The Chinese acted because their population was near to reaching 2 billion, and now they've already got it down to 1.25 billion and still falling.
And they are not the only country which has shown willing or is currently showing willingness for such measures. India has previously acted, Kenya now has a population crisis on it's hands, and there are other examples of worried governments. In fact it's probably true to say that the third world has more support for this measure than for the Kyoto solution which they see as denying them progress and the benefits of the western advances.
This measure is even handed and has no inherent disadvantage for anyone. It just means we all reduce, all have a greater share in what's available, and there's a much better chance for the third world to play catchup.
However, like most I admit the chances of the world's countries reaching any agreement leading to progress is slim, and we'll probably just end up with wars followed by increasingly dictatorial regimes.
But as I've posted, that need not be so, since there is this very simple solution.
.
Last edited:
Again I would suggest that the complexity of the systems necessary for such measures would preclude us from actually being able to manage global population reduction. As ever 'the devil is in the detail'. How would you actually achieve a reduction on that scale? Such measures would require global consensus, which is hardly likely given the many moral, cultural, political, religious and economic agendas that exist.
Has there actually been any society over the course of history that has worked for the 'common good'? I doubt it. There are always winners and losers. The difference nowadays is that the pursuit of 'winning' (i.e. anything to do with living beyond mere subsistence level) can have global repercussions. Ever considered how much industry/energy is required to support a modern lifestyle? And how much now depends on that lifestyle being maintained?
And yet I would suggest that it is the very complexity of the interdepencies that may be our undoing. Perhaps all it takes is a credit crunch here, a crop failure way over there and a fuel strike somewhere and suddenly instability can afflict society. The point is, any such 'collapse' in order would be unpredictable, unmanageable and ugly, but you might get a population reduction. As to what sort of lifestyle you would have afterward, is anyone's guess.
Has there actually been any society over the course of history that has worked for the 'common good'? I doubt it. There are always winners and losers. The difference nowadays is that the pursuit of 'winning' (i.e. anything to do with living beyond mere subsistence level) can have global repercussions. Ever considered how much industry/energy is required to support a modern lifestyle? And how much now depends on that lifestyle being maintained?
And yet I would suggest that it is the very complexity of the interdepencies that may be our undoing. Perhaps all it takes is a credit crunch here, a crop failure way over there and a fuel strike somewhere and suddenly instability can afflict society. The point is, any such 'collapse' in order would be unpredictable, unmanageable and ugly, but you might get a population reduction. As to what sort of lifestyle you would have afterward, is anyone's guess.
Which I've acknowledged and answered halfmedley. It can only be with global consensus, and as I've acknowledged and you say, that's extremely unlikely.
However I disagree that the measures needed would be complex, they'd be simplicity itself against the ridiculous complexity of what we are doing under Kyoto. That affects every area and moment of our lives and everything we live with, but population control affects just one, the act of procreation. Sure it's unpopular, everything that works to effect a change always is.
That what I propose could be achieved is very unlikely, so only the merest of chances. Kyoto has no chance, will achieve nothing of consequence and is a waste of time and everybody's myriad efforts.
.
However I disagree that the measures needed would be complex, they'd be simplicity itself against the ridiculous complexity of what we are doing under Kyoto. That affects every area and moment of our lives and everything we live with, but population control affects just one, the act of procreation. Sure it's unpopular, everything that works to effect a change always is.
That what I propose could be achieved is very unlikely, so only the merest of chances. Kyoto has no chance, will achieve nothing of consequence and is a waste of time and everybody's myriad efforts.
.
all you can do is your bit. though a bit more than changing to low energy lightbulbs and turning off the tap while you brush your teeth... so much green advice is innane. kyoto wont work but nor will any other plan. we are just too motivated for our own ends to follow somebody elses plan. but back to our bit. reduce consumption rather than recycle. use cars less and bicycles more even in the rain and cold, eat less meat or stop eating it altogether, be careful with water consumption, etc etc
sounds pretty innance too actually. i would go along with the doomsday scenarios of science fiction. dennis potters version will do. the terrorists were called rons (reality or nothing) . i think the ruling elite will continue to advance technology wise and eventually earth will be the inferior place and the elite will look to space travel.
sounds pretty innance too actually. i would go along with the doomsday scenarios of science fiction. dennis potters version will do. the terrorists were called rons (reality or nothing) . i think the ruling elite will continue to advance technology wise and eventually earth will be the inferior place and the elite will look to space travel.
Harry,
you could argue 'elite' to be those with power/wealth i.e. bankers, senior government/military, corporations, individuals etc.
We have ended up with an economic system that drives us to consume more and more because if we don't it collapses in a heap. Which is why I believe TPTB will do everything in their power to ensure it remains 'business as usual'. Once we start on the road to energy scarcity I believe all bets will be off and everything will be done to keep everyone driving and consuming!
I agree that when it comes to energy scarcity things will change and that is why I put "for now". I am not sure it will even be possible to keep us driving consuming here in the UK though as we are in a pretty weak position. But at the moment we are the elite as we can buy more of our fair share of the resources, be it food (especially as meat) or fuel. Much as I personally long for a simpler life, we do owe our prosperity to this economic system and I cannot suggest a better system at the moment.
Actually my original point was that TPTB seem happy to wreak havoc on our economies, deny food for the poorest in the name of climate change. I think we have taken our eye off the ball and some of the real issues are (as discussed here) population growth, food supply and energy supply/security.
Chinese population has risen every year, it has never fallen. It may not be growing quite as fast as predicted 10 years ago but that doesn't give too much hope for serious population reduction.
london taxi's go electric next year
article in todays Metro was about the makers of london's black cabs and that next year they will be introducing electric ones running off batteries....
article in todays Metro was about the makers of london's black cabs and that next year they will be introducing electric ones running off batteries....
Thanks for the correction John. My original source must have been sourced by China's propaganda ministry.
It appears no-one knows the true situation.
My original point remains though, that reduction is the only thing which could achieve the objectives, though I agree with the majority that's there's next to no chance of achieving agreement on anything as things stand.
At least at my age I can be smug, and thankful I've lived when I did.
.
Two years running Mitsubishi promised their electric "i" car which has just been deferred another year.
Four years running we've been promised the electric Smart car, and now it's arrived it's only a very limited trial to see if it's any good yet.
I won't be holding my breath on this one.
.