Stinson4118C wrote:Who was that chick in Soylent Green???GOD what a total hottie. I'm still in love with her...the way she was that is. Great movie for the day, pretty crappie watched again.
http://www.lty.com/
There ya' go!
Not Enough Food, or Water For The World? Easy .. Kill Kids
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako
Re: Not Enough Food, or Water For The World? Easy .. Kill Kids
http://www.lty.com/
There ya' go!
-
BoostedNihilist
Re: Not Enough Food, or Water For The World? Easy .. Kill Kids
that`s right the government causes all your problems.. sounds like you`re a dirty lib to me.,It may be easy to ridicule this guy, but what is the answer? The population growth of the chronic, non-working segment of society is spiraling upward rapidly, while the working middle class taxpayers that are supporting this group is shrinking. What quality of life is ahead for the next generations at this rate? Government programs created this problem; they have to be the ones to cure it. We can’t just bury our heads in the sand and hope the problem goes away. It is getting worse.
Re: Not Enough Food, or Water For The World? Easy .. Kill Kids
All we need is to stop finding remedies for these Pandemic Flus, SARS etc..... the would would be a better place with 50% less people in it. Were the only species that does not have any real natural predators, so hence our population is outta control
Re: Not Enough Food, or Water For The World? Easy .. Kill Kids
Yes, I believe the government does cause a lot of our problems. It does not appear to be run by the will of the people any more (or at least not the working people). Social programs that don't encourage people to work, creating generations of non-working scum. Bailouts, when in the real world, a failed business would go down and probably be taken over by someone that could make a go of it. I love paying taxes to support all of this crap. We need less government, not more. Dirty Lib, Socialist? Not remotely. I am for neutering some of those puppies the government created. Harsh enough?BoostedNihilist wrote:that`s right the government causes all your problems.. sounds like you`re a dirty lib to me.,It may be easy to ridicule this guy, but what is the answer? The population growth of the chronic, non-working segment of society is spiraling upward rapidly, while the working middle class taxpayers that are supporting this group is shrinking. What quality of life is ahead for the next generations at this rate? Government programs created this problem; they have to be the ones to cure it. We can’t just bury our heads in the sand and hope the problem goes away. It is getting worse.
-
Siddley Hawker
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3353
- Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:56 pm
- Location: 50.13N 66.17W
Re: Not Enough Food, or Water For The World? Easy .. Kill Kids
Holy shit. With them choppers I'm surprised she ain't out grazin' the back fourty.http://www.lty.com/
There ya' go!
-
The Old Fogducker
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1784
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:13 pm
Re: Not Enough Food, or Water For The World? Easy .. Kill Kids
In today's news that comes from "The Guardian" ... a UK newspaper that has a massive circulation among the ... well, lets call them, "Alternative Lifestyle" folks in Great Britain.
Their Environmental Editor, John Vidal, has called for us all to limit population growth to so that the population decreases to somewhere around 200 to 300 million persons .... world-wide. In other words, only about 2/3 of the population of the USA ... spread all over the planet.
So rather than just limiting population through birth control and abortion, I suggest we get right at it right away ... after all, if the situation is as dire as "the settled science" shows, then I propose we just go out into our respective neighbourhoods and start popping off maybe 50 to 75 of our fellow citizens this afternoon ... because some of them will catch on and hide, it might take til maybe midnight to get your local quota.
If we all do our part for the environment, we can survive this temporary irritation.
It would seem that those kindly environmentally aware guys, Adolf Hitler, Idi Amin, Joe Stalin and Chairman Mao really had the right idea, and were just a little ahead of their time....
A side benefit of this rapid population decrease .... my school taxes based upon real estate values should take a dip too!
Temporary Regards from,
The Old Fogducker
Here is a copy & Paste of the article ...
link to original http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ange/print
Rich nations to offset emissions with birth control
Radical plan to cut CO2 argues that paying for family planning is developing world is the best bet
Consumers in the developed world are to be offered a radical method of offsetting their carbon emissions in an ambitious attempt to tackle climate change - by paying for contraception measures in poorer countries to curb the rapidly growing global population.
The scheme - set up by an organisation backed by Sir David Attenborough, the former diplomat Sir Crispin Tickell and green figureheads such as Jonathon Porritt and James Lovelock - argues that family planning is the most effective way to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.
Optimum Population Trust (Opt) stresses that birth control will be provided only to those who have no access to it, and only unwanted births would be avoided. Opt estimates that 80 million pregnancies each year are unwanted.
The cost-benefit analysis commissioned by the trust claims that family planning is the cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions. Every £4 spent on contraception, it says, saves one tonne of CO2 being added to global warming, but a similar reduction in emissions would require an £8 investment in tree planting, £15 in wind power, £31 in solar energy and £56 in hybrid vehicle technology.
Calculations based on the trust's figures show the 10 tonnes emitted by a return flight from London to Sydney would be offset by enabling the avoidance of one unwanted birth in a country such as Kenya. Such action not only cuts emissions but reduces the number of people who will fall victim to climate change, it says.
"The scheme, called PopOffsets, understands the connection [between population increase and climate change]," says the trust director Roger Martin. "It offers a practical and sensible response. For the first time ever individuals, companies and organisations will have the opportunity to offset their carbon voluntarily by supporting projects to provide family planning services where there is currently unmet demand."
In papers released with the launch of the offset scheme, the trust claims that reducing CO 2 by 34 gigatonnes would cost about $220bn with family planning, but more than $1tn with low carbon technologies. The 34 gigatonnes is roughly what the world emits in a year, and would be achieved by cutting the projected global population in 2050 by 500 million.
The world's population, presently 6.8 billion, is increasing by nearly 84 million a year. The growth is equivalent to a new country the size of Germany each year, or a city the size of Birmingham every week. It is expected by the UN to peak at about 9 billion people in 2050. By this time, UN scientists say global carbon emissions must have reduced by at least 80% to avoid dangerous rises in temperature, meaning the carbon footprint of each citizen in 2050 will have to be very low.
"The current level of human population growth is unsustainable and places acute pressure on global resources. Human activity is exacerbating global warming, and higher population levels inevitably mean higher emissions and more climate change victims," said Martin.
The giant carbon footprints of developed countries mean prevented births will save far more carbon than those in developing nations.
However, some development groups opposed the plan. "We are keen that any money raised [from offsets] help the poorest who are most vulnerable to climate change. [But] it would be misleading if it was spent in this way. It should go to [immediate] things like disaster risk reduction, food security and water," said Paul Cook, advocacy director of Tearfund, a faith-based development group.
Population control is highly contentious in rich and poor countries alike Some, such as Jonathon Porritt, the former Sustainable Development Commission chair, have said promotion of reproductive health is one of the most progressive forms of intervention. "Had there been no 'one child family' policy in China there would now have been 400 million additional Chinese citizens," he has said.
But other thinkers, such as the Guardian columnist George Monbiot, say global population increase pales into insignificance when compared with the effect of increased consumption and economic growth.
Their Environmental Editor, John Vidal, has called for us all to limit population growth to so that the population decreases to somewhere around 200 to 300 million persons .... world-wide. In other words, only about 2/3 of the population of the USA ... spread all over the planet.
So rather than just limiting population through birth control and abortion, I suggest we get right at it right away ... after all, if the situation is as dire as "the settled science" shows, then I propose we just go out into our respective neighbourhoods and start popping off maybe 50 to 75 of our fellow citizens this afternoon ... because some of them will catch on and hide, it might take til maybe midnight to get your local quota.
If we all do our part for the environment, we can survive this temporary irritation.
It would seem that those kindly environmentally aware guys, Adolf Hitler, Idi Amin, Joe Stalin and Chairman Mao really had the right idea, and were just a little ahead of their time....
A side benefit of this rapid population decrease .... my school taxes based upon real estate values should take a dip too!
Temporary Regards from,
The Old Fogducker
Here is a copy & Paste of the article ...
link to original http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ange/print
Rich nations to offset emissions with birth control
Radical plan to cut CO2 argues that paying for family planning is developing world is the best bet
Consumers in the developed world are to be offered a radical method of offsetting their carbon emissions in an ambitious attempt to tackle climate change - by paying for contraception measures in poorer countries to curb the rapidly growing global population.
The scheme - set up by an organisation backed by Sir David Attenborough, the former diplomat Sir Crispin Tickell and green figureheads such as Jonathon Porritt and James Lovelock - argues that family planning is the most effective way to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.
Optimum Population Trust (Opt) stresses that birth control will be provided only to those who have no access to it, and only unwanted births would be avoided. Opt estimates that 80 million pregnancies each year are unwanted.
The cost-benefit analysis commissioned by the trust claims that family planning is the cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions. Every £4 spent on contraception, it says, saves one tonne of CO2 being added to global warming, but a similar reduction in emissions would require an £8 investment in tree planting, £15 in wind power, £31 in solar energy and £56 in hybrid vehicle technology.
Calculations based on the trust's figures show the 10 tonnes emitted by a return flight from London to Sydney would be offset by enabling the avoidance of one unwanted birth in a country such as Kenya. Such action not only cuts emissions but reduces the number of people who will fall victim to climate change, it says.
"The scheme, called PopOffsets, understands the connection [between population increase and climate change]," says the trust director Roger Martin. "It offers a practical and sensible response. For the first time ever individuals, companies and organisations will have the opportunity to offset their carbon voluntarily by supporting projects to provide family planning services where there is currently unmet demand."
In papers released with the launch of the offset scheme, the trust claims that reducing CO 2 by 34 gigatonnes would cost about $220bn with family planning, but more than $1tn with low carbon technologies. The 34 gigatonnes is roughly what the world emits in a year, and would be achieved by cutting the projected global population in 2050 by 500 million.
The world's population, presently 6.8 billion, is increasing by nearly 84 million a year. The growth is equivalent to a new country the size of Germany each year, or a city the size of Birmingham every week. It is expected by the UN to peak at about 9 billion people in 2050. By this time, UN scientists say global carbon emissions must have reduced by at least 80% to avoid dangerous rises in temperature, meaning the carbon footprint of each citizen in 2050 will have to be very low.
"The current level of human population growth is unsustainable and places acute pressure on global resources. Human activity is exacerbating global warming, and higher population levels inevitably mean higher emissions and more climate change victims," said Martin.
The giant carbon footprints of developed countries mean prevented births will save far more carbon than those in developing nations.
However, some development groups opposed the plan. "We are keen that any money raised [from offsets] help the poorest who are most vulnerable to climate change. [But] it would be misleading if it was spent in this way. It should go to [immediate] things like disaster risk reduction, food security and water," said Paul Cook, advocacy director of Tearfund, a faith-based development group.
Population control is highly contentious in rich and poor countries alike Some, such as Jonathon Porritt, the former Sustainable Development Commission chair, have said promotion of reproductive health is one of the most progressive forms of intervention. "Had there been no 'one child family' policy in China there would now have been 400 million additional Chinese citizens," he has said.
But other thinkers, such as the Guardian columnist George Monbiot, say global population increase pales into insignificance when compared with the effect of increased consumption and economic growth.
-
Siddley Hawker
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3353
- Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:56 pm
- Location: 50.13N 66.17W
Re: Not Enough Food, or Water For The World? Easy .. Kill Kids
Thinker huh? Somebody's cuttin' that guy a lot of slack.But other thinkers, such as the Guardian columnist George Monbiot...
Re: Not Enough Food, or Water For The World? Easy .. Kill Kids
The only way to stabilize population growth would be to help 3rd world developing countries develop. Otherwise, they will continue pumping out children because that's their only assurance of survival through old age. Kind of like our RRSPs.
-
The Old Fogducker
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1784
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:13 pm
Re: Not Enough Food, or Water For The World? Easy .. Kill Kids
Nope ... not good enough to make a real difference in a timely fashion, and way too socialist for my thinking Morav ... its my money, I earned it, and I'm not going to just up and give it away to some third world type that is stupid enough to still be peeing in their drinking water.
Once again, I refer you to my solution of quickly gunning down about 400 to 500 million westerners ... after all, we westerners are the energy hogs that are gobbling up our precious Mother Gaia's resources out of proportion to the rest of the world's population, so lets go for the gusto, and cut the head off the snake.
Oh, and don't bother burying them ... takes too long, uses too much fuel, and will deny Vultures, Buzzards, and rats some pretty good food.
OFD
Once again, I refer you to my solution of quickly gunning down about 400 to 500 million westerners ... after all, we westerners are the energy hogs that are gobbling up our precious Mother Gaia's resources out of proportion to the rest of the world's population, so lets go for the gusto, and cut the head off the snake.
Oh, and don't bother burying them ... takes too long, uses too much fuel, and will deny Vultures, Buzzards, and rats some pretty good food.
OFD
-
Jastapilot
- Rank 8
- Posts: 832
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:42 pm
Re: Not Enough Food, or Water For The World? Easy .. Kill Kids
but the decaying flesh will emit even more CO2 and methane!
-
The Old Fogducker
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1784
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:13 pm
Re: Not Enough Food, or Water For The World? Easy .. Kill Kids
Look .... if you're going to make an omelet, ya gotta break some eggs.
Kind of like bashing in a few heads of energy hogs to prevent their DNA from being passed along by using a pick-axe to save ammo ... that should be used for the long distance shots ... after all, doing away with 300 to 400 million or more will take some creative thinking on new and exciting methods.
There is certainly room for more than just one method to be used in this war on the decadent westerners. The door isn't closed to anyone coming forward with any good clean ideas and methods to pop off close to half a billion people ... in fact, I'll bet there could be some kind of grant development fund set up to figure out some Green way to do the deed .... after all, we are out to save the earth here ... not something to be taken lightly.
The increase in GHGs will be temporary, and the benefits of decreased population will be realized very quickly.
OFD
Kind of like bashing in a few heads of energy hogs to prevent their DNA from being passed along by using a pick-axe to save ammo ... that should be used for the long distance shots ... after all, doing away with 300 to 400 million or more will take some creative thinking on new and exciting methods.
There is certainly room for more than just one method to be used in this war on the decadent westerners. The door isn't closed to anyone coming forward with any good clean ideas and methods to pop off close to half a billion people ... in fact, I'll bet there could be some kind of grant development fund set up to figure out some Green way to do the deed .... after all, we are out to save the earth here ... not something to be taken lightly.
The increase in GHGs will be temporary, and the benefits of decreased population will be realized very quickly.
OFD
