Climategate: What They Aren't Telling You!

Started by AP, May 17, 2014, 09:39:34 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

PabloMack

May 18, 2014, 08:37:59 am #15 Last Edit: May 18, 2014, 08:43:25 am by PabloMack
Quote from: Kadri on May 18, 2014, 06:43:13 amMichael i don't know what the best solution is but not listening to science and denying it only because of a politician you don't like is absurd.Screw all of the politicians go and read further. Nearly all scientist says the same today.


I am all for quality of life for humans. So it is the quantity of human life that is the ultimate cause of almost all of the major problems in the world. Solve this problem and you solve most of the problems in the world today. No matter what individuals do to be more conservative and efficient, the savings will be gobbled up with more and more humans arriving on the scene. The only way to solve the problem is to curb population growth. To find the cause of this problem look no further than to those who have too many babies. So we need to stop admiring those who have ten kids and look at them as the selfish people they are. Furthermore, charities like "feed the children" are making the problem worse. Its like putting out a fire with gasoline (petrol). If people won't do it intelligently by voluntary action, then nature will with famine, drought, disease and war.

Dune

I agree totally, Pablo, but then there are people who say; less children... so who's gonna work for us (our pensions)? Must be very gradual, I guess.

PabloMack

Quote from: Dune on May 18, 2014, 09:19:20 amMust be very gradual, I guess.


Yes. Any other way will cause more problems.

archonforest

I think China had this rule already. Like max 1-2 kid per family...
In my Home country the usual is 1 or 2 kid since almost nobody can afford more due to high tax low pay...etc.(These days people thinking over there think over twice if they want a kid whatsoever :(
Only the gypsy people got 6-10 kids but they doing it only as the Government issues them money after the kids.
Dell T5500 with Dual Hexa Xeon CPU 3Ghz, 32Gb ram, GTX 1080
Amiga 1200 8Mb ram, 8Gb ssd

TheBadger

 lol. I can see from the ideas in this thread that I am right not to trust environmentalists/government. Better things get warmer than ideas like are here become the law.

It has been eaten.

PabloMack

May 18, 2014, 12:09:30 pm #20 Last Edit: May 18, 2014, 12:11:29 pm by PabloMack
Quote from: archonforest on May 18, 2014, 11:30:45 amI think China had this rule already. Like max 1-2 kid per family...


I heard on the news recently that they rescinded that law.

Quote from: archonforest on May 18, 2014, 11:30:45 amOnly the gypsy people got 6-10 kids but they doing it only as the Government issues them money after the kids.


Gasp!

PabloMack

May 18, 2014, 12:22:40 pm #21 Last Edit: May 18, 2014, 12:28:06 pm by PabloMack
Quote from: TheBadger on May 18, 2014, 11:42:11 amlol. I can see from the ideas in this thread that I am right not to trust environmentalists/government. Better things get warmer than ideas like are here become the law.


I am just recognizing the problem and not trying to put Band-Aids on them. By "voluntary" I don't mean passing coercive laws. But people just don't talk about human overpopulation very much. They talk all around the problem and get the government involved to forcibly do things that often times make the problem worse. By "voluntary" I mean that individuals understand what is causing the problem and talk about it like we are doing now. People who have too many babies should understand that this problem and all of its consequences are their fault and no one else's.

TheBadger

May 18, 2014, 01:56:36 pm #22 Last Edit: May 18, 2014, 02:31:41 pm by TheBadger
OK, but why pick on kids? There are far more old people than children. Maybe we should get rid of everyone over 50? I mean, old people use up far more resources than kids. I think one 50 year old human uses as much resources as like 20 kids or something like that. Also old people can often smell bad.

I saw an episode of Star Trek NG, where on a certain planet no one was allowed to age past 54 years. At that age for the benefit of their planet, they killed them selves in a really pretentious ceremony. And I thought well, I guess their kids don't have to worry about paying for the retirements of their parents.

Look, the only thing that will fix any of these problems that we have *now* is nuclear power. Hopefully in the relatively near future, cold Fusion and hydrogen. What I remember being told was that the only problem with Hydrogen is that its difficult to produce in the way we need it. But we already know how. Those hydro engines generated only water as waste, and the claim was that, that water could even be consumed safely.

So rather than worrying about what other people do with their lives and how much they need to consume, why don't people actually just fix the problems?.. Cheap renewable, clean energy... Oh yeah I forgot, because none of this is actually about solving problems, its about control and power and dollars and politics. Silly me.

I mean why talk about people as the problem rather than the tech as the solution? I guess every interest needs an enemy? Of course we can logically see that getting rid of "some people" wont solve any problems (that is a band aid also really sick darwinian thinking). The only thing that will solve the problem is real energy solutions, all of which the green lobby opposes. So...
It has been eaten.

Kadri

May 18, 2014, 02:43:02 pm #23 Last Edit: May 18, 2014, 02:45:32 pm by Kadri

I am with Pablo on this.
The problem will get only worse in time with the growing population.
Because water and food is already a problem.
You will have to bring new solutions to those problems too beside the climate change.
Why not solve all those problems together?
I wouldn't be surprised if we see more articles about this in the near future.

Upon Infinity

George Carlin's thoughts on the topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4&noredirect=1



Personally, I'll get worried when Al Gore moves out of his beachfront mansion.
3D Models / Art Prints: www.uponinfinity.com | YouTube | Twitter | Support My Work

PabloMack

Quote from: TheBadger on May 18, 2014, 01:56:36 pmOK, but why pick on kids? There are far more old people than children. Maybe we should get rid of everyone over 50?...


It is a blessing to have a quiet mind. Like when someone says that the room is too crowded I don't have a demon on my shoulder translating what they said into "Hey let's kill some of these people". Badger, you worry me.

TheBadger

May 18, 2014, 08:58:16 pm #26 Last Edit: May 18, 2014, 09:04:22 pm by TheBadger
*
It has been eaten.

Dune

I am not very optimistic about controlling anything. A lot of words and ideas, but since society is all about money, that will dictate any change. So change should come from the financial system first; shift in what is taxed and what not, etc.

bobbystahr

Quote from: Dune on May 18, 2014, 09:19:20 am
I agree totally, Pablo, but then there are people who say; less children... so who's gonna work for us (our pensions)? Must be very gradual, I guess.


When I realized I was gonna be a musician for life in a not well paying style(my own) I made a decision to not have kids and at 65 seems a bit
hasty a decision when my sidewalk needed shoveling and my back wouldn't do it...so I don't know as overpopulation a age 18 seemed a very big problem. As it turns out it's not that we can't make enough to feed every soul on this planet it's simply greed that starves folks most times it seems....
something borrowed,
something Blue.
Ring out the Old.
Bring in the New
Bobby Stahr, Paracosmologist

Tangled-Universe

There is no problem with food, water and so on.
Our global economy is based on dept and especially scarcity, in order to make profit.
Ulco already said that the first change needed is a change of the financial system.

Everyone can have geothermal, solar and wind energy at home, but virtually no one has more than one of these at home, if at all.
Food is abundant (obesity becoming #1 disorder in developed countries), but keeping parts of the world poor and hungry allows for cheap labor, cheap production and high profits for multinationals.
4% of the water is fresh and suitable for drinking. That's a mother motherload of water we won't be able to consume in thousands of years.
There's a wealth of resources for food and water, but it's key to divide those carefully to keep the global financial system going.

Governments spend >100 billion dollars each year on false flag wars to support this financial system and the military industrial complex.
All these parties have NO interest in getting global warming fixed or to let everyone have cheap energy and plenty food.
However, these parties do pull the strings.

Instead, we fund nuclear fusion research with a staggering 8 billion dollars over 10 years or so.
How do you mean it's not of priority to the people in charge?
That's not supporting, it's keeping it just alive enough for everyone to believe there's genuine interest in developing it and to pretend the intention is there.
I think it couldn't be more obvious that they just don't care...