More Signs Ecological Endgame Is Coming?

server down

gozunda wrote: »

That would leave the breeders to rule the planet ...

the breeders and their descendants always rule the planet. You yourself are a descendent of ancestors who bred every generation , right back to the dawn of sexual reproduction.

CalamariFritti

I guess this thread alone shows why its going to happen. This is going to peter out with a few dozen posts while people prefer to talk about teacher's holidays.

Not that I'm looking for a 'successful' thread or anything but it shows that we collectively chose to bury our heads in the sand. We'd rather not think about it. Sure I'll be dead by the time it gets serious.

The puzzling bit is that most of us are mothers and fathers or want to be. But I don't know how anyone can in the knowledge whats most likely in stock for them or for their children. Surely even if you chose to ignore, deep down people must have a niggling feeling things aren't going quite right.

CalamariFritti

server down wrote: »

I always wonder why those who argue over population continue to exist, and in many cases have children themselves.

But with the issue at hand. Whats that got to do with anything? Just because people who come to this conclusion don't jump off the next cliff doesn't make the whole question any less valid.

gozunda

server down wrote: »

the breeders and their descendants always rule the planet. *You yourself are a descendent of ancestors who bred every generation , right back to the dawn of sexual reproduction.

*An over obvious statement no? But they may not 'always rule the planet' - thats the issue. Yes I'm aware that the behaviour of breeders which has resulted in the current population level of the planet. Yet it remains that the issue of a single species over running the planet brings with it the possibility that hominid overbreeding has already been seriousley detrimental to the health and viability of the current planet ecosystem.

Calls for brakes to be applied to this scenario are therefore unlikely to come from those who see no issue in procreation without forethought. My reply was aimed at the poster who indicated (imo) that those who may be critical of this behaviour in the interest of long term species survival should not.

But don't worry it is most likely that the planet will have the last laugh ...

CalamariFritti

Ruling has responsibilities which we seem to neglect in a big way.

The planet will have the last laugh. Our efforts are not even a blip on a cosmic scale. But what a sad tragedy it would be.

valoren

If only there was something that would spew out usable energy for the next 5 billion years that we could somehow harness for our energy needs. Oh well.

The big thing for me will be the systematic reduction and elimination of fossil fuel powered vehicles. It's happening soon. The sooner the better.
When the CEO of Shell Oil says his next car purchase will be all electric then you know the will is there and the writing is on the wall for oil producers.

Will I Am Not

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Ruling has responsibilities which we seem to neglect in a big way.

The planet will have the last laugh. Our efforts are not even a blip on a cosmic scale. But what a sad tragedy it would be.

And Mother Nature will lash out and protect herself by dealing with the human plague? Amirite?

God, I truly hate when people suggest that the planet is a sentient being.

Ubbquittious

server down wrote: »

I always wonder why those who argue over population continue to exist, and in many cases have children themselves.

To make it worse, most of them are children or have been children themselves at some point.

CalamariFritti

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

And Mother Nature will lash out and protect herself by dealing with the human plague? Amirite?

God, I truly hate when people suggest that the planet is a sentient being.

Nobody did that here. I was merely picking up a metaphor previously used.

I could retort saying how much I hate it when people deliberately misrepresent and pick on something that’s got nothing to with anything.

lazybones32

Leave a better legacy for your children...by not having them.

server down

Ubbquittious wrote: »

To make it worse, most of them are children or have been children themselves at some point.

I know, right?

server down

If overpopulation of humans is a problem, and you are a human, you are part of the problem. Be part of the solution.

CalamariFritti

You’ve mentioned that before. It’s still besides the point.

Drumpot

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I guess this thread alone shows why its going to happen. This is going to peter out with a few dozen posts while people prefer to talk about teacher's holidays.

Not that I'm looking for a 'successful' thread or anything but it shows that we collectively chose to bury our heads in the sand. We'd rather not think about it. Sure I'll be dead by the time it gets serious.

The puzzling bit is that most of us are mothers and fathers or want to be. But I don't know how anyone can in the knowledge whats most likely in stock for them or for their children. Surely even if you chose to ignore, deep down people must have a niggling feeling things aren't going quite right.

I agree. I am a parent and sometimes feel guilty for bringing children into this world. Part of this is to do with my depressive episodes that mean I am acutely sensitive to the ways of the world. While it can mean I am over exaggerating how bad things are in the world, it can also help me have a greater awareness on the state of things.

In short, most people are deluded, lacking in self awareness and ignorant to the world they live in. I have sat down with several therapists and started to give them my commentary on society. How I think its completely stupid (resources spent on protecting our planet), self destructive (wars) and apologetic for failed systems (financial services sector) in spite of clear evidence to the contrary. I keep expecting therapists to say "you know you are wrong" or something on those lines, but every therapist I met said something on the lines "Its not that you are wrong, but you have to learn to live in this world".

Some people love to marvel at the greatness of humanity and its accomplishments. I think these things should be acknowledged but not at the expense of exposing our inherent weakness. Do we really value Scientists, engineers or entrepreneur's who invent things that progress humanity ? Or do we reward bottom feeders who don't really create anything but who know how to exploit the systems we currently abide by ?

I was at a recent motivational speaker conference. The speaker said that the average attention span is now 8 seconds, before you have lost somebody in conversation. Now this isn't relevant in all aspects of communication, but the graph of concentration is not going up. I bet many people didn't even get through this post!

I think the movie "Idiocracy" is a great parody of what we see today. People are too absorbed in their interpretation of the way the world is, to see how farcical many aspects of daily life really are. And now we have pathetic reactions to "major" news, people focusing on minor incidents "George Hook says ...." at the expense of practical, rational discussions on how best to educate.

EDIT: I can be as ignorant and stupid as the next person by the way. Its not that I speak from an ivory tower of smugness . . I am human and as flawed as everybody else, its just I am more aware of it!

server down

CalamariFritti wrote: »

You’ve mentioned that before. It’s still besides the point.

Not at all. Nearly everybody I know who is a catastrophist does little or nothing to help the planet, often has kids ( but is guilty about it) and has no or few restrictions on their lifestyle.

Fourier

Some of the stuff here is very exaggerated, I mean "dying rock"? Even the worst predictions don't indicate irrecoverable ecological damage for Earth. Tough for humans yes, but not the destruction of the biosphere.

Fourier

Drumpot wrote: »

I think the movie "Idiocracy" is a great parody of what we see today. People are too absorbed in their interpretation of the way the world is, to see how farcical many aspects of daily life really are. And now we have pathetic reactions to "major" news, people focusing on minor incidents "George Hook says ...." at the expense of practical, rational discussions on how best to educate.

In preceding centuries humanity was far more violent and ignorant, read a historical account of the middle ages. We're certainly not perfect, but it's not a problem of "today's world".

Hector Savage

server down wrote: »

Very few people in the west having that number kids.

I dont know about that , take a walk down any street in Ireland ...

Drumpot

Fourier wrote: »

In preceding centuries humanity was far more violent and ignorant, read a historical account of the middle ages. We're certainly not perfect, but it's not a problem of "today's world".

You are setting a very low bar and measuring progress on a very simple level. . So we don't rape, kill and pillage as much as we used to . . Your defence is basically "well we aren't as stupid as we used to be".

I would counter that by saying we have a greater understanding now then we ever did and do little or nothing to prioritise resource's for our own protection. Our ancestors didn't have the technology or knowledge to know better or take certain actions, we do. Threats from space, threats from humanity, threats from disease and threats from mother nature, we know an awful lot about these things potential future threats.


Now factor in the amount of resources and spending that humanity invests in comparison to any large private profitable venture. You can see what the people in the world value by the richest people and the financial strength of certain companies. It has little to do with protecting future generations or even protecting ourselves.

In short, our ancestors had ignorance due to lack of knowledge. Our ignorance is selfish, self absorbed, short sighted stupidity.

razorblunt

I reckon Dan Brown's Inferno was sowing the seed for something that will happen eventually ... our willies won't work, for the majority, from a potency perspective.

Which I think is disgusting and completely inhuman and unfair, why should some folk be able to go on holidays with nice cars and kids when the rest of us get stuck with kids?

Grayson

server down wrote: »

If overpopulation of humans is a problem, and you are a human, you are part of the problem. Be part of the solution.

It's not just over population. I read an article last week which mentioned in passing that the UK could support a population of 150 million though efficient farming. That's if they cultivated soy and stuff like that rather than livestock.

So it's over population with our current lifestyle.

Grayson

Drumpot wrote: »

I think the movie "Idiocracy" is a great parody of what we see today. People are too absorbed in their interpretation of the way the world is, to see how farcical many aspects of daily life really are. And now we have pathetic reactions to "major" news, people focusing on minor incidents "George Hook says ...." at the expense of practical, rational discussions on how best to educate.

Except in that movie they ask the smart guy for help and respect his opinion.

Hector Savage

Fourier wrote: »

Some of the stuff here is very exaggerated, I mean "dying rock"? Even the worst predictions don't indicate irrecoverable ecological damage for Earth. Tough for humans yes, but not the destruction of the biosphere.

I don't know, I heard by 2050 there may be no fish in the sea.
With no fish the water can't be oxygenated ... then the water basically becomes stale/useless.

Correct me if my "Science" here is off ...

Drumpot

Grayson wrote: »

Except in that movie they ask the smart guy for help and respect his opinion.

Sponsored by Carl Juniors or Brondite, cause you know, its got electrolytes . . .

server down

Hector Savage wrote: »

I dont know about that , take a walk down any street in Ireland ...

Sure that beats the actual statistics.

Fourier

Hector Savage wrote: »

I don't know, I heard by 2050 there may be no fish in the sea.
With no fish the water can't be oxygenated ... then the water basically becomes stale/useless.

Correct me if my "Science" here is off ...

I don't know of a scientific study accepted by the vast majority of climate scientists that states this. That's really all I mean.

The most widely accepted predictive models are bad for human civilization on certain areas of the planet, but they are way off biosphere collapse.

Fourier

Drumpot wrote: »

You are setting a very low bar and measuring progress on a very simple level. . So we don't rape, kill and pillage as much as we used to . . Your defence is basically "well we aren't as stupid as we used to be".

No, I am stating this isn't a problem unique to today and that today is in fact better overall. Again we aren't perfect agents of raw rationality, but there is nothing in your original post unique to today's world or even more prominent.

Drumpot

Fourier wrote: »

I don't know of a scientific study accepted by the vast majority of climate scientists that states this. That's really all I mean.

The most widely accepted predictive models are bad for human civilization on certain areas of the planet, but they are way off biosphere collapse.

" We are way off biosphere collapse" ?! Do you not think that this minimising of a catastrophic impact on humanity is part of the problem ? This reminds me of how most people think they wont die or get ill. Watching climate change or disasters on TV is not necessarily "real" to people watching it. There is nothing like personal experience of something to make a tragedy real.

The world will change dramatically over the next 100 years if we don't change our behaviours or invest resources into protective measures. This is just a fact. Minimising the potential ramifications ("sure it wont be that bad")of our behaviours leads to complacency in the same way people who are warned of their lifestyle habits make no changes and end up with serious medical conditions or death.

Fourier

Drumpot wrote: »

" We are way off biosphere collapse" ?! Do you not think that this minimising of a catastrophic impact on humanity is part of the problem ?

No, it is an accurate statement of scientific models. None of them predict Earth developing into a dying rock, as some here have stated. As I have read most of highly cited literature on climate change I am aware of the serious challenges to human civilization predicted. I just think over the top nonsense needs to be countered as well, as it is equally unscientific.

weldoninhio

Drumpot wrote: »

I agree. I am a parent and sometimes feel guilty for bringing children into this world. Part of this is to do with my depressive episodes that mean I am acutely sensitive to the ways of the world. While it can mean I am over exaggerating how bad things are in the world, it can also help me have a greater awareness on the state of things.

In short, most people are deluded, lacking in self awareness and ignorant to the world they live in. I have sat down with several therapists and started to give them my commentary on society. How I think its completely stupid (resources spent on protecting our planet), self destructive (wars) and apologetic for failed systems (financial services sector) in spite of clear evidence to the contrary. I keep expecting therapists to say "you know you are wrong" or something on those lines, but every therapist I met said something on the lines "Its not that you are wrong, but you have to learn to live in this world".

Some people love to marvel at the greatness of humanity and its accomplishments. I think these things should be acknowledged but not at the expense of exposing our inherent weakness. Do we really value Scientists, engineers or entrepreneur's who invent things that progress humanity ? Or do we reward bottom feeders who don't really create anything but who know how to exploit the systems we currently abide by ?

I was at a recent motivational speaker conference. The speaker said that the average attention span is now 8 seconds, before you have lost somebody in conversation. Now this isn't relevant in all aspects of communication, but the graph of concentration is not going up. I bet many people didn't even get through this post!

I think the movie "Idiocracy" is a great parody of what we see today. People are too absorbed in their interpretation of the way the world is, to see how farcical many aspects of daily life really are. And now we have pathetic reactions to "major" news, people focusing on minor incidents "George Hook says ...." at the expense of practical, rational discussions on how best to educate.

EDIT: I can be as ignorant and stupid as the next person by the way. Its not that I speak from an ivory tower of smugness . . I am human and as flawed as everybody else, its just I am more aware of it!

8 seconds? You lost me as soon as you said you were "acutely sensitive to the ways of the world."

weldoninhio

server down wrote: »

Sure that beats the actual statistics.

The planets dying, man!!! Statistics won't save you. :D:D

Drumpot

Fourier wrote: »

No, it is an accurate statement of scientific models. None of them predict Earth developing into a dying rock, as some here have stated. As I have read most of highly cited literature on climate change I am aware of the serious challenges to human civilization predicted. I just think over the top nonsense needs to be countered as well, as it is equally unscientific.

This is like the whole "technically Ophelia should not of been a red warning" semantics crap that doesn't really help anything. Its like you are arguing for the sake of arguments sake. What benefit is it for you to point out these technical aspects? People are oblivious to climate change and dangers to humanity, how do you think it helps get people active by saying "well its not going to make earth a dieing rock".


The reason dramatic language is used ("dieing rock") is because most people aren't taking things seriously and are incapable of rational debate on a global level. People don't take notice of something that is rationally explained to them. Tabloid Journalism and sensationalist headlines are used because it more likely to get people interested. . Again, a sign that people are happy to be oblivious to this issue unless its thrown at their face in bold writing, hyperbolic language and IN CAPPS!!!!!

Saying "well its not going to be the end of the planet" allows an already disengaged humanity switch off even further.

Fourier

Drumpot wrote: »

This is like the whole "technically Ophelia should not of been a red warning" semantics crap that doesn't really help anything. Its like you are arguing for the sake of arguments sake. What benefit is it for you to point out these technical aspects? People are oblivious to climate change and dangers to humanity, how do you think it helps get people active by saying "well its not going to make earth a dieing rock".

Awareness of climate change is on the rise and outside of China and the USA is seen as a serious issue by the majority in most developed countries, so I don't think it is accurate to say people are ignorant in the main.

Also they are not technical aspects. Earth being reduced to an uninhabitable rock versus the actual predictions of climatological models is vastly different, not a "minor technical difference".

Should we lie for activism sake? Or present the truth so that we can prepare and plan based on what science says, rather than Hollywood scenarios.

Drumpot

Fourier wrote: »

Awareness of climate change is on the rise and outside of China and the USA is seen as a serious issue by the majority in most developed countries, so I don't think it is accurate to say people are ignorant in the main.

Also they are not technical aspects. Earth being reduced to an uninhabitable rock versus the actual predictions of climatological models is vastly different, not a "minor technical difference".

Should we lie for activism sake? Or present the truth so that we can prepare and plan based on what science says, rather than Hollywood scenarios.

The truth is available to anybody who has access to the internet. The level of engagement and action that is being given to it is reflective of where the majority of the worlds resources are invested.

In terms of activisms lieing for the sake of lieing, that's a bit of a red herring argument in the sense that if you cant get people to listen it doesn't really matter what information you are promoting. People lie to themselves everyday about the state of the world. "Oh Ireland is so much more progressive and socially responsible then (insert country with bad humanitarian record"". Meanwhile our resources put into resolving our homeless situation and even basic understanding of mental health issues is quite pathetic relative to the supposed wealth this country has.

Why is this relevant ? Because there is no point in having a scientifically accurate based discussion when you cant even get people to the table in the first place. The only thing most people understand or respond to is either hyperbolic headlines or reactive measures after the disaster has happened. . I think of society like a big child and sometimes you have to bang the table to get its attention!

One thing I would agree with you though is that people should be educated but the problem I see with your technique is getting people engaged. It has to start in schools. I mean when you think about it, its crazy. We get no education on financial prudency, mental health awareness or the impacts of our actions on society/earth in school. No basic grounding education to try and give us the motivations to be more involved in how our country is run. It says a lot about our values and is why there is so much apathy towards things that really do affect us.

Fourier

This is extending to a larger discussion, that I do not possess knowledge of, i.e. the appropriate way to get people involved.

My main point is that it is not factually true that Earth is doomed in any of the currently accepted models. Most scientific models predict death tolls in the thousands per year, bringing it comparable to forms of cancer, not apocalypse scenarios.

Regardless of whether this will motivate people, it is still the truth as far as we can tell and surely the actual truth should be involved at some point.

Drumpot

Fourier wrote: »

This extending to a larger discussion, that I do not possess knowledge of, i.e. the appropriate way to get people involved.

My main point is that it is not factually true that Earth is doomed in any of the currently accepted models. Most scientific models predict death tolls in the thousands per year, bringing it comparable to forms of cancer, not apocalypse scenarios.

Regardless of whether this will motivate people, it is still the truth as far as we can tell and surely the actual truth should be involved at some point.

The truth is that future generations are going to pay for the decisions we make or don't make today. The truth is that we don't know for sure how severe the consequences will be.

I am not scientifically competent enough to discuss specifics, but I have listened to Ted Talks that suggested Global warming could have catastrophic consequences. I am not quoting it directly, but something like warming seas, loss of plankton , loss of fish stocks, impact to weather which impacts ability to farm and access to water. Water levels rise as ice melts. Methane Gasses locked in ice is released increasing temperature and speeding up ice melt and eventually its a process that cannot be reversed.

Human consumption/abuse of resources, cattle gases, waste, gases (industrial, cars, planes etc) only add (don't certainly reduce) to this problem.... And I believe our seas help produce a significant portion of the oxygen we need to survive. .

Your assumption is that enough will be done before it gets "too bad". Again, I heard on a Ted Talk that the agreed levels of the Kyoto protocol don't go anywhere near far enough and cant start quick enough to make any real meaningful change before it too late. This Doesn't really suggest that the world is taking things as seriously as you suggest when countries practically have to drag their own society's, kicking and screaming, into making changes to try to protect humanity.

murphthesmurf

From what I understand the vast majority of the increase in population is taking place in the less developed areas of the World. The majority of the west have the typical 2.4 children. In some areas it is less than this, Germany I read somewhere had a decreasing population as regards to the number of children being born.
The idea of these 3rd world countries introducing a 1 or 2 child policy is a fantasy. In our efforts to help these people with vaccines and technology we may have inadvertently damaged the world as a whole. Now don't get me wrong, I'm by no means suggesting we should let them all die. It just goes to show how difficult it is going to be to solve the population problem. The natural world has always controlled populations with disease and predator to prey ratios etc, with technology we have overcome these controls and will continue to do so. Ibola would have wiped out millions if not for our intervention. We can either save ourselves or save the world it seems.
I have faith in us humans though, we will find a way.

Fourier

Drumpot wrote: »

The truth is that future generations are going to pay for the decisions we make or don't make today. The truth is that we don't know for sure how severe the consequences will be.

No, but we do have scientifically reasonable assessments of it.

I am not scientifically competent enough to discuss specifics.......Your assumption is that enough will be done before it gets "too bad"

I'm making no assumptions, just the content of actual scientific papers.

Drumpot

Fourier wrote: »

No, but we do have scientifically reasonable assessments of it.


I'm making no assumptions, just the content of actual scientific papers.

Its like you are a teacher reading from a textbook saying what should happen, with little insight or understanding of human behaviour. There is a reason that Public relations is a profession and its not because "giving the plain facts" is the best way to communicate with your audience.

If you cant get your message to people (which is clear by the resources and responses of humanity), then accuracy is not important. Ask Hilary Clinton if having a more accurate, specific message is more important then a simple basic slogan that people remember.

Fourier

Drumpot wrote: »

Its like you are a teacher reading from a textbook saying what should happen, with little insight or understanding of human behaviour.

I'm not saying what "should" happen, how could that be gleamed from scientific papers. I'm saying what the literature says is most likely to happen.

Drumpot wrote: »

There is a reason that Public relations is a profession and its not because "giving the plain facts" is the best way to communicate with your audience.

I understand that, I have already said that I don't understand such things very well and my original post didn't concern whether this would convince people. This is a discussion of climate change, every point doesn't have to be "soundbite optimal", I'm not proposing a public relations plan. I'm talking about actual climate change. I mean in the weather forums should they "tone down" discussions of the rain in case it's bad for Longford's tourism?

LirW

murphthesmurf wrote: »

From what I understand the vast majority of the increase in population is taking place in the less developed areas of the World. The majority of the west have the typical 2.4 children. In some areas it is less than this, Germany I read somewhere had a decreasing population as regards to the number of children being born.
The idea of these 3rd world countries introducing a 1 or 2 child policy is a fantasy. In our efforts to help these people with vaccines and technology we may have inadvertently damaged the world as a whole. Now don't get me wrong, I'm by no means suggesting we should let them all die. It just goes to show how difficult it is going to be to solve the population problem. The natural world has always controlled populations with disease and predator to prey ratios etc, with technology we have overcome these controls and will continue to do so. Ibola would have wiped out millions if not for our intervention. We can either save ourselves or save the world it seems.
I have faith in us humans though, we will find a way.

A thousand times this. Less developed countries follow strict guidelines that are often either religious or political, close to dictatorship. These countries aren't interested in creating a better environment in the world, they are focusing on introducing their policies in every aspect of their citizen's life. This often involves family planning and the lack of sexual education.
In many parts of the world women started having kids from their teenage years on and would have a huge number of them - because no contraception and most of them would die off anyway. Now we eradicated most of the factors of this selection and suddenly all of the 8 kids survive instead of 2. And these countries realize that they're not able to support this number of people. There aren't jobs, there isn't the infrastructure, no education and no way that their policies would change, instead of that the kids get indoctrinated too and the circle starts again.
Plenty of third world countries have a population where 50% is under 18 years old. And nobody makes these people aware of education and environmental protection.

Countries like China that did introduce some kind of procreation policy might have done something good in that regard for the environment but they created a ton of other problems like a male/female imbalance which enables a large scale of human trafficking or the over-aging of the society. While the policies are good for the planet, it's bad for the society and the other way around.
We're deep in that and to resolve this in the most humane way you'd need the introduction of radical policies for procreation, environmental protection and beliefs, otherwise that's going to get nasty and you'll find yourself in wars and localized holocausts.
I'm a believer we can still turn it around but it needs VERY radical ways. But with the moronic selfishness of most societies that won't work out.

server down

Drumpot wrote: »

Its like you are a teacher reading from a textbook saying what should happen, with little insight or understanding of human behaviour. There is a reason that Public relations is a profession and its not because "giving the plain facts" is the best way to communicate with your audience.

If you cant get your message to people (which is clear by the resources and responses of humanity), then accuracy is not important. Ask Hilary Clinton if having a more accurate, specific message is more important then a simple basic slogan that people remember.

The simple sloganeering of "we are all doomed anyway" incites people to do nothing. In fact it doesnt even stop people having kids in my experience, just adds to the ( at least proclaimed) guilt about having kids.

The solution to most of our problems are scientifically solvable, and will require some sacrifices in terms of taxation and maybe food prices. Some problems are more intractable than others, I personally think climate change/warming can be reversed, but anti-biotic resistance may not be possible to reverse. Why? Because the first is an engineering problem, and we know what to do and the second is a medical/biological problem and we arent advancing very fast at medicine. When I was a teenager 20 years ago I assumed that the disease of old age ( and maybe even old age itself) , and cancer, may be thwarted by now, now I think I am certain for dementia or cancer or both.

Here is how I would rate from solvable to difficult to solve

solvable

Peak Oil
Climate change
over fishing
over population ( the rate of increase in fact falling)
Drop in insects ( we would in fact have to sacrifice food production, not the opposite).
Beel colony collapse.

hard to solve
Anti-Biotic resistance, most medical problems.

dunno much about

Soil erosion.

gozunda

Grayson wrote: »

It's not just over population. I read an article last week which mentioned in passing that the UK could support a population of 150 million though efficient farming. That's if they cultivated soy and stuff like that rather than livestock.

So it's over population with our current lifestyle.

I guarantee that article you are referring above to was a pro vegan radical type agenda thingy

First of all the UK already has a very high density of population. Doubling that would mean getting rid of all remaining natural spaces and wildlife imo

Apart from the notion of living on top of one another in some Solent Green type Dystopia - the problem with the whole radical vegan ideology of ' lets only eat soya and get rid of animals / meat' is that essentially it is biblox.

In the UK and Ireland our climate and large areas of land are mainly suited to grassland. Growing vast quantities of high protein crops and especially the temperate soya bean is simply not an option.

So let's grow it elsewhere I hear them say. Well guess what they are already cutting down huge swathes of the South American Rainforest simply to grow large volumes of soya bean for human consumption

Global production figures show that about 85% of the world’s soya beans are processed, or "crushed," to produce soya bean oil.  The soya meal left over is actually a waste product of the process of extracting soya oil from the soya beans.

This oil component of crushed soya beans is primarily used for human consumption, although the proportion used for biodiesel production is growing rapidly, especially in the U.S.

That waste product of the oil extraction process ie 'the meal' is used to make animal feed. It would appear that most but not all of the waste 'meal' is indeed being diverted into animal and pet foods.

Soya bean meal is also used to produce “soya protein" for human consumption. The meal is incredibly cheap (and imo nasty) to make and it can be made into flours, stabilize ingredients in processed foods, and absorb water and fat 

All the soya foods including soya milk, textured vegetable protein, soya burgers etc are all made from soya meal from the waste process of the soya oil industry and are inclusive of the 85% figure quoted.  

Of the 15% not used to make soya oil - approximately 6% is used directly as human food, mostly in Asia. Other uses such as additives and derivatives for various industries account the remaining 9%. 

It is important to note that the soya meal used to feed animals is in fact a waste product of human based food production. So all those acres in the Brazilian rain forest are not been cut down to fuel animal feed rather to produce soya oil for human consumption.

http://www.soyatech.com/soy_facts.htm
http://blog.paleohacks.com/is-soy-bad-for-you/#

So in effect vegans advocating soya bean use are in effect helping destroy some of the last great ecosystems while at the same time trying to destroy traditional low impact methods of traditional animal husbandry here

Oh and one last little point. Soya in its raw form is toxic to humans- it requires processing to make it suitable.
I for one wont be eating something which requires extraction by means of a chemical solvent to make it edible for human consumption. Thanks all the same.

Will I Am Not

gozunda wrote: »

I guarantee that article you are referring above to was a pro vegan radical type agenda thingy

Apart from the notion of living on top of one another in some Solent Green type Dystopia - the problem with the whole radical vegan ideology of ' lets only eat soya and get rid of animals / meat' is that essentially it is biblox.

In the UK and Ireland our climate and large areas of land are mainly suited to grassland. Growing high protein crops and especially the temperate soya bean is simply not an option.

So let's grow it elsewhere I hear them say. Well guess what they are already cutting down huge swathes of the South American Rainforest simply to grow large volumes of soya bean for human consumption

Global production figures show that about 85% of the world’s soya beans are processed, or "crushed," to produce soya bean oil for human consumption.  The soya meal left over is actually a waste product of the process of extracting soya oil from the soya beans.

This oil component of crushed soya beans is primarily used for human consumption, although the proportion used for biodiesel production is growing rapidly, especially in the U.S.

That waste product of the oil extraction process ie 'the meal' is used to make animal feed. It would appear that most but not all of the waste 'meal' is indeed being diverted into animal and pet foods.

Soya bean meal is also used to produce “soya protein" for human consumption. The meal is incredibly cheap (and imo nasty) to make and it can be made into flours, stabilize ingredients in processed foods, and absorb water and fat 

All the soya foods including soya milk, textured vegetable protein, soya burgers etc are all made from soya meal from the waste process of the soya oil industry and are inclusive of the 85% figure quoted.  

Of the 15% not used to make soya oil - approximately 6% is used directly as human food, mostly in Asia. Other uses such as additives and derivatives for various industries account the remaining 9%. 

It is important to note that the soya meal is being used to feed animals is in fact a waste product of human based food production. So all those acres in the Brazilian rain forest are not been cut down to fuel animal feed rather to produce soya oil for human consumption.

http://www.soyatech.com/soy_facts.htm
http://blog.paleohacks.com/is-soy-bad-for-you/#

So in effect vegans advocating soya bean use are in effect helping destroy done of the last great ecosystems while at the same time trying to destroy traditional low impact methods of traditional animal

Oh and one last little point. Soya in its raw firm is toxic to humans- it requires processing to make it suitable.
I for one wont be eating something which requires extraction by means of a chemical solvent to make it edible for human consumption. Thanks all the same.

But you have vegans say stuff like “If you have to cook it to make it edible then it’s not for your consumption”
Like they’re munching on spuds straight out of the ground or something.

jmayo

Pero_Bueno wrote: »

People will bury their heads in the sand and continue having 4+ kids.

These morons don't even realise it's their own kids that will suffer this world.

I wonder how many people lamenting the world's over population would agree to the following:

1. Let all the migrants on boats in the Med drown and not into Europe where they most surely will have large families and increase drain on planet.
2. Refuse to send money to charities the next time a famine flares up in the likes of Ethiopia.
Ethiopia had an issue feeding it's population in the 1980s due to drought and yes war.
Today it's population is almost doubled and yes they are almost at war.

A huge issue is that some countries and regions are breeding at a huge pace.
And they are regions that often never had the capability to feed the numbers.

murphthesmurf

gozunda wrote: »

I guarantee that article you are referring above to was a pro vegan radical type agenda thingy

First of all the UK already has a very high density of population. Doubling that would mean getting rid of all remaining natural spaces and wildlife imo

Apart from the notion of living on top of one another in some Solent Green type Dystopia - the problem with the whole radical vegan ideology of ' lets only eat soya and get rid of animals / meat' is that essentially it is biblox.

In the UK and Ireland our climate and large areas of land are mainly suited to grassland. Growing vast quantities of high protein crops and especially the temperate soya bean is simply not an option.

So let's grow it elsewhere I hear them say. Well guess what they are already cutting down huge swathes of the South American Rainforest simply to grow large volumes of soya bean for human consumption

Global production figures show that about 85% of the world’s soya beans are processed, or "crushed," to produce soya bean oil for human consumption.  The soya meal left over is actually a waste product of the process of extracting soya oil from the soya beans.

This oil component of crushed soya beans is primarily used for human consumption, although the proportion used for biodiesel production is growing rapidly, especially in the U.S.

That waste product of the oil extraction process ie 'the meal' is used to make animal feed. It would appear that most but not all of the waste 'meal' is indeed being diverted into animal and pet foods.

Soya bean meal is also used to produce “soya protein" for human consumption. The meal is incredibly cheap (and imo nasty) to make and it can be made into flours, stabilize ingredients in processed foods, and absorb water and fat 

All the soya foods including soya milk, textured vegetable protein, soya burgers etc are all made from soya meal from the waste process of the soya oil industry and are inclusive of the 85% figure quoted.  

Of the 15% not used to make soya oil - approximately 6% is used directly as human food, mostly in Asia. Other uses such as additives and derivatives for various industries account the remaining 9%. 

It is important to note that the soya meal is being used to feed animals is in fact a waste product of human based food production. So all those acres in the Brazilian rain forest are not been cut down to fuel animal feed rather to produce soya oil for human consumption.

http://www.soyatech.com/soy_facts.htm
http://blog.paleohacks.com/is-soy-bad-for-you/#

So in effect vegans advocating soya bean use are in effect helping destroy some of the last great ecosystems while at the same time trying to destroy traditional low impact methods of traditional animal husbandry here

Oh and one last little point. Soya in its raw form is toxic to humans- it requires processing to make it suitable.
I for one wont be eating something which requires extraction by means of a chemical solvent to make it edible for human consumption. Thanks all the same.

A lot of vegans have to take vitamin supplements to avoid dietary deficiencys. Some vitamins/minerals are only found in meat/animal products (I heard this from a guest on a Newstalk show being interviewed on the subject of veganism).
Vegan was what our ancestors used to call the village idiot who couldn't hunt.
We do in general eat too much meat, as much as I love a good shteak I know I eat too much.
As gross as it sounds to us now, I can see insects becoming a much bigger source of protien for us in the future. I can't see us ever being like the Chinese and munching on a fried locust with a bit of rice, but something like minced insect so visually it wont be off putting. It's a way off yet as we're too squeamish toward the idea for now and the near future. But I can see there being a big push for it as it makes a lot of sence ecologically. It costs little to grow insects as you can feed them any old **** (literally), any waste produce from other foods. We wont need big fields, they can be grown in greenhouse type buildings, and no need to chop down rainforests. They'll probably taste better than that vegan slop too. Ummmmm insect kebab.

gk5000

CalamariFritti wrote: »

So you think everything is alright?

MY questions - which you did not answer were - even though you started with the endgame/disaster theme:
What plants or animals has Ireland lost in the last 50 years?

Why does all gloomster/doomster forecasts want "other people" to do something?

Why don't all those who want a reduced population to "save the planet" volunteer and reduce themselves?

My answers are:
- I am not aware of ANY extinctions in Ireland during the period you mentioned.
- We cannot control foreign regimes especially corrupt/inept ones
- We can always improve but things are not so bad and man/earth have survived thus far and there is no reason to think we shall not continue

- Knee Jerk reactions/actions are seldom useful - especially things like subsidised biofuels

The best systems should be as voluntary as possible with the least amount of (Government) coercion - so please specify your intended actions for this perceived problem.

CalamariFritti

I read an article which supports other facts mounting over the last few decades about the negative influence of mankind on the environment, be that ecosystems, flora and fauna or climate. I'm sharing it expressing my concern over this and ask what others think of it.

You come in here relating to my OP only in a wider sense, not stating your opinion - only through some counter questions that are aimed to discredit these reports and studies and my OP - and demand from me that I answer your questions. Why should I indulge that and have a 'discussion' with you?

You clearly think this is all overreaction and there is not much to see and people who say otherwise including all those scientists should just bow to those awesome three questions of yours and admit they're having a hissy fit. You could have just said that.

Bishopsback

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I read an article which supports other facts mounting over the last few decades about the negative influence of mankind on the environment, be that ecosystems, flora and fauna or climate. I'm sharing it expressing my concern over this and ask what others think of it.

You come in here relating to my OP only in a wider sense, not stating your opinion - only through some counter questions that are aimed to discredit these reports and studies and my OP - and demand from me that I answer your questions. Why should I indulge that and have a 'discussion' with you?

You clearly think this is all overreaction and there is not much to see and people who say otherwise including all those scientists should just bow to those awesome three questions of yours and admit they're having a hissy fit. You could have just said that.

There have been many changes in our planets ecological system since the dawn of it.
Man didn't get rid of the dinosaurs or cause the ice age or split the continents or cause a lot of our natural disasters.
If there is change in our system it can sometimes be natural.
I'm not saying we aren't contributing to our own downfall, but in ecological terms perhaps that is just what is happening as a natural progression of the planet?

CalamariFritti

That is very possible. We are part of nature too after all and nothing is unnatural in that way. But currently we're operating on the assumption 'it'll be grand' and we'll deal with problems when they become serious. But I believe we don't have a clear understanding of the changes we set in motion and there is a good chance it won't be grand and can't be dealt with.