What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

OT: Current Affairs and Politics

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
79,872
well no ... if we had a fraction of the population, there would obviously be a fraction of the pollution
Hmm yes. I think we need a nomination system for who will get the chop.

I’ll start.

90FB2357-1CBE-4260-82B5-4AEC28650FC4.jpeg
 

hindy111

Post Whore
Messages
64,860
So your solution is to slow the population growth so we can continue to pollute the f**k out of the joint ?

I like it ! :fire::factory::factory::factory::factory::factory::factory::factory::factory:

Well you want to help the planet? Dont live too long merkin your using the clean air.
 

hindy111

Post Whore
Messages
64,860
well no ... if we had a fraction of the population, there would obviously be a fraction of the pollution

Exactly.
If we had 2 billion people and not 10 then we would consume and pollute 1/5th of the amount.
Perhaps Gronk was confused cause he knew I made perfect sense and he is aware it's the solution.
Hindy111 does it again. Solves all the problems.
 
Messages
19,724
The only graph that seems to make sense to me is the rapid population growth in the last 50yrs. Considering the planet has been around for 1000s of year. Maybe more it's extraordinary how much its increased in the last 50-75yrs. But no one speaks about it. Almost like it is our purpose to keep multiplying.

.

That's coz it's not polite to be nasty to Catholics.

But seriously, of course population has an impact. For any given technology if we artificially produce and use more energy, then we are going to do more damage. But.....we can shift the technology we use (not overnight) and use less, however vested interests (the guys who make money from existing technologies) have been very successful at preserving the status quo to the long-term detriment of my kids (who don't exist as far as I know, but if I had one I'd get them to wedgie that annoying young 'How dare you!' girl).
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
96,090
Squirm, squirm, squirm, little PouPou.

Once again, the topic and subject were clearly established.

Squirm, squirm, squirm, little PouPou...
There's no need to squirm mate. I was of the opinion that the worst greenhouse gasses were methane and other shit. Although after witnessing your fixation on carbon dioxide I did some research and have now decided that it's unlikely that more carbon dioxide is better than the right amount.

Sure plants might like more of it but most of them also like temperatures that are uncomfortable for humans to do anything other than sit around on the porch.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
96,090
It's actually not agricultural runoff. That was a trick. It's urban development.
Boomdiggidy.jpg
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
96,090
Whats gonna happen in 2090s to flatten out? ... Everyones gonna die? ... Good thing i will be gone
Declining birthrates will catch up with the third world. Best estimates are that by about 2150 the world population will begin to decline.
 

emjaycee

Coach
Messages
14,640
Well people throw in all this shit about global warming and other fancy words. The only graph that seems to make sense to me is the rapid population growth in the last 50yrs. Considering the planet has been around for 1000s of year. Maybe more it's extraordinary how much its increased in the last 50-75yrs. But no one speaks about it. Almost like it is our purpose to keep multiplying.

For me the answer is simple. Reduce the population and sustain it at a healthy level. It's all about balance. If each individual amount to so much emissions and collects so much junk and plastic in its lifetime then less people on the same amount of space means less pollution.
So Thanos wasn't really the bad guy?

upload_2019-9-26_22-53-50.jpeg
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
79,872
Exactly.
If we had 2 billion people and not 10 then we would consume and pollute 1/5th of the amount.
Perhaps Gronk was confused cause he knew I made perfect sense and he is aware it's the solution.
Hindy111 does it again. Solves all the problems.
No you haven’t solved the problem at all. You have regurgitated a concept peddled by racsists in this country who wish to cap immigration.

So you want to do this on a world scale ? How are you going to action it ? I look forward to reading how you will implement a population growth anchor on third world, emerging economies and OECD countries. It’s a massively complex concept and has economic flow-on effects which on the whole stagnate economies.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244017736094

Instead of disincentivizing the population to limit offspring to 1 or 2 (good luck with that in Asia, South America and Africa ) you’d be better off with a carbon tax on industry.
 

hindy111

Post Whore
Messages
64,860
No you haven’t solved the problem at all. You have regurgitated a concept peddled by racsists in this country who wish to cap immigration.

So you want to do this on a world scale ? How are you going to action it ? I look forward to reading how you will implement a population growth anchor on third world, emerging economies and OECD countries. It’s a massively complex concept and has economic flow-on effects which on the whole stagnate economies.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244017736094

Instead of disincentivizing the population to limit offspring to 1 or 2 (good luck with that in Asia, South America and Africa ) you’d be better off with a carbon tax on industry.

The bible predicts 1/3 of the population will be wiped out before our LORD returns. I'm guessing a world war is most likely.
 
Top