2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I became permanently pessimistic about the time population passed the 5 billion mark. I have no hope that humans will curtail their reproduction, and that can only lead to, IMO, wars for resources such as fresh water, minerals, arable land. Of course Gaia may still have a few tricks to eliminate large numbers of people eg antibiotic resistant bacteria ( caused by humans abusing antibiotics- self inflicted ).

Sure, huge catastrophes had happened in the distant past, and undoubtedly may happen at any time.

Krakatoa volcanic explosion happened in 1883 i think, and the darkened sky caused huge famines all around the world for years.

Not to mention asteroids, which are on the media every other day.

It would be ironic if we get some control over the climate and the pollution, say in 30 years time, only to be exterminated by some natural catastrophe.

7 minutes ago, Chazar said:

Especially the Thai healthcare  system

Not just the Thais- every country. Giving abs to animals that are not even sick is a crazy thing to do and is contributing to the problem.

Back to pre WW2, here we come- plagues and epidemics galore. Because there are so many people crowded into cities now, the diseases will spread far faster and the percentage of people that die will be far higher than in the past, before abs.

Edited September 23, 20196 yr by thaibeachlovers

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Sure, huge catastrophes had happened in the distant past, and undoubtedly may happen at any time.

Krakatoa volcanic explosion happened in 1883 i think, and the darkened sky caused huge famines all around the world for years.

Not to mention asteroids, which are on the media every other day.

It would be ironic if we get some control over the climate and the pollution, say in 30 years time, only to be exterminated by some natural catastrophe.

We've got control over the environment, human activity is driving global warming and much pollution besides. 

What we need to take control of is the damage we are causing. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And alternative technologies are available to replace the equipment using SF6.

 

Seems you skipped the point that the problem is the SF6 and that the wind turbines do not necessarily have to employ SF6.

Anybody looking at the article can see that that section was almost an afterthought and that clearly there were no answers to solving the problem completely, as the turbines themselves feed into a source that still creates pollutants. Sometimes, I think the green people believe in the environmental equivalent of perpetual motion, that there are perfect no polluting answers. There are not. Only a decreasing population works. But because the countries mostly contributing to that problem are in Africa and southern Asia, it is suddenly a forbidden topic.

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

We've got control over the environment, human activity is driving global warming and much pollution besides. 

What we need to take control of is the damage we are causing. 

 

 

Perhaps you mean to say that you and/or others THINK that you've got control over the environment.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, i'm just not 100% sure of it.

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

Perhaps you mean to say that you and/or others THINK that you've got control over the environment.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, i'm just not 100% sure of it.

Says man in denial of the scientific consensus. 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Says man in denial of the scientific consensus. 

Are volcanoes and tsunamis in control ?

2 minutes ago, zydeco said:

Anybody looking at the article can see that that section was almost an afterthought and that clearly there were no answers to solving the problem completely, as the turbines themselves feed into a source that still creates pollutants. Sometimes, I think the green people believe in the environmental equivalent of perpetual motion, that there are perfect no polluting answers. There are not. Only a decreasing population works. But because the countries mostly contributing to that problem are in Africa and southern Asia, it is suddenly a forbidden topic.

Yes, the greens want electric cars powered by batteries that are highly polluting to obtain the materials for, and at the moment disposal is going to be highly polluting. No easy answers, but we hear precious little about the problems green technology brings.

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

Are volcanoes and tsunamis in control ?

Wait until Yellowstone blows or there is another Carrington Event. At least the latter will put a dent into energy generation. Of course, people might strip and chop down every tree in sight for fuel as a result.

7 minutes ago, zydeco said:

Anybody looking at the article can see that that section was almost an afterthought and that clearly there were no answers to solving the problem completely, as the turbines themselves feed into a source that still creates pollutants. Sometimes, I think the green people believe in the environmental equivalent of perpetual motion, that there are perfect no polluting answers. There are not. Only a decreasing population works. But because the countries mostly contributing to that problem are in Africa and southern Asia, it is suddenly a forbidden topic.

I think you'll find Environmentalists are realistic about the fact that achieving zero environmental impacts is in almost all cases not attainable but that in almost all cases doing things in a different way to reduce environmental impacts, often significantly, is possible. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, zydeco said:

Wait until Yellowstone blows or there is another Carrington Event. At least the latter will put a dent into energy generation. Of course, people might strip and chop down every tree in sight for fuel as a result.

Well, in a way i'm relieved that scientists are not in control of everything yet

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yes, the greens want electric cars powered by batteries that are highly polluting to obtain the materials for, and at the moment disposal is going to be highly polluting. No easy answers, but we hear precious little about the problems green technology brings.

Another straw man argument predicated on generalisations and an ignorance of battery material recycling.  

 

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I think you'll find Environmentalists are realistic about the fact that achieving zero environmental impacts is in almost all cases not attainable but that in almost all cases doing things in a different way to reduce environmental impacts, often significantly, is possible. 

 

 

I think i never heard anyone saying that is impossible.

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I think you'll find Environmentalists are realistic about the fact that achieving zero environmental impacts is in almost all cases not attainable but that in almost all cases doing things in a different way to reduce environmental impacts, often significantly, is possible. 

 

 

Why are you so determined to avoid the key issue? Humans are at the root of the problem. You need fewer of them. Western countries along with Japan and even SE Asian countries such as Thailand are doing their part. Even Mexico has curtailed population growth. Why will you not admit that mainly African and south Asian countries are causing the problem?

1 minute ago, zydeco said:

Why are you so determined to avoid the key issue? Humans are at the root of the problem. You need fewer of them. Western countries along with Japan and even SE Asian countries such as Thailand are doing their part. Even Mexico has curtailed population growth. Why will you not admit that mainly African and south Asian countries are causing the problem?

well, well, let's be fair, it needs at least a handful of  average Africans or Asians to equal the environmental impact of a single American

Just now, mauGR1 said:

well, well, let's be fair, it needs at least a handful of  average Africans or Asians to equal the environmental impact of a single American

Not if you bring them into the US and Europe. And your point is exactly why a population of 220 million Americans, which, back in the 1970s used to be projected as the peak population for the US, is far better than 500 million projected just after mid century.

2 minutes ago, zydeco said:

Not if you bring them into the US and Europe. And your point is exactly why a population of 220 million Americans, which, back in the 1970s used to be projected as the peak population for the US, is far better than 500 million projected just after mid century.

Right of course, i was just referring to African and Asian rural people.

26 minutes ago, zydeco said:

Why are you so determined to avoid the key issue? Humans are at the root of the problem. You need fewer of them. Western countries along with Japan and even SE Asian countries such as Thailand are doing their part. Even Mexico has curtailed population growth. Why will you not admit that mainly African and south Asian countries are causing the problem?

Get over this simple fact, neither  you nor anybody else on the political right wing  are going to do anything about population control, the simple solution to which is access to affordable health care, reproductive education and access to birth control. It’s not the left wing liberals gettin in the way of any of that.

Edited September 23, 20196 yr by Chomper Higgot

14 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Right of course, i was just referring to African and Asian rural people.

Well you may not be, but it’s a common enough thread amongst advocates of Malthus’ thesis.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well you may not be, but it’s a common enough thread amongst advocates of Malthus’ thesis.

well, i was talking about differences of environmental impact between different areas in the world.

I heard about Malthus' thesis, but i was not thinking, in this case, about population growth.

 

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

Sure, huge catastrophes had happened in the distant past, and undoubtedly may happen at any time.

Krakatoa volcanic explosion happened in 1883 i think, and the darkened sky caused huge famines all around the world for years.

Not to mention asteroids, which are on the media every other day.

It would be ironic if we get some control over the climate and the pollution, say in 30 years time, only to be exterminated by some natural catastrophe.

Better that than wilfully destroy the only environment we have access to. 
 

Natural disasters are something we cannot avoid, the environmental destruction caused by our behaviour is something we can. 
 

To stand by and do nothing is just wrong. 

58 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yes, the greens want electric cars powered by batteries that are highly polluting to obtain the materials for, and at the moment disposal is going to be highly polluting. No easy answers, but we hear precious little about the problems green technology brings.

Some people see electric cars as a solution.

 

However, it is how the electricity that powers them is produced that matters. 
 

Electric cars are better than fossil burning ones, but they are only part of a wider strategy. 

 

That said, even when using fossil fuel generated electricity, electric cars still use much less of the fossil fuels as a car directly using them. 

Edited September 23, 20196 yr by Bluespunk
Poorly worded

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Better that than wilfully destroy the only environment we have access to. 
 

Natural disasters are something we cannot avoid, the environmental destruction caused by our behaviour is something we can. 
 

To stand by and do nothing is just wrong. 

Sure, i agree very much on the principle, but i would be a bit shy of excessive guilty feeling.

Let's not forget that our distant ancestors had to fight hard to survive on daily basis, thus weapons and tools had to be created and used.

Conflicts among tribes created more efficient societies, but more wars and technological development and so on.

Perhaps now we are starting to develop a long-term vision, and i hope we can manage to help our planet, before it's to late.

8 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Some people see electric cars as a solution. However, it is how the electricity that powers them is produced that matters. 
 

Electric cars are better than fossil burning ones, but they are only part of a wider strategy. 

Electric cars are the solution, and better than fossil fuelled, but should be powered by hydrogen, not batteries that pollute to make and dispose of.

Till they make an electric car that can be refuelled in the same length of time as a petrol powered one, they ain't going to be a viable alternative outside cities.

If I make an 8 hour journey, I'm not stopping for an hour or more to recharge.

 

8 minutes ago, chokrai said:

 

Yes, you want others to post vids of people contradicting your message? That would be people with much more authority on the subject btw.

7 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

only to be exterminated by some natural catastrophe.

More than likely in fact guaranteed

43 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Yes, you want others to post vids of people contradicting your message? That would be people with much more authority on the subject btw.

Just  like Gallileo and the church you mean?

heres  the  nasa  one

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

Edited September 23, 20196 yr by Chazar

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Not just the Thais- every country. Giving abs to animals that are not even sick is a crazy thing to do and is contributing to the problem.

Back to pre WW2, here we come- plagues and epidemics galore. Because there are so many people crowded into cities now, the diseases will spread far faster and the percentage of people that die will be far higher than in the past, before abs.

I  wish you wouldnt write "abs" I have a vision of super strong people.

24 minutes ago, Chazar said:

Just  like Gallileo and the church you mean?

heres  the  nasa  one

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

Ah, that old argument about the church again. Debunked already many times, amongst others in this very thread.