The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Sex, Sustainability and iPhones > Comments

Sex, Sustainability and iPhones : Comments

By Ian Chambers, published 22/6/2012

Concerned about the future of our planet? Want to know what to do about it?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. All
Hi KAEP,

Well, I AM old, pushing seventy, so I don't know what you are going on about. Do you actually read people's postings ? Do you actually understand what they write ?

Best of luck with that,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 26 June 2012 10:18:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,

The 1.0% population decline was for a population that has already stabilised but is still considered too large, i.e. the generations are approximately equal in size up to extreme old age. You would only get roughly a 25% decline in a single 25 year generation if there were zero net immigration, so that reduction has to be entirely achieved by reducing the birth rate. Otherwise the decline would be spread more evenly across several generations. Even in your worst case scenario, why is there such a problem? After all, we have coped with much larger increases in population, which require big increases in infrastructure.

Some years ago, there was a program on Radio National discussing how Britain introduced its old age pension in the 1920s, not to help the poor old folk, but to ameliorate unemployment, which was causing social unrest. At that time, 75% of the men between 65 and 70 were still working and nearly half the men between 70 and 75. The average job today is much less physically demanding than the average job then. The Baby Boomers have also enjoyed better diet, better health care, smaller families, and better living and working conditions than their 19th century ancestors, so they are likely to be in much better shape for their age. If high immigration were shut off, employers would simply have to stop turning their noses up at older workers. Yes, jobs that require heavy manual labour or fast reflexes would still have to be done by younger people, but these are a relatively small percentage of the job market. You can't expect to go on being a professional athlete or dancer until you are 65 even now.
Posted by Divergence, Tuesday, 26 June 2012 12:15:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe,
I did not comment on the things you said first.

I fully expect there to be ongoing deveopments in plant improvement and agriculture generally, but we are using nearly all our available land now, and some very marginal land as well. I just do not see dramatic rises in production. Most of our towns in Aus were built on rivers where the best land was and we are fast covering much of that up with houses, concrete and bitumen. A lot of our irrigation areas suffer now from rising salt and the cost of developing more irrigation land is prohibative.

I think it is better, and more cost effective, to reduce birthrates first than it is to educate and improve living standards in developing countries. If Thailand is an example, living standards and economies will improve after birthrate have gone down.

Be interesting to see what would happen in the Phillipines if their government introduced sponsored family planning. My bet is that it would be accepted by the people, same as in Ireland, Italy and France, despite religous doctrine.
Posted by Banjo, Tuesday, 26 June 2012 4:42:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-06-pandemic-bird-flu-transmissible-air.html

I heard about this story at about 3am on Bloomberg, so thought that
I would verify it with a Google search. Sure enough, it seems to
be correct.

Now the bird flue virus killed millions of birds, but only about
600 people, because its so hard to transmit between humans, not being
air borne. Sure enough some Dutch scientists have created an airborne
version and wiped out their experimental ferrets in the process,
which means that this version could easily spread between humans.

Not only have they created it, but published exactly how they did it,
which means anyone with that knowledge could copy them.

So lets say that this virus escaped at some major airport like London,
or Amsterdam, by some carrier going there. Within 12 hours it would
go nearly halfway around the world, to every major airport on the
planet.

Our species may be largely thinned out, purely by our own making and
our ignoring nature and things like the species barrier. We are not
above nature and we ignore this at our peril
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 26 June 2012 6:17:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*My bet is that it would be accepted by the people, same as in Ireland, Italy and France, despite religous doctrine.*

Banjo, well of course it would. The problem is not the people, but
the level of interference in their lives, by the Vatican powers that
be.

I'll never forget the face of the woman in the Phillipines documentary, delivering her eight child and pleading to have her
tubes tied. The procedure was denied to her.

Just how far these powers stretch into our own lives, became evident
to me when Catholic Health services tendered to run the new Midland
hospital in WA, built by taxpayer money. Women who want their tubes
tied or men who want the snip, will be denied these services, to suit
the religious dogma of the church.

AFAIK, Catholic health services would operate tax free, unlike other
service providers, claiming to be a charitable institution. The reality is that they would have a distict advantage over others, with
no tax to pay. So right under our noses, at our expense, they can
promote and enforce their dogma. How the hell do women in the
Phillippines ever stand a chance, against this kind of religious
power?
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 26 June 2012 10:00:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy