Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

The rapid decline of the natural world

Page 2 of 4 [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

18 Mar 2019, 7:23 am

I think we're a long ways from such an event taking place.



TW1ZTY
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Sep 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,115
Location: The US of freakin A <_<

18 Mar 2019, 7:54 am

goldfish21 wrote:
TW1ZTY wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Culling the masses?


Indeed. I can’t recalk the name of the documentary but there was some rich woman asked about depopulation and she replied “You mean the great cull? It’s already begun.”

Some figure that’s why we’re seeing lower fertility rates around the world (chemical castration via air, water, food etc) and it wouldn’t surprise me one bit of our financial systems have been rigged to make it too expensive to have kids and thus that’s why people are opting to be childless. Etc.

But war = very efficient way to reduce the population ASAP.


Yeah, nothing like a little worldwide genocide to fix all our problems. :roll:


~100 years ago we had a little over a 1/4 the population. Too many humans = a huge part of the problem. Fewer humans consuming resources = back in better balance with the Earth. I'm sure you can grasp that concept just fine and can see why powerful people would opt for it... too many poor people breathing the air and poisoning the water. Get rid of a bunch of people and things return to being better for those that survive.


How about we force everybody to use birth control? Or for drastic measures we castrate most of the population by surgery?

We don't need to kill everybody through war just to reduce the human population.

Also I happen to be poor myself and I don't see why I or any other poor person deserves to die so that rich bastards can inherit the earth. What makes them so special?



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

18 Mar 2019, 10:09 am

Perhaps sterilize rather than castrate. And all those worried about overpopulation should volunteer to have it done.

Also those convinced that fossil fuels are going to destroy the planet in a few years, should voluntarily stop driving and flying and anything else that contributes immediately.

Just imagine if however many millions who are truly concerned about it, suddenly went cold turkey. That alone might save the planet.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

18 Mar 2019, 5:28 pm

If many people went "cold turkey," everything would be at a standstill.

Talk about an economic depression!



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

19 Mar 2019, 1:12 am

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
There's also the problem that development causes the destruction of wildlife habitat. If people are going to go live on an "undeveloped" piece of land then most of the animals have to go find somewhere else to live to make room for them. Also it often requires activities like clearing forests and draining wetlands which can cause issues down the road because you've entirely changed the ecosystem of a region and species have to either adapt to the human presence or perish.


Yes if you look at development coridoors either based on urban expansion, forestry, agriculture or mining these all reduce natural habitats (so yes you are correct there).

In Western Australia mining and forestry had a particularly insidious effect by spreading soil borne dieback fungus via logging trucks from clear felling zones to virgin forest.

It's a deadly cycle whereby loss of natural habitat reduces species diversity which then influences climate change and pollution. Even the impact of contamination to land, air and water from development (originally identified by Rachel Carson in her seminal work "Silent Spring" back in the 1950s) is poorly understood but the high rate of cancer around the developed world is thought to be linked to contamination of things like water supplies
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/flint-wate ... -need-know



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

19 Mar 2019, 1:19 am

EzraS wrote:
I remember when we were driving through Nevada once, one of the passengers said, "no wonder they chose this environment to set off nuclear bombs". In other words it's so barren it looks the same before and after an atomic explosion. But millions of people choose to live there and equally inhospitable areas like Arizona. Some even choose to live in small isolated towns in the middle of the desert.


Yep, one thing I'll give credit to the early American settlers is they were a hardy bunch, much like the pioneers in other places like here in Australia and Canada as they chose fairly hostile environments to live on.

I am watching the netflix special on Jamestown which was settled in the 1600s and despite being good land for growing crops the early settlers certainly had to put with a lot of challenges.

But those days are fast disappearing and probably long gone. The only people wanting to move to uninhabited areas are wealthy people wanting to "experience nature" by building high tech self-sufficient mansions with helipads



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

19 Mar 2019, 1:51 am

cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I remember when we were driving through Nevada once, one of the passengers said, "no wonder they chose this environment to set off nuclear bombs". In other words it's so barren it looks the same before and after an atomic explosion. But millions of people choose to live there and equally inhospitable areas like Arizona. Some even choose to live in small isolated towns in the middle of the desert.


Yep, one thing I'll give credit to the early American settlers is they were a hardy bunch, much like the pioneers in other places like here in Australia and Canada as they chose fairly hostile environments to live on.

I am watching the netflix special on Jamestown which was settled in the 1600s and despite being good land for growing crops the early settlers certainly had to put with a lot of challenges.

But those days are fast disappearing and probably long gone. The only people wanting to move to uninhabited areas are wealthy people wanting to "experience nature" by building high tech self-sufficient mansions with helipads


What I meant is that lots of people pick harsh environments to live in currently. Whether you live in a city in places like Alaska or Arizona or out in the middle of nowhere, the climate is still going to be about the same.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

19 Mar 2019, 3:30 am

EzraS wrote:
What I meant is that lots of people pick harsh environments to live in currently. Whether you live in a city in places like Alaska or Arizona or out in the middle of nowhere, the climate is still going to be about the same.


Yep but they are a small minority. Let's take Arizona and Alaska. Plenty of room but the population in both states is pretty small because there isn't the demand to live there. You can't force young people or immigrants to move to places like Alaska.

Immigrants who move to Arizona probably all work in Arizona State (which is actually a very good university)



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

19 Mar 2019, 4:10 am

cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
What I meant is that lots of people pick harsh environments to live in currently. Whether you live in a city in places like Alaska or Arizona or out in the middle of nowhere, the climate is still going to be about the same.


Yep but they are a small minority. Let's take Arizona and Alaska. Plenty of room but the population in both states is pretty small because there isn't the demand to live there. You can't force young people or immigrants to move to places like Alaska.

Immigrants who move to Arizona probably allowed 1 works in Arizona State (which is actually a very good university)


I'm not talking about by force. I'm saying people choose areas with a rough environment. Arizona is full of immigrants all over the place. A lot of people absolutely love the desert. And others love places that are sub freezing with tons of snow.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

20 Mar 2019, 2:50 am

EzraS wrote:
A lot of people absolutely love the desert. And others love places that are sub freezing with tons of snow.


Yep but these represent a minority Ezra. Especially if you don't have money then living "off the grid" is very challenging.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

20 Mar 2019, 3:52 am

cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
A lot of people absolutely love the desert. And others love places that are sub freezing with tons of snow.


Yep but these represent a minority Ezra. Especially if you don't have money then living "off the grid" is very challenging.


I'm not talking about anyone who lives off the grid. I'm talking about millions of people who choose to live in cities and towns with harsh environments. Do you think you have to be in the middle of nowhere off the grid for the environment to be harsh?



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

20 Mar 2019, 5:29 am

EzraS wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
A lot of people absolutely love the desert. And others love places that are sub freezing with tons of snow.


Yep but these represent a minority Ezra. Especially if you don't have money then living "off the grid" is very challenging.


I'm not talking about anyone who lives off the grid. I'm talking about millions of people who choose to live in cities and towns with harsh environments. Do you think you have to be in the middle of nowhere off the grid for the environment to be harsh?


Yeah but the cities and towns you are referring to exist because there's a timber mill, mining site or existing venture. Look at your own state...when the minerals run out what happens to the cities or towns?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_g ... in_Arizona



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

20 Mar 2019, 7:28 am

cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
A lot of people absolutely love the desert. And others love places that are sub freezing with tons of snow.


Yep but these represent a minority Ezra. Especially if you don't have money then living "off the grid" is very challenging.


I'm not talking about anyone who lives off the grid. I'm talking about millions of people who choose to live in cities and towns with harsh environments. Do you think you have to be in the middle of nowhere off the grid for the environment to be harsh?


Yeah but the cities and towns you are referring to exist because there's a timber mill, mining site or existing venture. Look at your own state...when the minerals run out what happens to the cities or towns?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_g ... in_Arizona


The number of currently thiving cities and towns vastly out number the ghost towns. And most of the people who live in them work jobs that they could work most anywhere in the US.



TW1ZTY
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Sep 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,115
Location: The US of freakin A <_<

20 Mar 2019, 8:19 am

EzraS wrote:
Perhaps sterilize rather than castrate. And all those worried about overpopulation should volunteer to have it done.

Also those convinced that fossil fuels are going to destroy the planet in a few years, should voluntarily stop driving and flying and anything else that contributes immediately.

Just imagine if however many millions who are truly concerned about it, suddenly went cold turkey. That alone might save the planet.


I'm ok with going back to horses and carriages. :D



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

20 Mar 2019, 9:38 am

TW1ZTY wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Perhaps sterilize rather than castrate. And all those worried about overpopulation should volunteer to have it done.

Also those convinced that fossil fuels are going to destroy the planet in a few years, should voluntarily stop driving and flying and anything else that contributes immediately.

Just imagine if however many millions who are truly concerned about it, suddenly went cold turkey. That alone might save the planet.


I'm ok with going back to horses and carriages. :D


The problem with that is all those horses would destroy the planet the way they cows are.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

20 Mar 2019, 9:46 am

In the 19th century, horses were known as "public menaces," and were seen as being injurious to the health of humans. Especially in urban areas.

This is one of the reasons why automobiles eclipsed the horse and buggy so quickly back in the 1920s---especially in the cities.