We can't expect others, particularly less well-informed others to act if we're unwilling to do so. We, the developed world, are the chief culprits in exceeding carrying capacity, and thus we are best placed to make a difference by reducing the demand placed on the system by our perceived needs. Here is an interesting graphic to contemplate. You're right that the main problem can be stated as "too many people", but reducing the "third world" population would have less than a quarter the effect of an equivalent reduction in the population of the 'developed' world, but we are reluctant even to see our population growth drop to zero, never mind contemplate an actual reduction. "Global Warming might be a nice big stick for the adman to beat the unbelievers with, but it’s not the real problem."īut GW is one of the most likely mechanisms by which the Earth System, Gaia if you will, will reduce the population which is stressing it. Please vote for me in this years Nobel prize "Carbon Neutral My Arse" category. Your getting nowhere, so stop looking lovingly into that adman´s eyes and get your fingers out please.ĭo something now oh great profits of the carbon god or give up and do media studies instead. These Government chaps have their own admen, they can cope with your adman quite nicely thank you. Not one single imitative on human population numbers.
So while nine out of ten cats said that their scientist washed whiter we do nothing, not a sausage. Mankind’s ever increasing numbers are having an ever increasing effect on the planet and its changing, that’s what eco systems do. Man could just generate his own wasteland. So what’s your limit 7 billion people? 10 billion, 50, 100? Left to its natural course somewhere down the line this eco system we all live should crack, the human population should nose dive, but there’s the rub, man and his machines are remarkably resilient, they can tolerate the most extreme changes in environment and climate. Global Warming might be a nice big stick for the adman to beat the unbelievers with, but it’s not the real problem. Has anyone of the large brained scientific variety ever considered that fossil fuels are not the only finite recourse at hand? If the current explosion in the human population continues unchecked no amount of fiddling in other areas will be of any consequence at all.
So why don’t we do proper research? Why don’t pressure groups say it as it really is? And why don’t governments act backed by a tsunami of public support?Ĭould it be that the real answer is so vile, so heinous that it may not be uttered? "TOO MANY PEOPLE".
Knighthoods are awarded and the research that comes up with the desired conclusions has its funding renewed. Net result? The ad-man chalks up yet another performance target hit and examines that bank statement. The so called pressure groups and their ad-men seem content only to present governments with new taxation opportunities backed with outrageously shallow and at times downright dishonest "scientific" research. If the scientific community spent less time rolling their eyes and praying to the "Great Carbon God" and more time researching practical steps to protect no-urban environments and non-human species we might actually make something happen. If it wasn’t for climate change mankind might not exist. The climate has continually changed since the dawn of time and the planet and its species have adapted with it. Global Warming, is it really that surprising? Why do we expect everything to remain exactly the same, surely it’s the one thing that will never happen.
0 kommentar(er)
