![]() |
Re: Global warming
Also, a 36 percent increase in global population, from 4.45 billion in 1980 to 6.08 billion in 2000, overshadows the increases in plant growth
Originally Posted by stevenglish
(Post 8187723)
from the same article Quoll, they might be greener but there's less of em
I'm not saying we are responsible, I'm not saying we're not. All I'm saying is that articles and stats can be interpreted to suit either argument, and it's convenient for people to interpret them in a way that saves them from making an effort. The world is obviously overpopulated.... |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by ABCDiamond
(Post 8187875)
There is another answer then.... we need another war to wipe out a couple of billion of us.
The world is obviously overpopulated.... This comes back to a comment made by Wol earlier, and is indeed the huge woolly mammoth in the room when it comes to climate change. The population of the world is increasing at an unsustainable rate, increasing the demand for power, water and food, which in turn is driving our consumption of resources and the effects brought about by that consumption. Yet no politician is willing to stand up and say that the party is over in terms of population growth. We need to look at real ways of limiting growth in the future. People decry the Chinese for their one baby policy, but this sort of thing may be a necessity in the future. Costello's "One for mum, one for dad and one for the nation" concept is simply irresponsible. The government should be rewarding people who actively seek to limit the number of children they have, not the other way around. S |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Swerv-o
(Post 8187900)
Costello's "One for mum, one for dad and one for the nation" concept is simply irresponsible. The government should be rewarding people who actively seek to limit the number of children they have, not the other way around.
S |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Swerv-o
(Post 8187900)
People decry the Chinese for their one baby policy, but this sort of thing may be a necessity in the future. Costello's "One for mum, one for dad and one for the nation" concept is simply irresponsible. The government should be rewarding people who actively seek to limit the number of children they have, not the other way around.
S |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by NedKelly
(Post 8187935)
There are nearly a Billion Chinese. There are only 20 Million Australians in a similar land area. The population of Africa is rising by more than the total population every year. Costello is correct.
I'm not sure that I follow your logic. Just because other countries are massively overpopulated, and their population growth is far exceeding the resources available to adequately support them, it follows that we should do the same? Mankind as a species needs to start thinking about this critically, and beyond the limitations of national borders. Globally, the world simply cannot support and sustain the current level of population growth... S |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Swerv-o
(Post 8187958)
I'm not sure that I follow your logic. Just because other countries are massively overpopulated, and their population growth is far exceeding the resources available to adequately support them, it follows that we should do the same?
Mankind as a species needs to start thinking about this critically, and beyond the limitations of national borders. Globally, the world simply cannot support and sustain the current level of population growth... S |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Swerv-o
(Post 8187958)
I'm not sure that I follow your logic. Just because other countries are massively overpopulated, and their population growth is far exceeding the resources available to adequately support them, it follows that we should do the same?
Mankind as a species needs to start thinking about this critically, and beyond the limitations of national borders. Globally, the world simply cannot support and sustain the current level of population growth... S Of course, by carrying on digging up WA and half of QLD and ferrying them to China, you can feed and water a lot more than that - but by draining down the capital the country has. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by kporte
(Post 8188052)
I agree. Sci-fi movies depicting terra-forming Mars etc may not be too far off at this rate.
Dig a bloody big hole where all that desert is... fill it with sea water... and at a stroke you have reduced global sea levels and doubled Australia's beach front properties. ;) |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iamthecreaturefromuranus
(Post 8188075)
Don't know about terraforming Mars... how about terraforming Australia first.
Dig a bloody big hole where all that desert is... fill it with sea water... and at a stroke you have reduced global sea levels and doubled Australia's beach front properties. ;) I have been a proponent of this for some time. Not only will you develop more beach properties, but you will also generate internal weather patterns over the new sea that may help to develop the currently wasted land through higher rainfall etc. All lovely in theory, but how do you go about digging a sea sized hole in a continent without the help of a Death Star set to low? S |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Swerv-o
(Post 8188092)
I have been a proponent of this for some time. Not only will you develop more beach properties, but you will also generate internal weather patterns over the new sea that may help to develop the currently wasted land through higher rainfall etc.
All lovely in theory, but how do you go about digging a sea sized hole in a continent without the help of a Death Star set to low? S |
Re: Global warming
That's not a stupid an idea as it first sounds. There were plans afoot some years ago to blow a canal inland from the sea in South Australia and flood the low lying land. The idea being it would create rain.
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by NedKelly
(Post 8188099)
That's not a stupid an idea as it first sounds. There were plans afoot some years ago to blow a canal inland from the sea in South Australia and flood the low lying land. The idea being it would create rain.
Yes, that's the idea. But what would you use to do it? I guess we do have all that uranium lying around doing nothing... S |
Re: Global warming
... and I seem to remember that the Soviets were once planning to dig a canal between the Barents sea and the Aral sea by - wait for it - exploding hundreds of atomic devices in a line.
Would have made a nice YouTube page! |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Swerv-o
(Post 8188092)
I have been a proponent of this for some time. Not only will you develop more beach properties, but you will also generate internal weather patterns over the new sea that may help to develop the currently wasted land through higher rainfall etc.
All lovely in theory, but how do you go about digging a sea sized hole in a continent without the help of a Death Star set to low? S |
Re: Global warming
Don't you guys have jobs to go to? <g>
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 12:57 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.