• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

Over population is the biggest green issue. No one wants to tackle it.

Natural population slightly decreases in countries where women are fully emancipated. Our population would be declining if it wasn't for immigration (I think it was for a bit early 2000s/pre-Eastern Block EU expansion), Japan's I think is slightly falling.

Basically population growth can be countered by good medical care (the usual reason for having lots of children is to improve your odds of several surviving) and modern social values around gender. So I think it will tail off globally in the coming decades.

I do agree it’s the cause of most world problems, and it should be an explicit post-FoM policy to gradually shrink our population, rather than continue the ridiculous ponzi scheme we've now got.
 
Natural population slightly decreases in countries where women are fully emancipated. Our population would be declining if it wasn't for immigration (I think it was for a bit early 2000s/pre-Eastern Block EU expansion), Japan's I think is slightly falling.

Basically population growth can be countered by good medical care (the usual reason for having lots of children is to improve your odds of several surviving) and modern social values around gender. So I think it will tail off globally in the coming decades.

I do agree it’s the cause of most world problems, and it should be an explicit post-FoM policy to gradually shrink our population, rather than continue the ridiculous ponzi scheme we've now got.
You're calling kids a ponzi scheme?
 
Re. Population growth, is the problem not more to do with the consumption of a given population, rather than the number? I am guessing that a childless couple in a rich country consumes more resources than a family in the 3rd world with 4 kids who live as subsistence farmers. I don't know for sure though.

I think @Gutter Boy is on to something when he talks of less growth/consumption. Most of us will be massive hypocrites in that regard though -- rich or poor, we tend to buy more than we need...phuck it, all gone in the end, right? Only legislation can solve these issues...a small example, but look at the plastic bag use in supermarkets, most people use their 'bag for life' now without thinking about it. More sh1t like that, on a much bigger scale, is required.

Then again, I don't know what I'm talking about really.
 
I understand their bitterness, it's just misdirected imv.
They were sold a pup with uni education. I said it at the time, Blair's 75% uni for school leavers was high on new Labour's list of blunders.
But everyone saw it as a feather in their cap, well that feather becomes worthless if everyone has one.
this obsession with uni ed has reperecussions yet to be felt.
the really dumb thing is most of the people who complain about kids are their parents, the ones who made them the way they are.
I don't have any kids, and I roar with laughter when I listen to my mates and family talk about theirs. all the problems they created when the kids were young are now coming home to roost. they can't see that how they raised their kids are the problem, not the kids. they are a product of their environment.
my wife works in child care, the 5 hours a day the child is in nursery learning social skills is wiped away in 2 hours in a home environment.

your last paragraph is the biggest con of all. we were told get that education and you won't need to live on the state in your old age. you will be so wealthy the pension will be chicken feed to you. now the economics of that has caught up with us. take 75% of school leavers off the tax role for 5 years together with longer life (prolonging it also costs money) at the other end, then it really should have been obvious that there was going to be a hole somewhere.
its also a myth that all or even most pensioners are living the high life. pensioner poverty is still very much alive. the problem is the system, not pensioners.

btw I'm 49, left school at 16 with 1 o'grade, not been out of work for more than 3 months since I was 17. I pay 40% tax,
my wife left college at 18, has been in the same job ever since, no mat leave and thankfully no long term sick leave for either of us. we are unlikely to get any of these benefits at the end of my working career either. we are fortunate that with some forward planning it shouldn't make any real difference to us.
that's the system, theres winners and losers, its for the benefit of those of who need it, and in my view todays pensioners are still very much in need of it.

I agree with almost everything you've said, to be honest. Blair's push to get everyone into uni without considering what degree inflation would do to the job market in its wake was brutally ill thought out - it paralleled similar policies being enacted across the English-speaking Western world though, because everyone saw uni as the magical panacea that would drag everyone into the middle class and leave no one behind in this new, post-Cold War world.

Today, we are still dealing with the societal consequences of that movement - an entire, 250-million strong generation of kids told all their lives that going to uni was the *number one* thing to do, that anything else was a failure, and that uni would be the ticket to the prosperity and that investing 5+ years of their lives in a degree, *any* degree, would leave them the winners in our new societies. And now, finally, being told that they were wrong to believe their parents, their teachers, their peers, and nearly *every* authority figure in their lives - that they're lazy and entitled for spending four to five years doing what they were explicitly *told* to do, and being sneered at for not realizing that a uni degree today is the new school diploma. I.e, you have to have one to get anywhere, but that's largely it. A generation more highly educated than any other in history is scraping by working minimum wage jobs, living with their parents and carrying around student debt that many of them will take decades to repay, if ever. And, for the first time, they're being told that it's their fault for believing their elders.

I agree with your assessments of the situation, and of your views on parents who brought their kids up a certain way and then complain about them later on. I also agree with your views on pensioners, in that they still need societal support, and that they're really not to blame for the way society turned out either - they're not living some high life because they nefariously planned it that way just to spite the kids, and in many cases they are definitely still living in pretty bad conditions scraping by on the assistance they get.

I agree with you on most of what you said. Just about the only place I disagree with you is in your initial assessment about the millennial generation, that's all. You called them people who stayed in uni until their mid-20s and lived with their parents while bleating about how unfair the world was, *as if* that was a conscious choice they made in the face of evidence to the contrary. Truth is, they were told all their lives that anything other than uni was implicitly admitting that they were failures, or not good enough to be white-collar - by their parents, by their teachers and by society at large. And now that they followed all the instructions, obediently educated themselves and spent years of their early adult lives coping with the financial crisis and its aftermath...they're being dumped on by people for pointing out how unfair it is to blame them for things they had no hand in, and for pointing out that even the benefits that pensioners receive *now* are things that they themselves are unlikely to get when they reach the same age.

The millennials are going to grow up and grow old in a world where we will, on the whole, be *worse* off than our forebears in all sorts of ways. Society has failed us as a generation (not as individuals, but as a generation) in that respect - the promise of constant, uninterrupted growth has failed this generation of people. The consequences of that will be *dire* in the coming decades, and I don't think people quite understand how serious the breaking of that compact that has held post-war Western society together will be. But what's galling on top of that fact is that millennials are being blamed for having it worse than our predecessors - as if it's somehow our fault that society failed us as a whole. That's all that I disagree with you on - if you look deep enough into it, we never had a choice. And I say this as someone who undeservedly won the lottery in terms of this generation - got an undergrad and a Master's degree from Canada's largest university, and found a comfortable, if not spectacular position a few months after graduating, which I've largely stayed in to this day.

My circumstances are not those of my generation, which on the whole wasn't as lucky as I was. And my generation don't deserve to be pilloried for doing *as they were goddamn told*.
 
Another one that could double up in unpopular opinions thread, but green energy and lifestyle is the biggest lie since religion.

Not denying global warming, far from it. But renewables, electric cars etc is a con.
 
Another one that could double up in unpopular opinions thread, but green energy and lifestyle is the biggest lie since religion.

Not denying global warming, far from it. But renewables, electric cars etc is a con.

I kind of agree, in some respects. Like with electric cars, it still takes energy to produce them, ship all the parts from nation to nation etc. If they just said "no more new cars, we just repair old ones" would that be better for the environment? No money in that though!
 
I agree with almost everything you've said, to be honest. Blair's push to get everyone into uni without considering what degree inflation would do to the job market in its wake was brutally ill thought out - it paralleled similar policies being enacted across the English-speaking Western world though, because everyone saw uni as the magical panacea that would drag everyone into the middle class and leave no one behind in this new, post-Cold War world.

Today, we are still dealing with the societal consequences of that movement - an entire, 250-million strong generation of kids told all their lives that going to uni was the *number one* thing to do, that anything else was a failure, and that uni would be the ticket to the prosperity and that investing 5+ years of their lives in a degree, *any* degree, would leave them the winners in our new societies. And now, finally, being told that they were wrong to believe their parents, their teachers, their peers, and nearly *every* authority figure in their lives - that they're lazy and entitled for spending four to five years doing what they were explicitly *told* to do, and being sneered at for not realizing that a uni degree today is the new school diploma. I.e, you have to have one to get anywhere, but that's largely it. A generation more highly educated than any other in history is scraping by working minimum wage jobs, living with their parents and carrying around student debt that many of them will take decades to repay, if ever. And, for the first time, they're being told that it's their fault for believing their elders.

I agree with your assessments of the situation, and of your views on parents who brought their kids up a certain way and then complain about them later on. I also agree with your views on pensioners, in that they still need societal support, and that they're really not to blame for the way society turned out either - they're not living some high life because they nefariously planned it that way just to spite the kids, and in many cases they are definitely still living in pretty bad conditions scraping by on the assistance they get.

I agree with you on most of what you said. Just about the only place I disagree with you is in your initial assessment about the millennial generation, that's all. You called them people who stayed in uni until their mid-20s and lived with their parents while bleating about how unfair the world was, *as if* that was a conscious choice they made in the face of evidence to the contrary. Truth is, they were told all their lives that anything other than uni was implicitly admitting that they were failures, or not good enough to be white-collar - by their parents, by their teachers and by society at large. And now that they followed all the instructions, obediently educated themselves and spent years of their early adult lives coping with the financial crisis and its aftermath...they're being dumped on by people for pointing out how unfair it is to blame them for things they had no hand in, and for pointing out that even the benefits that pensioners receive *now* are things that they themselves are unlikely to get when they reach the same age.

The millennials are going to grow up and grow old in a world where we will, on the whole, be *worse* off than our forebears in all sorts of ways. Society has failed us as a generation (not as individuals, but as a generation) in that respect - the promise of constant, uninterrupted growth has failed this generation of people. The consequences of that will be *dire* in the coming decades, and I don't think people quite understand how serious the breaking of that compact that has held post-war Western society together will be. But what's galling on top of that fact is that millennials are being blamed for having it worse than our predecessors - as if it's somehow our fault that society failed us as a whole. That's all that I disagree with you on - if you look deep enough into it, we never had a choice. And I say this as someone who undeservedly won the lottery in terms of this generation - got an undergrad and a Master's degree from Canada's largest university, and found a comfortable, if not spectacular position a few months after graduating, which I've largely stayed in to this day.

My circumstances are not those of my generation, which on the whole wasn't as lucky as I was. And my generation don't deserve to be pilloried for doing *as they were goddamn told*.


No I totally agree, I wasn't blaming the kids, nor am I. They did what they were told to do, it was I'll advised, but that's not their fault. Now they are being blamed for it, when actually it was their parents generations fault.
Uni education was held up as a status symbol by people of my generation. Several of my mates used to wear the kids uni education like a badge. Now they moan about the kids, that they still live at home, have dead end jobs etc. They can't see that they created that.
These kids have made sacrifices as well, being at uni and not earning, then leaving with debt has stopped a lot of them from progressing. They have little hope of getting on the property ladder. It's a circle they are trapped in.
I have a niece, she was the "thick" one. Left school with 5 o levels. Got a job in a jewellers, worked away quietly applying for loads of things. Had to drop salary a bit but got into Santander. Worked away, saved up, met a lad bought a house started a family etc.
Her brother and two cousins who went to uni are having to work bloody hard to make ends meet. It's not the only way, and that's what we should be telling them.
 
Another one that could double up in unpopular opinions thread, but green energy and lifestyle is the biggest lie since religion.

Not denying global warming, far from it. But renewables, electric cars etc is a con.

It's a mixed bag

Electric cars are pointless at the moment, because they are just run on fossil fuels burnt in power stations rather than in the car itself.

Wind and solar are solutions, but are no good without decent storage. Humanity really needs a battery that's an awful lot better than lithium ion.

Fully electric houses and cars, powered completely off solar panels on your roof and a little windmill at the bottom of your garden, stored in a meter squared battery in your loft/garage, is achievable in the next 10-15 years. After installation that's 100% green and free energy. Uruguay are quite far along this route without any natural resource blessings (like say Norway with their geothermal). The battery issue and the oil/nuclear influence over governments is all that's currently preventing it
 
I kind of agree, in some respects. Like with electric cars, it still takes energy to produce them, ship all the parts from nation to nation etc. If they just said "no more new cars, we just repair old ones" would that be better for the environment? No money in that though!

Exactly, no money in it.
Take musk with his cars. Being heralded as a savoir. The cheapest is £70k. £70fudgingk.
That's not going to save the planet.
 
Exactly, no money in it.
Take musk with his cars. Being heralded as a savoir. The cheapest is £70k. £70fudgingk.
That's not going to save the planet.

Im not sure thats the best example.

As with all things, they are expensive to start but over time become easier to mass produce and competition drives the price down.

What Musk is doing is the hard bit. Proving it can be done, and that there is a market for it, and that the product works.

Itll all trickle down over time.


That said, broad strokes, I do agree in the main.
 
It's a mixed bag

Electric cars are pointless at the moment, because they are just run on fossil fuels burnt in power stations rather than in the car itself.

Wind and solar are solutions, but are no good without decent storage. Humanity really needs a battery that's an awful lot better than lithium ion.

Fully electric houses and cars, powered completely off solar panels on your roof and a little windmill at the bottom of your garden, stored in a meter squared battery in your loft/garage, is achievable in the next 10-15 years. After installation that's 100% green and free energy. Uruguay are quite far along this route without any natural resource blessings (like say Norway with their geothermal). The battery issue and the oil/nuclear influence over governments is all that's currently preventing it

I now nothing of Uruguay, in any context, but powering your house is only a part of powering ourselves.
 
Im not sure thats the best example.

As with all things, they are expensive to start but over time become easier to mass produce and competition drives the price down.

What Musk is doing is the hard bit. Proving it can be done, and that there is a market for it, and that the product works.

Itll all trickle down over time.


That said, broad strokes, I do agree in the main.

Ok maybe not the best.
Nissan leaf, nearly 10 years old and 26k.

There is no profit in dropping the price.
 
I think @Gutter Boy is on to something when he talks of less growth/consumption. Most of us will be massive hypocrites in that regard though -- rich or poor, we tend to buy more than we need...phuck it, all gone in the end, right? Only legislation can solve these issues...a small example, but look at the plastic bag use in supermarkets, most people use their 'bag for life' now without thinking about it. More sh1t like that, on a much bigger scale, is required.

Then again, I don't know what I'm talking about really.

I try doing little things - no single-use plastic, local/seasonal/minimally packaged food, drive cars (and other tech) into the ground before changing, repairs where possible rather than replace.

But that needs scaling-up/more government direction, like with the plastic bags. But that's all counter to capitalism, so there's always resistance from big business and their now-dominant consumerism narrative.
 
I now nothing of Uruguay, in any context, but powering your house is only a part of powering ourselves.

I think energy use at the moment is something like 40% home heating, 40% power stations for national grid and 20% transport (11% domestic cars).

Potentially 91% of that could be powered by your house (heating, electricity and car charging). That only leaves freight, public transport and aviation.

Here's some stuff about Uruguay (not quality checked):
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...akes-dramatic-shift-to-nearly-95-clean-energy
http://www.wri.org/blog/2016/03/how-uruguay-became-wind-power-powerhouse
http://blogs.worldwatch.org/uruguay-believe-clean-energy-future/
 
Th
I think energy use at the moment is something like 40% home heating, 40% power stations for national grid and 20% transport (11% domestic cars).

Potentially 91% of that could be powered by your house (heating, electricity and car charging). That only leaves freight, public transport and aviation.

Here's some stuff about Uruguay (not quality checked):
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...akes-dramatic-shift-to-nearly-95-clean-energy
http://www.wri.org/blog/2016/03/how-uruguay-became-wind-power-powerhouse
http://blogs.worldwatch.org/uruguay-believe-clean-energy-future/
Thanks for the links, will have a trawl through them later.
Solar power in Scotland isn't very reliable, and neither is the wind. This summer we've been lucky to have 2 dry days a month.

I agree with GB, it's about consuming less, not finding alternatives to allow us to consume at the same rate.
Energy is only one part of it, constantly replacing items is a huge drain on resources.
 
Th

Thanks for the links, will have a trawl through them later.
Solar power in Scotland isn't very reliable, and neither is the wind. This summer we've been lucky to have 2 dry days a month.

I agree with GB, it's about consuming less, not finding alternatives to allow us to consume at the same rate.
Energy is only one part of it, constantly replacing items is a huge drain on resources.
You don't need much sun for micro power PV even in Scotland. They work under cloud cover fine, just less efficiently. You just need more panels to compensate or more efficient panels, which are being released at a fairly regular rate.
Micro power wind turbines in urban areas will never really work as the air is too turbulent. Unless they come up with some incredible breakthrough onto efficiently converting mechanical to electrical energy the turbine cost and size is not close to practical for the power you get out.

Commercial wind power in Scotland would surely be viable though. North of Scotland I imagine is pretty windy, especially off-shore.
 
Last edited:
No I totally agree, I wasn't blaming the kids, nor am I. They did what they were told to do, it was I'll advised, but that's not their fault. Now they are being blamed for it, when actually it was their parents generations fault.
Uni education was held up as a status symbol by people of my generation. Several of my mates used to wear the kids uni education like a badge. Now they moan about the kids, that they still live at home, have dead end jobs etc. They can't see that they created that.
These kids have made sacrifices as well, being at uni and not earning, then leaving with debt has stopped a lot of them from progressing. They have little hope of getting on the property ladder. It's a circle they are trapped in.
I have a niece, she was the "thick" one. Left school with 5 o levels. Got a job in a jewellers, worked away quietly applying for loads of things. Had to drop salary a bit but got into Santander. Worked away, saved up, met a lad bought a house started a family etc.
Her brother and two cousins who went to uni are having to work bloody hard to make ends meet. It's not the only way, and that's what we should be telling them.

I agree, and we are now (at least) telling Generation Z that there are other career paths that don't involve university. Problem is, society doesn't seem to have learned from its mistakes with the millennials - we're now swinging against the built-up snobbery of uni being the be all and end all by *over-egging* the trades, apprenticeships and non-traditional career paths as viable alternatives, much like people did with unis in the first place. Your niece did well for herself, but not everyone is similarly cut out for non-university ways to financial and personal stability - and, furthermore, if everyone takes that route, we're left with the same problem we have now with uni graduates. Namely, too many of them competing for too few proper spots on the career/property ladders.

I'm unsure what the future holds for Generation Z, but I do think that they'll be dealt a worse hand than the millennials got. As a society, we're now on the cusp of a massive shift in the way we order ourselves and view our worth as human beings, because the twin threats of climate change-influenced migration and unstoppably-accelerating job losses via automation are just around the corner. Those earthquakes are coming, whether we like it or not - and Gen Z will bear the brunt of both.

It's vital that they don't experience what my own generation experienced - constant moaning and sniping by others about how their problems and their challenges were their own damn fault. Because, while millennials generally can still remember a time before constant societal upheaval, record wealth and income inequality and declining public services and provisions for their generation, Gen Z will grow up in a world where those things are accepted facets of life. They will likely have enough tribulations to deal with without any extra bitterness or resentment being added to the mix.
 
Last edited:
I kind of agree, in some respects. Like with electric cars, it still takes energy to produce them, ship all the parts from nation to nation etc. If they just said "no more new cars, we just repair old ones" would that be better for the environment? No money in that though!

The issue with cars is planned obsolesce. Planes and trains are 30 years old and have travelled millions of miles. Cars could easily do 500k, if they were not purposely designed to fall apart at 120-140k.

Ford have even described themselves as a finance company who also happen to make cars.
 
Th

Thanks for the links, will have a trawl through them later.
Solar power in Scotland isn't very reliable, and neither is the wind. This summer we've been lucky to have 2 dry days a month.

I agree with GB, it's about consuming less, not finding alternatives to allow us to consume at the same rate.
Energy is only one part of it, constantly replacing items is a huge drain on resources.

Solar runs more on light than sun I think. Once the storage issue is sorted you just need enough solar and wind, not a consistent supply.

I also remember reading that to power the world, we'd only need to dedicate to solar farms the amount of land that is currently deforested in the rainforest every 7 months.
 
Back