• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Dave Bloke

Sarkozy mentions the "P" word

Recommended Posts

Quote

The planet has already seen climate changes that have led to up to 80% of species disappearing

Well could be anything from 0.0000001 % to 80%, the rest/bulk could be man made habitat changes, direct hunting, nature at work itself etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dave Bloke said:

In a speech this week Nicolas Sarkozy, former French president, mentioned the P word. The speech was censored by the TV to remove any references to population control but the press have lambasted Sarkozy for his words.

This is what he had to say

 

It's been uttered before

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/30/stephen-emmott-ten-billion

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarkozy is a chancer. He has realised that this is his best chance of getting back into the club and a seat at the top table.

IMPO he will now use this to get re-elected and once he does, of course, will continue the open borders and mass immigration crap. Probably hurling tens of thousands, or more, at the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, onlyme said:

Well could be anything from 0.0000001 % to 80%, the rest/bulk could be man made habitat changes, direct hunting, nature at work itself etc.

 

I watched an interesting science video a week ago where scientists now believe the biomass beneath the surface of the planet is greater than the combined biomass of humans, animals, insects, fishy things, everything, above the surface.

In other words, they believe that there are more living things below the surface of Earth than above it.

For those of us who have spent our lives warning of the dangers of the crab people this comes as no surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.

When it comes to 'environmental stuff' TPTB have spent decades trying to keep people from acting on it.  Which is why they invented relatively trivial thing for the proles to worry about, like recycling or banning plastic bags.

More recently we've had some beginnings of people talking about 'consumption'.  TPTB don't like this, as pointless consumption drives the world's economies.

But now we've got 'someone newsworthy' talking about population -- or, the availability of new customers to consume, and cheap labour to make the stuff.  TPTB'll be terrified.   

But don't worry -- I'm sure someone will have a word with him about it and the world will go back to reproducing, consuming and worrying about fishing nets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Masked Tulip said:

Sarkozy is a chancer. He has realised that this is his best chance of getting back into the club and a seat at the top table.

IMPO he will now use this to get re-elected and once he does, of course, will continue the open borders and mass immigration crap. Probably hurling tens of thousands, or more, at the UK.

yes, that's why I didn't vote for the Republicans at the last election (nor for that other chancer Macroon) because although the manifesto made good sense you knew from the last 30 years it would be binned the second they got a sniff of power. Fool me once shame on you, foot me twice and I won't get fooled again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fascinated as to why anyone thinks planet earth is in any danger from overpopulation. A great Sci-Fi novel Stand on Zanzibar was all about "what-if" population growth and shows starkly what could go wrong with over-crowding. Experiments with rats have also shown that if population density exceeds a certain level then the rats start having a go at each other because they can't stand it. 

The earth;s surface is big, really big, and there is no possibility of that happening anytime soon.  As the population expands then so will the currently-empty bits of the earth start to get used up, just like they always have. Places where currently nobody wants to live because they are not near the rest of civilisation (Yorkshire for example) will suddenly find they in fact are near to civilisation.

Whenever anyone starts on about overpopulation what they really mean is that in this particular (town, city) there are demonstrably too many people. Also their subtext is often too many people of the sort I don't like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Masked Tulip said:

 

I watched an interesting science video a week ago where scientists now believe the biomass beneath the surface of the planet is greater than the combined biomass of humans, animals, insects, fishy things, everything, above the surface.

In other words, they believe that there are more living things below the surface of Earth than above it.

For those of us who have spent our lives warning of the dangers of the crab people this comes as no surprise.

We will all bow to the Crustasians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MrPin said:

People choose to have not so many children in a stable environment. A lot of the world is not like this.

But in an unstable environmnt most offspring are expected to die. The aim is just replacement of the individual and anything more is a bonus and may be just a short-term bonus until the carrying capacity is exceeded. Changes in birth rate lag impovements to environmental stability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The West needs to stop giving aid to the third world...

The problem we have is that there are too many charities that have their noses in the trough. Has Oxfam ever suggested reducing population would improve the quality of life in Africa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hopeful said:

But in an unstable environmnt most offspring are expected to die. The aim is just replacement of the individual and anything more is a bonus and may be just a short-term bonus until the carrying capacity is exceeded. Changes in birth rate lag impovements to environmental stability.

My mum was one of nine. Not the Star Trek character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Funn3r said:

I'm fascinated as to why anyone thinks planet earth is in any danger from overpopulation. A great Sci-Fi novel Stand on Zanzibar was all about "what-if" population growth and shows starkly what could go wrong with over-crowding. Experiments with rats have also shown that if population density exceeds a certain level then the rats start having a go at each other because they can't stand it. 

The earth;s surface is big, really big, and there is no possibility of that happening anytime soon.  As the population expands then so will the currently-empty bits of the earth start to get used up, just like they always have. Places where currently nobody wants to live because they are not near the rest of civilisation (Yorkshire for example) will suddenly find they in fact are near to civilisation.

Whenever anyone starts on about overpopulation what they really mean is that in this particular (town, city) there are demonstrably too many people. Also their subtext is often too many people of the sort I don't like. 

It is, but all the choice/optimal bits are already being occupied / farmed. I have no doubt that more food could be grown (under glass, well polythene) but it will cost and have an impact. In this country transport development is at a standstill and unable to be economically updated to cope with demand, expect the same elsewhere for transport / food /living conditions. As a species we're probably genetically/mentally most adapted to live in groups of around 100 apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Funn3r said:

I'm fascinated as to why anyone thinks planet earth is in any danger from overpopulation. A great Sci-Fi novel Stand on Zanzibar was all about "what-if" population growth and shows starkly what could go wrong with over-crowding. Experiments with rats have also shown that if population density exceeds a certain level then the rats start having a go at each other because they can't stand it. 

The earth;s surface is big, really big, and there is no possibility of that happening anytime soon.  As the population expands then so will the currently-empty bits of the earth start to get used up, just like they always have. Places where currently nobody wants to live because they are not near the rest of civilisation (Yorkshire for example) will suddenly find they in fact are near to civilisation.

Whenever anyone starts on about overpopulation what they really mean is that in this particular (town, city) there are demonstrably too many people. Also their subtext is often too many people of the sort I don't like. 

I't not just sbout the physical space you need to live though, is it ? That's quite a narrow view.

It's also about both the resources we seem to require and the effect of obtaining those resources on the other life forms upon which we depend that live on land, in the air and in the sea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Great Guy said:

The West needs to stop giving aid to the third world...

The problem we have is that there are too many charities that have their noses in the trough. Has Oxfam ever suggested reducing population would improve the quality of life in Africa?

How many times? Surely there is no-one these days who thinks countries such as UK give foreign aid to third-world countries out of a misplaced bleeding heart sense of humanitarianism. Foreign aid is purely soft power, which is to say bribes to make those countries align with our global political strategies.  But I still agree with your statement that we should stop doing it. By the way I am sure that Oxfam does not care at all about quality of life in Africa, as they are merely a front for intelligence agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Funn3r said:

I'm fascinated as to why anyone thinks planet earth is in any danger from overpopulation. A great Sci-Fi novel Stand on Zanzibar was all about "what-if" population growth and shows starkly what could go wrong with over-crowding. Experiments with rats have also shown that if population density exceeds a certain level then the rats start having a go at each other because they can't stand it. 

That is exactly why sane people hate living in cities and why crowded cities are full of the mentally unhinged i.e. overcrowded shitholes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Funn3r said:

How many times? Surely there is no-one these days who thinks countries such as UK give foreign aid to third-world countries out of a misplaced bleeding heart sense of humanitarianism. Foreign aid is purely soft power, which is to say bribes to make those countries align with our global political strategies.  But I still agree with your statement that we should stop doing it. By the way I am sure that Oxfam does not care at all about quality of life in Africa, as they are merely a front for intelligence agencies.

There's a black van outside your house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, onlyme said:

It is, but all the choice/optimal bits are already being occupied / farmed.

That is a myth. There's plenty of mountainous nasty land where basically goats might be able to live but not people. However there is also an unimaginable amount of fertile nice liveable land in Russia for example and the Russian Government is giving it away free to anyone who asks. Nobody does of course because it is in the middle of nowhere. All you have to do is make it not in the middle of nowhere, just as happened everywhere else at some point in history.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By the gardener
      Prompted by mentions of the next census on this forum I've been doing a bit of research.  It's been said before that measuring sewage is probably one of the best ways to gauge the population of a country.  Everyone, great or small, has to shit.  Even allowing for an increase of greedy fuckers we can arrive at a figure for the amount of crap produced per person per year.
       
      I found this document:
      Sewage Treatment in the UK, UK Implementation of the EC Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, Published by DEFRA.  
      In 1999 the UK produced 1,130,066 tonnes of sludge dry solids. This averages to about 20kg generated by each person.
                  1992 997,673        1996/97 1,115,100    1999/00 1,130,066
      At 20Kg per person per year this translates into population figures of: 49.9 million, 55.7 million, 56.5 million
      According to official figures the population of the UK in those years was 57.4 million, 58.3 million, 58.7 million
      The greater discrepancy between population estimates from sewage compared to official figures in 1992 can be explained by higher standards of treatment generating more sludge.
       
      Fast forward to 2015 and we have: Unlocking the Full Energy Potential of Sewage Sludge, Research Engineer - Nick Mills Doctor of Engineering 2015 
      "The UK produces approximately 1.7 million dry tonnes of sewage sludge every year"
      Now, at 20kg per person that gives a population estimate of 85 million.  against an official figure of 64.7 million.
      Of course we should expect that sewage treatment improvements will have resulted in greater sludge being produced but I wonder just how much more this is.  Are we recovering 26.3 Kg of dry sludge per person (> 30% increase in sludge recovery), are people eating (and shitting) more - food sales figures might give some insight into that.
      If we can get figures on sludge recovery from sewage we might be able to get a more accurate figure.
      I think 85 million is too high but who knows?  I'm pretty sure most people think it's > 70 million though.

       
       
    • By swiss_democracy_for_all
      Love this story (in a dark humour sort of way) because they so carefully avoid actually addressing the reasons for it. Everyone knows what they are but no-one wants to say.
      http://www.bbc.com/news/health-41656667
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.