Environmentalist's breakfast dilemma?

A place to chat about anything you like, including non-gardening related subjects. Just keep it clean, please!

Moderators: KG Steve, Chantal, Tigger, peter, Chief Spud

User avatar
alan refail
KG Regular
Posts: 7244
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:00 am
Location: Chwilog Gogledd Orllewin Cymru Northwest Wales
x 657

Environmentalist's breakfast dilemma?

Postby alan refail » Wed Jan 05, 2011 5:32 pm

A slice of bacon from

enviropig

- causes less pollution but is genetically modified.
0 x
User avatar
oldherbaceous
KG Regular
Posts: 12444
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:52 pm
Location: Beautiful Bedfordshire
x 946

Re: Environmentalist's breakfast dilemma?

Postby oldherbaceous » Wed Jan 05, 2011 5:44 pm

Now if they were to spread the normal pig manure onto desert sand, they would soon have some fertile soil.
0 x
Kind Regards, Old Herbaceous.

There's no fool like an old fool.
User avatar
peter
KG Regular
Posts: 5613
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:54 pm
Location: Near Stansted airport
x 493
Contact:

Re: Environmentalist's breakfast dilemma?

Postby peter » Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:31 pm

What dilemma alan, surely the environmentalists would be eating a strictly vegan breakfast. :wink:
0 x
Do not put off thanking people when they have helped you, as they may not be there to thank later.

I support http://www.hearingdogs.org.uk/
madasafish
KG Regular
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:51 pm
Location: Stoke On trent
x 1

Re: Environmentalist's breakfast dilemma?

Postby madasafish » Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:37 am

A true environmentalist would live in a cave....
0 x
User avatar
Tony Hague
KG Regular
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:26 pm
Location: Bedfordshire
x 71
Contact:

Re: Environmentalist's breakfast dilemma?

Postby Tony Hague » Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:10 am

But the massive challenge of feeding a rocketing global population, and doing it in a sustainable way, could shift the debate and ultimately dictate whether Enviropigs end up on our dinner plates.


When will people grasp the obvious fact that things cannot "rocket" in a sustainable way ? Population is the problem, Enviropigs are a distraction which will at best put off the problem for a few years whilst making the eventual problem bigger.
0 x
User avatar
alan refail
KG Regular
Posts: 7244
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:00 am
Location: Chwilog Gogledd Orllewin Cymru Northwest Wales
x 657

Re: Environmentalist's breakfast dilemma?

Postby alan refail » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:13 am

Tony Hague wrote:When will people grasp the obvious fact that things cannot "rocket" in a sustainable way ? Population is the problem


Like many others, I agree entirely with you Tony. The even bigger problem is to come up with an acceptable and effective way of controlling/reducing world population, other than letting the natural processes of famine, disease and war take their toll. How many would support that? I honestly can't see that there is an acceptable answer. I wonder if you or others have any suggestions.
0 x
User avatar
John Walker
KG Regular
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 11:51 am
Location: Conwy county, North Wales
Contact:

Re: Environmentalist's breakfast dilemma?

Postby John Walker » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:57 am

Agreed. GM pigs are a pure distraction yet grab major headlines (and why remove phosphate from their dung when the world supply of finite mined phosphate is running low? Better, surely, if we must eat dead animals, to find ways of utilizing their phosphate-rich manure rather than let it pollute water courses. Joined-up farming anyone?).

But discussions around population can easily become distracted too. This trailer for a new series running in National Geographic magazine is a good population debate primer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc4HxPxNrZ0

One of its headlines: 5% of us use 23% of the world's energy.

And an article by George Monbiot - 'Cutting consumption is more important than limiting population' - is a must-read for anyone who thinks that the population debate centres around the idea that there are simply 'too many people'. To quote just one paragraph:

So why does such a large congregation of no ones keep banging on about this issue [population]? Well I can't help noticing that at least nine out of ten of them are post-reproductive, middle-class white men. They come from a group which is, in other words, more responsible for environmental destruction than any other class in history. Their consumption of just about every known resource outweighs that of most of the world's people put together. There's just one major issue for which they aren't to blame: current increases in population. And – wouldya believe it? – this is the one they want to talk about.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/g ... NTCMP=SRCH
0 x
User avatar
Tony Hague
KG Regular
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:26 pm
Location: Bedfordshire
x 71
Contact:

Re: Environmentalist's breakfast dilemma?

Postby Tony Hague » Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:42 pm

I would disagree with his views. You can cut consumption alright, but if population is increasing exponentially, you will still run out. If you reduce per capita consumption in order allow population to increase, the collapse will be delayed but more drastic when the resources do run out because the population curve is steeper.

And why does Monbiot describe those who "bang on" about population growth as "no ones" ? Just to be offensive ? Who would describe Sir David Attenborough as a no one with a tendency to "bang on" ? If you look at the patrons and trustees of the optimum population trust they are far from no ones !
0 x
madasafish
KG Regular
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:51 pm
Location: Stoke On trent
x 1

Re: Environmentalist's breakfast dilemma?

Postby madasafish » Thu Jan 06, 2011 2:07 pm

Monbiot's argument is typical stupidity.

It's your fault so you can't discuss it.. so no-one should.

About the level of reasoning I would expect from him.

Edit : or the Guardian.
0 x
richward
KG Regular
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 10:42 pm

Re: Environmentalist's breakfast dilemma?

Postby richward » Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:10 pm

I thought Monbiot was talking about the irony of a group of people who weren't responsible for the population growth, being the only group of people who are interested in talking about the problem.

He isn't describing these people as 'no-ones'. He's saying that at meetings the message from the audience is that 'no-one' is interested in talking about population growth. When, as he says, they are. The no-ones' don't exist. Irony again.

[quote][quote="madasafish"]Monbiot's argument is typical stupidity.

It's your fault so you can't discuss it.. so no-one should

I don't think Monbiot is saying this at all.
0 x
User avatar
alan refail
KG Regular
Posts: 7244
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:00 am
Location: Chwilog Gogledd Orllewin Cymru Northwest Wales
x 657

Re: Environmentalist's breakfast dilemma?

Postby alan refail » Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:18 am

Cutting consumption, limiting population..............

Does anyone have any real suggestions for achieving either of these goals? Unless there are plans of action it's all so much hot air from well-heeled academics and pundits.

edited to add:

On a more sombre note, UN figures show that close on one billion people worldwide are undernourished.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/al390e/al390e00.pdf

That is a very high percentage of the world's population.

For more go to:

http://www.wfp.org/hunger
0 x
User avatar
peter
KG Regular
Posts: 5613
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:54 pm
Location: Near Stansted airport
x 493
Contact:

Re: Environmentalist's breakfast dilemma?

Postby peter » Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:54 am

Sadly not I think.

Population groups that exercise reproductive restraint tend to be replaced by those that do not. Example American "WASPs" will cease to be the majority being replaced by the largely Catholic Hispanics.

Unless the religious sanctity of life / guidance on breeding arguments can be curbed in all countries and the "many children die and contraception costs" issues dealt with in poorer countries humanity may end up in T J Bass's world envisaged in Half-past Human. A dystopian underground world city with dead oceans and every cultivatable inch of the surface farmed by "agrimeks". No wildlife other than rats, roaches, fleas & some other parasites, no wild flora at all, just food plants. All foetii "cored" to remove regions of the brain that would cause the adult to be disruptive in the endless sea of nebish's.
0 x
Do not put off thanking people when they have helped you, as they may not be there to thank later.

I support http://www.hearingdogs.org.uk/
Nature's Babe
KG Regular
Posts: 2468
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:02 pm
Location: East Sussex
x 3

Re: Environmentalist's breakfast dilemma?

Postby Nature's Babe » Fri Jan 07, 2011 1:47 pm

Jaw jaw jaw, we only have one planet...we argue till the cows come home
and nothing changes - perhaps its time we all acted and took personal responsibility. If we wish to keep reproducing then we had better find another planet to colonise - and quickly !
0 x
Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconcieved notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.
By Thomas Huxley
http://www.wildrye.info/reserve/
madasafish
KG Regular
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:51 pm
Location: Stoke On trent
x 1

Re: Environmentalist's breakfast dilemma?

Postby madasafish » Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:10 pm

Well natural measures will limit population.

Food prices. A scarcity of food.
Oil prices. A scarcity of oil.


Of course, if the Organic Movement had its way and no man made fertilisers were used it would happen in 15 years as food yields halved.

Remember, about 500 million people are kept alive by campaigns like Food Aid - which exist only because food was cheap and there were surpluses.

The Chinese are busy buying oil resources and arable land (mainly Africa) because its obvious what is coming.

A few wars over water and oil will solve the problems...

The Russians show how you can manage a population decline: make most of your males alcoholics and export your women as mail order brides..

http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpop ... siapop.htm
0 x
richward
KG Regular
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 10:42 pm

Re: Environmentalist's breakfast dilemma?

Postby richward » Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:11 pm

Jaw jaw jaw, we only have one planet...we argue till the cows come home
and nothing changes - perhaps its time we all acted and took personal responsibility.


Nature's Babe - with you 100% on this. Individuals should make personal choices and take responsibility for them.
0 x

Return to “General chatter”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests