Mister M Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Should councillors be behaving like this when cyber bullying amongst the young is causing suicides? http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/david-attenborough-should-kill-himself-says-tory-councillor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 (edited) Once again, a stupid ill thought tweet. But lets look a little further at why he abused Attenborough: Sending food to Africa to solve famine is barmy, says Sir David Attenborough as he blames overcrowding for crisis http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424129/Sending-food-Africa-solve-famine-barmy-says-Sir-David-Attenborough-blames-overcrowding-crisis.html Sending food aid to Africa to solve the famine crisis is ‘barmy’, Sir David Attenborough said last night. Sir David said it was irresponsible to have a large family in today’s overcrowded world and that humans were a ‘plague on the Earth’ It also says its his own personal Twitter feed. Edited September 18, 2013 by alchresearch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Maybe Sir David Attenborough would like to kill the Tory councillor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Maybe Sir David Attenborough would like to kill the Tory councillor? Can we put it to a vote for which one dies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Should councillors be behaving like this when cyber bullying amongst the young is causing suicides? http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/david-attenborough-should-kill-himself-says-tory-councillor No they shouldn't but sadly its just a normal everyday accordance for some councilors, many are just fowl mouthed bullies. Its sad but its realty and nothing is going to change it, and its the voters job to decide if he stays in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gleadly Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 (edited) Maybe Sir David Attenborough would like to kill the Tory councillor? No not this one - it's an endangered species. Edited September 18, 2013 by Gleadly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 What about the other week with Gove saying parents have no control over their finances? What a nice man, what a nice political party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 ....many are just fowl mouthed bullies. Mouth full of chicken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Mouth full of chicken? No, they just cluck like chickens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Mouth full of chicken? He was spitting feathers! Anyhoo, this councillor does come across as a blinkered fool, and not just because of the Tweet. My view of the world is that we have to work out how to make sure that the 9 billion people who will populate the world by 2050 all have a good life. Yeah, brilliant. Apparently wanting something to happen will be enough. Who knew? Population control is never a jolly subject, but it can't be avoided. Just think what the world's population would be now if the Chinese hadn't had their 1 child policy. (Nearly 7.5 billion is the answer.) I don't want to sound like the opening of Jerry Maguire but when I was a kid, the population of the world was 3 billion. The nearly 4 billion people who have been added since need food, fresh water and consume oil, gas, coal and other resources. As do the other 3 billion. Good job those things are infinite, right? Now some of you might say, "well we've heard all this before with Malthus". Well, that's true, Malthus's predictions didn't come true. But why was that? For 200 years, economists have contended that Malthus overlooked technological advancement, which would allow human beings to keep ahead of the population curve. The argument is that food production can indeed grow geometrically because production depends not only on land but also on know-how. With advances in seed breeding, soil nutrient replenishment (such as chemical fertilizers), irrigation, mechanization and more, the food supply can stay well ahead of the population curve. More generally, advances in technology in all its aspects—agriculture, energy, water use, manufacturing, disease control, information management, transport, communications—can keep production rising ahead of population. LINK The problem with all that is that it needs oil to drive it. Oil that is stubbornly over $100 a barrel and getting harder to find. The decline of the world's major oil fields It is estimated that the carrying capacity of the earth with no oil at all would be between 1 and 2 billion. Basic maths will indicate how many people are only alive now because of oil. Cheap, plentiful oil. Well it's not cheap and will most likely never be cheap again. Plentiful? Just ask yourselves, if there's plenty of oil around, why the fuss about shale oil and tar sands. Why the need for things like Deepwater Horizon. All very expensive ways of getting oil. Why do this unless all the easy to exploit oil resuorces had already been found? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now