And population...? Why do most people still refuse to mention it? It is inseparable from arguments about behaviour, politics and socio-economics. All are bound up together and unless and until human population, which the above factors are simultaneously drivers of and responses to, are taken into account no discussion can be taken seriously nor any solutions found.
Greta Thumberg Schools UN on Extinction
- Thread starter mchughcb
- Start date
And population...? Why do most people still refuse to mention it? It is inseparable from arguments about behaviour, politics and socio-economics. All are bound up together and unless and until human population, which the above factors are simultaneously drivers of and responses to, are taken into account no discussion can be taken seriously nor any solutions found.
ileso
Well-Known Member
You are correct. Everything else is consequence of population overload.
However, if you give a passing glance at politics and economy the keyword in any discussion is growth. Economic growth is linked to population growth and our current reliance on the welfare state is especially dependent on it also....
You rarely see, if ever, anyone talk about economic or social management or sustainability (for lack of a better word).
But hey, life is short, live it fast and to hell with those that come in our wake.
Enviado do meu PRA-LX1 através do Tapatalk
Precisely. That is my point.
reloader54
Well-Known Member
mchughcb
Well-Known Member
Not sure about that. Im eating food from pastures originally had forest on it centuries ago. Some of us drive on bridges the romans built almost 2000 years ago.
Im not so pessimistic because i know exactly where my metals and food comes from. This was set up long before me and will still providing after i depart.
ileso
Well-Known Member
I wasn't being pessimistic. Just wary of one of multiple possibilities.
That last bit was an attempt at sarcasm
Enviado do meu PRA-LX1 através do Tapatalk
Chasey
Well-Known Member
Population control is a big issue but before we get to the Chinese way of single child policy, we have a long way to go.
A good start would be wiping out dogs and cats as pets. You should have o have justification for owning a dog like being blind or hearding sheep
25% of anamal related greenhouse emisions are from Dogs and cats
Secondary costs like dog waste (estimated at 250,000 tones per year in the UK alons now makes up 4% of UK waste managment with the knock on green house issues.
Then theres livestock which produce 9% of C02 40% of Methane production which is 20 times worse than C02 and a staggering 65% of Nitros Oxide production which is 300 times worse than C02
So theres a long way to go before population control measures.
Its more likley that the impact of technology will restrict population growth long before C02 does
We simply do not need billions of humans any more. Machen's are taking over and making them redundant at an expediential rate of growth. There will simply be no gainful employment for humans in the future and the imbalance between welfare state and productivity will collapse under its own weight.
A good start would be wiping out dogs and cats as pets. You should have o have justification for owning a dog like being blind or hearding sheep
25% of anamal related greenhouse emisions are from Dogs and cats
Secondary costs like dog waste (estimated at 250,000 tones per year in the UK alons now makes up 4% of UK waste managment with the knock on green house issues.
Then theres livestock which produce 9% of C02 40% of Methane production which is 20 times worse than C02 and a staggering 65% of Nitros Oxide production which is 300 times worse than C02
So theres a long way to go before population control measures.
Its more likley that the impact of technology will restrict population growth long before C02 does
We simply do not need billions of humans any more. Machen's are taking over and making them redundant at an expediential rate of growth. There will simply be no gainful employment for humans in the future and the imbalance between welfare state and productivity will collapse under its own weight.
reloader54
Well-Known Member
jimbo1984
Well-Known Member
Good any chance of posting that fac with your special condition ?
Chasey
Well-Known Member
(PDF) Environmental and social impacts of domestic dog waste in the UK: Investigating barriers to behavioural change in dog walkers
PDF | This study sought to investigate the behaviour and attitudes of dog walkers to picking up and disposing of dog foul, with a specific focus on... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
www.researchgate.net
This is free to access related stuff
The Poop Problem: What To Do With 10 Million Tons of Dog Waste (Op-Ed)
If states ban plastic bags, some dog owners ask, how will people scoop up after Fido? The answer lies in better options.
www.livescience.com
The impact of pets on the environment
Millions of people around the globe own pets - which have an impact on the health of our planet.
theecologist.org
If you want to lower your carbon footprint, get rid of your dog
Time to consider your carbon ‘paw’ print, according to US research
www.independent.co.uk
The truth about cats’ and dogs’ environmental impact
UCLA researcher finds that feeding pets creates the equivalent of 64 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.
Last edited:
Chasey
Well-Known Member
Good any chance of posting that fac with your special condition ?
Yes of course any chance of getting an apology from you?
jimbo1984
Well-Known Member
You really are simple aren’t you ? Look at point 6 then at point 7 in NO place does it say “ radio contact “ or “ loose supervision “ you are endangering other people’s fac by your own interpretation of that fac
Chasey
Well-Known Member
As said the wording varies across conditions. Some say "Loose supervision" some say "liberal conditions" as does this one. Each individual certificate holder had been in discussion with me and their FAO as to exactly what this means and we have all agreed that on site and radio contact is sufficient for liberal conditions or loose supervision. All my novices have been intelligent grown men who are perfectly capable of checking this out for them selves. I have offered you the direct email contact for one of the FAOs who have granted this and you haven't even bothered to respond. I have given you a copy of one of the conditions that was in force, and you still deny it.
As I clearly stated when this issue kicked off, I was concerned that far more experienced stalkers than me were telling me I had it wrong. I took steps to stop people shooting with immediate effect because the great and the good said I had it wrong and I am not too proud to admit I may have done just that.
I have now confirmed with the FAOs concerned that my understanding is correct and removed the ban on shooting
Its apparent you hadn't thought of this possibility before. We had an issue due to Sussex police saying they would no longer clear land, we approached the relevant authorities and managed to work around the problem. As one FAO said to me, we can condition that you can only stalk whilst wearing a thong if we like.
I was trying to help people with closed certs. To give them a way out of the new "touching distance" condition which is so punitive. I posted what we had done successfully in our syndicate in order to try and help others. and for no other reason than some deep seated dislike of me, you have tried to make an issue out of it.
There really is no point in further discussion with me.
Please contact the relevant fire arms departments directly your self
jimbo1984
Well-Known Member
Awww were playing the victim now that’s cute , no you have endangered people’s fac by thinking you know it all ! Typical Dsc warrior , no problem I will
Frank Homes
Well-Known Member
jimbo1984
Well-Known Member
True , the feo should be sacked , but still remains the fact that no mention of radio contact ,
Similar threads
