Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Army Guy

Is climate change, a major concern for Canadians ....

Is climate change important to canadians   

22 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Well yeah, but specifically I mean. 

It's because they take current rates of population growth and extrapolate into the future without factoring in how those rates are likely to change, then they look at the current resources available in the world and act like no further resources will be discovered or that technology won't allow people to get more out of those resources in the future, and then they add that all those misleading statistics together, which leads to a prediction of doomsday.

And because they are mad. And probably there's some religion in there as well.

One doesn't need to extrapolate.  One only needs to watch the news.  We are okay, of course, with all this land and water to keep us happy, and all our waste magically disappearing from the end of our gardens every Tuesday, but taken as a whole, we are too many to live properly, and the area in which we are able to do so is shrinking. 

I grant you we could have done things differently, but we didn't, and it's probably too late now.

And as for technology, sure, there's always a chance some bright spark will save us all, and as I have said before, I keep my fingers crossed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

And because they are mad. And probably there's some religion in there as well.

One doesn't need to extrapolate.  One only needs to watch the news.  We are okay, of course, with all this land and water to keep us happy, and all our waste magically disappearing from the end of our gardens every Tuesday, but taken as a whole, we are too many to live properly, and the area in which we are able to do so is shrinking. 

I grant you we could have done things differently, but we didn't, and it's probably too late now.

And as for technology, sure, there's always a chance some bright spark will save us all, and as I have said before, I keep my fingers crossed.

It's not too late now, the population will peak before it reaches 11 billion, and there is plenty of land and food to feed them. Birth rates everywhere are falling, and they are falling fastest in the parts of the world that are the most heavily populated as well.

Overpopulation is a myth on the worldwide scale, in specific localities, sure, but the carrying capacity of the world is far higher than Malthusian Doomsday Cults give it credit for. Canada does not have to worry about overpopulation, and neither does America, there is tons of room to grow in North America, in particular.

If anything underpopulation is the bigger threat long term, not overpopulation. Not many parts of the world left above or at replacement rate, that won't soon be at or below replacement rate.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PPC2019 said:

I hope the folks in Alberta read what i'm reading, and realized I've been right all along. It's time to separate from Canada. Not everyone wants to live in a third world country, where everything is shut down... but that's the way Canada is headed, if people with your philosophy get more power.

What about pipelines and a port?  If Canada becomes a third world country where everything is shut down, how do we get our product to a market?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

It's not too late now, the population will peak before it reached 11 billion, and there is plenty of land and food to feed them.

So they say, but we don't feed them.  We raze arable land so we can put more palm oil in junk food and shampoo.  We turn over millions of acres of land where we could grow nutritious grains for people, in order to feed cows, when most of the world won't ever be able to afford a decent steak.  We send fresh water 2k downhole to force that last bit of oil up the well when half the world has no access to freshwater.

We don't feed them, and they are hungry.  And legion!

Share this post


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

So they say, but we don't feed them.  We raze arable land so we can put more palm oil in junk food and shampoo.  We turn over millions of acres of land where we could grow nutritious grains for people, in order to feed cows, when most of the world won't ever be able to afford a decent steak.  We send fresh water 2k downhole to force that last bit of oil up the well when half the world has no access to freshwater.

We don't feed them, and they are hungry.  And legion!

That's an infrastructure, transportation, and price problem, not a land and food shortage problem.

There is plenty of land and food to feed the population of the world, even at 11 billion, neither land or food is in danger of running out. Overpopulation is a myth.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

What about pipelines and a port?  If Canada becomes a third world country where everything is shut down, how do we get our product to a market?

I've just Said... You Join Northern BC, and export through Prince Rupert... I don't think anyone in Prince Rupert would complain about that... I don't think they would mind becoming the next Panama Canal with $100 000 jobs in the shipping industry.

Maybe even Northern Alberta could Separate with Northern BC... You bypass any of the liberal cities like Edmonton. Than you have a country with less than 2 million people sitting on the third largest oil reserves in the planet.

That kinda of oil wealth with a low population could make them the next Dubai.

Edited by PPC2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PPC2019 said:

I've just Said... You Join Northern BC, and export through Prince Rupert... I don;t think anyone in Prince Rupert would complain about that... I don't think they would mind becoming the next Panama Canal with $100 000 jobs in the shipping industry.

Just ship it to the Gulf of Mexico. Problem solved. If Canada won't let Alberta ship it out on the Pacific or Atlantic, ship it to America. American interests are more aligned with Alberta than BC or Quebec, that would only become more so the case if Alberta left Confederation, and that's not a bad thing.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

That's an infrastructure and price problem, not a land and food shortage problem.

It's the problem we're discussing.  Give it whatever name you want, it doesn't go away.

I have no idea what the world could have been like if we had done it right from the very start.  Probably quite the utopia.  But humans aren't given to such things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PPC2019 said:

I've just Said... You Join Northern BC, and export through Prince Rupert... I don;t think anyone in Prince Rupert would complain about that... I don't think they would mind becoming the next Panama Canal with $100 000 jobs in the shipping industry.

I'm sorry, I missed that.  Presumably Northern BC would have to agree to all this.  I'm too old to go back into an army.

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


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

It's the problem we're discussing.  Give it whatever name you want, it doesn't go away.

I have no idea what the world could have been like if we had done it right from the very start.  Probably quite the utopia.  But humans aren't given to such things.

Utopia? No. Utopia is another myth, the world will never ever be a Utopia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It's the problem we're discussing.  Give it whatever name you want, it doesn't go away.

I have no idea what the world could have been like if we had done it right from the very start.  Probably quite the utopia.  But humans aren't given to such things.

Overpopulation is something different, having less people won't solve the problem. Having better infrastructure, transportation and free market capitalism to fuel technological innovation, will do a far better job of addressing the issue than less people existing ever will.

Too many people is not the problem, which is why most who think it is the problem suck at addressing the actual underlying issues that lead to people not being well feed on the cheap, they are trying to address the wrong issue entirely based on a myth propped up by bad mathematics.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jacee said:

Burning fossil fuels is killing the planet and human life on it.

Hysterical nonsense.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jacee said:

The technologies exist now.

No, it does not. Wishing it does not make it so.

Quote

The oil industry is now only profitable because it is propped up by public subsidies, distorting the free market.

You haven't got the first clue about economics or business. And again, making stuff up doesn't make it so. What these people call 'subsidies' consists almost entirely of not taxing the ever living hell out of the fossil fuel industry in order to pay for things like air pollution and health care caused by air pollution. So 'removing the subsidies' actually means 'tax the hell out of oil so its cost skyrockets'.

 

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Overpopulation is something different, having less people won't solve the problem. Having better infrastructure, transportation and free market capitalism will though.

The problem would disappear if we had fewer people.  I know it's not going to happen, but then, neither is having better infrastructure, transportation and free market capitalism.  Not the extent it actually makes a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

The problem would disappear if we had fewer people.  I know it's not going to happen, but then, neither is having better infrastructure, transportation and free market capitalism.  Not the extent it actually makes a difference.

No it wouldn't, the problem would still exist, because population levels aren't the issue at all.

Having less people to build the infrastructure, transportation and market innovation necessary to reduce the issue would slow down the ability to feed more people for lower prices. You are making the problem worse by failing to address the actual issue.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Overpopulation is something different, having less people won't solve the problem. Having better infrastructure, transportation and free market capitalism to fuel technological innovation, will do a far better job of addressing the issue than less people existing ever will.

Too many people is not the problem, which is why most who think it is the problem suck at addressing the actual underlying issues that lead to people not being well feed on the cheap, they are trying to address the wrong issue entirely based on a myth propped up by bad mathematics.

Look, If you can't tell i'm a far-right Capitalist, but I do have an environmental background.... And I think overpopulation is a terrible idea long-term for the economy and the environment. The Chinese economy is showing signs of weakness because they're running our of resources.

I want to keep the countries with lower populations low, and develop our resources for prosperity. Living in overcrowded suburbs suck. I get jealous of people living in northern Ontario being able to fish, hunt, or go boating whenever they want.

I wouldn't mind living in a small city that has a great economy and lots of wilderness surrounding it. My ideal city would be Vancouver, if I could afford it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PPC2019 said:

Look, If you can't tell i'm a far-right Capitalist, but I do have an environmental background.... And I think overpopulation is a terrible idea long-term for the economy and the environment. The Chinese economy is showing signs of weakness because they're running our of resources.

I want to keep the countries with lower populations low, and develop our resources for prosperity. Living in overcrowded suburbs suck. I get jealous of people living in northern Ontario being able to fish, hunt, or go boating whenever they want.

I wouldn't mind living in a small city that has a great economy and lots of wilderness surrounding it. My ideal city would be Vancouver, if I could afford it. 

Then move to a less crowded place. Not having enough resources for all the people is not the problem. China is not running out of resources, China is running out of people, because their birth rate has fallen and they have less young people to support an aging population. Also they are communists, so that's not good for the economy either. Central planning is a far bigger problem than overpopulation, and in China's case underpopulation is a bigger problem for them than overpopulation as well.

It's not a lack of resources, unless you are talking about human capital, which is diminished with a smaller population, not increased. Too many people and too few resources is a myth.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

No it wouldn't, the problem would still exist, because population levels aren't the issue at all.

Having less people to build the infrastructure, transportation and market innovation necessary to reduce the issue would slow down the ability to feed more people for lower prices. You are making the problem worse by failing to address the actual issue.

Compare India to Australia. The Australians are center-right and have developed their resources to create a good lifestyle for themselves. India can barely keep up with infrastructure because of the limited resources and overpopulation.

Hey Smaller is fine. Hasn't we heard women say... It's not the size. It's how you use it? :D

19.jpg

Edited by PPC2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PPC2019 said:

Compare India to Australia. The Australians are center-right and have developed their resources to create a good lifestyle for themselves. India can barely keep up with infrastructure because of the limited resources and overpopulation.

19.jpg

No India's problems are lack of free market capitalism and rough terrain. It's harder to build infrastructure in India, it's harder to have proper transportation in India, and it's harder to have a free market in India. Has literally nothing to with not enough resources existing in the world to feed them, and everything to do with not being wealthy enough to buy those resources and build that transportation and infrastructure. Government incompetence also slows them down. 

As India has become wealthier all these issues are correcting themselves at a much faster rate than if they implemented a one child policy like China did. Population isn't the problem.

As India gets wealthier the birth rate will drop and the population will stop growing and eventually shrink. Too many people is not the problem and even if it was, less people existing wouldn't fix it anywhere near as well as other measures.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Then move to a less crowded place. Not having enough resources for all the people is not the problem. China is not running out of resources, China is running out of people, because their birth rate has fallen and they have less young people to support an aging population. Also they are communists, so that's not good for the economy either. Central planning is a far bigger problem than overpopulation, and in China's case underpopulation is a bigger problem for them than overpopulation as well.

It's not a lack of resources, unless you are talking about human capital, which is diminished with a smaller population, not increased.

I don't want to drive the mods Crazy trying to get through to people like you. Poor guy has to read through all are arguing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PPC2019 said:

I don't want to drive the mods Crazy trying to get through to people like you. Poor guy has to read through all are arguing.

Okay Malthus, we all know the real reason you want to stop debating, and that's because you are losing the argument, badly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Okay Malthus, we all know the real reason you want to stop debating, and that's because you are losing the argument, badly.

No it's because I appreciate Maple Leaf Web. I think Charles Anthony is a great mod. You won't find that kind of discipline in any other forum. He puts up with a lot of our crap, including mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PPC2019 said:

No it's because I appreciate Maple Leaf Web. I think Charles Anthony is a great mod. You won't find that kind of discipline in any other forum. He puts up with a lot of our crap, including mine.

Alright then start an overpopulation thread and get steamrolled if you are confident in your position then. But we both know you'd rather duck the argument entirely, because you ran into actual opposition to your nonsensical Malthusian assertions.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Alright then start an overpopulation thread and get steamrolled if you are confident in your position then. But we both know you'd rather duck the argument entirely, because you ran into actual opposition to your nonsensical Malthusian assertions.

Maple leaf web has already had it's fair share of the overpopulation debate. The thing that scares me the most, is the climate cult lefties, won't even pick up on it.

Edited by PPC2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PPC2019 said:

Maple leaf web has already had it's fair share of the overpopulation debate.

Quelle surprise. 

Wants to flee the argument entirely and makes up excuses to do so, knowing he's losing the argument badly. Called it.

:lol:

Edited by Yzermandius19

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.


×
×
  • Create New...