Humans

They keep talking about robots/AI taking peoples jobs, maybe "cleaning up the planet" would be a better use of that technology. (WALL-A/E styleeee)

Without the political will to get this done we're lost, if the Government (and all other Governments) passed a law tomorrow banning all plastics from packaging industry would have to comply, until it reaches this point we're all ******* in the wind!
 
Trappi$t said:
Check your products to see if they contain PALM OIL. Virgin tropical rainforests are being burnt/decimated, to make way for this rubbish, which is used in cheap, low quality foods. Wildlife butchered, habitats permanently lost, for what? some cheap filler for low quality foods that are eaten by the average council estate dweller? GOOD JOB.

Cadburys, MARS, etc, all the usual commercial vermin are directly responsible for this. LOOK at what you are eating, if it has palm oil, 100% you are partially responsible for deforestation in Indonesia. Think about it, act on it, do something.
Click to expand...

Well said, I stopped eating nestle, mars and cadbury products years ago... much to my other halfs dismay when she tries to put a box of cherrios in the shopping cart.
.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
Nestle business ethics are just terrible. The controversies that surround their bottled water and food stuffs are incredibly dark.
Click to expand...


Let alone giving free samples of baby formula to destitute African mothers, just long enough for their natural milk supply to dry up, and then charge their a relative fortune for additional formula.
 
D.P. said:
Let alone giving free samples of baby formula to destitute African mothers, just long enough for their natural milk supply to dry up, and then charge their a relative fortune for additional formula.
Click to expand...

Didn't realise they were so bad. Needless to say I will no longer be buying theirs or their subsidiary companies products.
 
RaohNS said:
The key is education and the countries raising their standards of living by themselves.
Click to expand...

The key is reducing the human population, through education and increased standards of living leading to decreased birth rates and a steady decline in world population to something more sustainable.

None of us want to give up what we have, and most of the 99% of people that don't have what we have want to be like us. Population is the issue, but very few people in power want to admit it even though it's becoming increasingly clear.

Lets keep trying to stem the symptoms (climate change, plastics etc) rather than the actual cause...
 
Reducing the population just reduces the amount of waste. Waste, of any quantity, is still a problem. If everyone stopped buying things containing plastics, manufacturers would shift their focuses and change their products and packaging. Then we could at least begin to clean up.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
Because avocados are a trendy health food these days, its fairly easy to get stories trending on how the avocado is destroying the world, whereas the meat industry has always lived with its stigma and it has been brushed aside for convenient, cheap grub and profit.
Click to expand...

One of the issues with just talking about the "meat industry" as a whole is that there are some locations and animals that are significantly more damaging than others. It's not even that cows (as an example because they are usually singled out) are always worse than other animals, it entirely depends on where they are being reared, what they are being fed and what was on the land before hand.

If your're chopping down a forest to create fields for livestock, or having to bring in huge amounts of water/grains for your intensive farming style, then that meat is going to be significantly higher impact than rearing livestock in pre existing environments (i.e. natural grasslands). The latter is far more environmentally healthy - they can coexist with wildlife and the environment isn't changed much for it. The big downside is that they compete with the native wildlife and reduce populations, however they are usually still there and this issue can be mitigated to some extent.
 
Roar87 said:
Oh c'mon, the UK is 1% of the worlds population, and we already do more than most towards the environment, why not look at the US, China and India before blaming the UK?
Click to expand...

We are doing some things to try and reduce the slide, but we've had several hundred years of industrialisation that has already depleted the UK far more than anyone almost every other country. The "green and pleasant" land is to all intents and purposes and industrial wasteland and a far cry from "natural".

New research published in the journal Science and included in the State of Nature report reveals that the UK has lost significantly more nature over the long term than the global average. Of the 218 countries assessed for ‘biodiversity intactness’, the UK is ranked 189, a consequence of centuries of industrialisation, urbanisation and overexploitation of our natural resources.
Read more at https://ww2.rspb.org.uk/community/o...ummary-of-the-report.aspx#QrLglsXWiE0bcIYj.99
Click to expand...
 
bloodiedathame said:
Reducing the population just reduces the amount of waste. Waste, of any quantity, is still a problem. If everyone stopped buying things containing plastics, manufacturers would shift their focuses and change their products and packaging. Then we could at least begin to clean up.
Click to expand...

We will produce waste no matter what we do. All changing packaging is going to do is create a new form of waste. Sure, we should be reducing our waste per person and reducing the harm that waste can do, but that's not going to solve the underlying issue - too much waste, too much consumption and too many people wanting to live a life that's too intensive.
 
Haven't read through the whole thread, but I'm sure this must have been mentioned:

To me the solution is obvious - stem population growth.

We need some generations where families have a 1/2 child limit and no more. The planet can't sustain the level of growth we have at the moment, so either we begin to limit it now or we wait until the second-order effects of overpopulation take care of the problem for us.
 
Admiral Huddy said:
No I haven't. Sadly it's common sense that's widely ignored..
Click to expand...

Dostoyevsky wrote about a similar scenario. Killing a miserly old woman (who degrades and mistreats a sister (half) to essentially hold her in bondage. Said sister is a little slow by all accounts too.

Killing the old woman, taking what she has and improving the lives of hundreds of other families. Nihilistic spectrum. Much the same of 1 human or 100 lions. The questions have been asked before. What's not agreed is the answers.
 
Amp34 said:
The key is reducing the human population, through education and increased standards of living leading to decreased birth rates and a steady decline in world population to something more sustainable.
Click to expand...

That's according to you (re reduction in population). Others hold a different view. Is sustainable 500,000,000 by any chance?

None of us want to give up what we have, and most of the 99% of people that don't have what we have want to be like us. Population is the issue, but very few people in power want to admit it even though it's becoming increasingly clear.
Click to expand...

Again that's a subjective statement. It's not always about giving up or denying others. Education is as everyone knows the key. Resources are finite. We can figure things to extend our presence. The issue I am concerned about is the take. How is what we have going to be taken and who are the ones with their finger on the trigger.
Lets keep trying to stem the symptoms (climate change, plastics etc) rather than the actual cause...
Click to expand...

We can do both. Personally, I would rather we focus on pollution via deadly chemicals and the microplastics that are being talked about than things like emissions. I'm not alarmed by CO2 panic stations.
 
Sadly nothing will change. We will probably seal our own destruction too. So little will be left I doubt life will evolve in a significant way again.

We have been doing this since our emergence too. Every time we arrived at a major continent all of the big mammals disappeared.
 
Amp34 said:
We will produce waste no matter what we do. All changing packaging is going to do is create a new form of waste. Sure, we should be reducing our waste per person and reducing the harm that waste can do, but that's not going to solve the underlying issue - too much waste, too much consumption and too many people wanting to live a life that's too intensive.
Click to expand...

If that waste is biodegradable or recyclable there is much less of a problem. Plastic drinks bottles would be cured by replacing all with tins. Cardboard can replace a lot of plastic packaging in the food industry. It's the love affair with oil and plastic that's doing the harm at the moment. No matter what the population is.
 
Plastic is just the current way we are screwing the planet. When / if we fix the plastic issue, we will have created a new way to screw ourselves. Overpopulation is the massive overbearing issue here.

As highlighted by some other peoples comments on here people are pre-programmed to want to breed and then cannot see anything else but their children and more breeding.

The biggest change that needs to happen is the alteration of the human right to a family life.

It need to be adjusted to allow for only sustainable breeding then following that additional procreation would have to be authorised (for such reasons as adoption and population sustaining at a level where the planet can cope). This in the long run will not only save the planet, it will also increase the quality of living for the fewer people that are on the planet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom