unnecessary flights

[Cunobelin]

Part of the problem is "policy" - look at railways for an example, we are abou to get a massive "expansion" in the railways (the validity of this claim is a separate issue) mainly achieved with large fare increases above the already inflation busting ones in the pipeline.

In my case it is three times as expensive to take thetrain to Scotland than to fly!

Add the fact that it is quicker and can you blame those who take this choice on financial and convenience grounds?


Add to this the fact that in some cases it is easier to take abike on a plane than on a train.................................

[LowPlainsDrifter]

But the real cause of the worlds probs is overpopulation.

Are you volunteering then? No good culling the poorest people - they contribute practically nothing to our environmental problems. If a cull is going to make sense it would need to be the wealthiest section of the population, but since they pretty much run the show there's not much chance of that.

Well I NEVER mentioned culling did I? I said its over population . Nothing about culling!
But hey! Thats a thought too!
But it needs to be addressed this having LOADS of kids. It cant go on its common sense.
I live on a council estate and would class myself as poor,always have been but still managed to get to lots of parts in the world. Now I'd definately nominate some on here (estate) to be culled no problem.
I chose not to breed. I made sure MY girlfriends were on the pill or I used protection. Why why why should people be rewarded for breeding and spitting out kids? teenage sl-appers given houses and flats etc.
Yes its money what runs the show and goverments and big companies and corporations need their quota of breeders to keep them in business and the fat cats in wealth.
But its our downfall, or will be. Humans cannot continue breeding like rabbits in this day and age. Simple fact.

[glueman]

Why why why should people be rewarded for breeding and spitting out kids?

They aren't, generally speaking. Kids are damned expensive. Still, someone is going to have to work to pay our pensions, care for us in old age, think us out of the mess we made, etc...etc...etc...

[reohn2]

R2 puts hand up tentatively,
It was me that mentioned culling, but I wasn't refering to humans being culled by other humans.I meant the planet will automaticly cull us by natural means ie natural catastrophe,disease or some form of plague or other.
If we keep on producing at the present rate,which is phenomenal, disease will kill us,we won't be able to maintain our current standard of living,ultimately if the poor are decimated the rich will be decimated too, because the rich live off the backs of the poor so who will sustain the rich.

The problem is one of too many rats in the cage.

Even if we were to stop breeding today our problems would increase, as the population got older and more infirm the younger generation couldn't afford to keep us(we are seeing the beginings of this now in the national health system) we would/will as we get older become more of a liability.
We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.There are far to many old people,and not enough young one to support them.Equally so, if there were more young people there wouldn't be enough work for them to do.

Its a catch 22 situation, in Chess its known as an end game, its just a matter of time, the $64,000 question is how much time and what can we do to buy more? whilst we try and work out a solution.

Personally I think there will be a remnant of humanity that will survive the catastrophe and the cycle (knew I could get cycling in somewhere )will start again,its all happened before but not on such a grand scale,in the past its only ever happened on a national scale(as far as we know)

[glueman]

I'm a little more optimistic. Admittedly, it may be the end of the road for planet 'Erf but we can't be too far from the creation of atmospheres on other worlds and then there'll be a colonisation earlier settlers could only dream at. Imagine an entire planet that only allowed cycling?
Space is big enough for everyone and perhaps our ultimate destiny is to occupy whole swathes of it?

[dropout]

Well I NEVER mentioned culling did I? I said its over population . Nothing about culling!

No you didn't mention culling (that was someone else), but what other way is there of reducing world population? Forced sterilisation? forced abortions? It's what happens in China apparently. Sorry but it's easy to talk about over-population but not so easy to say who is to be allowed to breed and who not. Besides which it's the countries with relatively stable populations who cause the most environmental damage due to high living standards.

[reohn2]

I'm a little more optimistic. Admittedly, it may be the end of the road for planet 'Erf but we can't be too far from the creation of atmospheres on other worlds and then there'll be a colonisation earlier settlers could only dream at. Imagine an entire planet that only allowed cycling?
Space is big enough for everyone and perhaps our ultimate destiny is to occupy whole swathes of it?

I can't see it happening,theres not enough profit in it for a start.The only hope for getting off the planet is to die (and even then only for the faithful)If we can't manage to produce enough power to sustain our present status quo how will we ever, first, get of the planet and second, sustain life when we are on another one.
I don't think its the end of the road for planet Earth just the end of the road for us as a species on planet Earth as we know it at present.
The human race needs power and lots of it as we are (after all thats why we're in Iraq)operating at the moment,oil will become evermore scarce and no one has found a way of replacing it as a source of power in the quantities needed and that is just oneof our current problems.An increasing one as China and India become more affluent and in turn look west for the way to live ie the motor car air conditioning etc etc
To borrow a topic from another thread take obesity in the western world and all its health associated issues the cost of which will spiral upward.
Or drugs maybe and its associated crime problems again on an upward spiral and cost.
Or our current potential stock exchange crash and its knock on effect.
I could go on but won't you any more

Its as i said in an earlier post we as a species simply don't know how not to,we are clever enough to know how to, but not wise enough to know how not to.And IMO it will be our cleverness which will be our downfall.

I wish I could paint a rosier picture but I can't,unfortunately the future isn't Orange,but looks quite grey in the long term from my window.

[horizon]

Is flying by passenger jet about to become the new fur coat of obscenity?

It's the job of government to ensure that the individual never has to make a choice between his own best interests and those of society. Everybody should either be rewarded for making a good decision or penalised for making bad one. This is basic, good government. The fact that we have to make choices against our own best interests (eg not flying, recycling our waste) shows how far the government (and society) is from basic moral values.

[dropout]

It's the job of government to ensure that the individual never has to make a choice between his own best interests and those of society.

Interesting point, but I'm not sure if I want government to assume such an overweening role in society, simply because many individuals have better ethical, economic and environmental judgement than any government ever will.

However I would say that government should at least try to create a level playing field so that individuals are not penalised for making better choices. For example let's stop subsidising motorised transport and let's stop the harassment and intimidation of pedestrians and cyclists.

[reohn2]

It's the job of government to ensure that the individual never has to make a choice between his own best interests and those of society.

Interesting point, but I'm not sure if I want government to assume such an overweening role in society, simply because many individuals have better ethical, economic and environmental judgement than any government ever will.

However I would say that government should at least try to create a level playing field so that individuals are not penalised for making better choices. For example let's stop subsidising motorised transport and let's stop the harassment and intimidation of pedestrians and cyclists.

And risk alienating themselves from the majority of voters.
It is cheaper now (I believe)in real terms to run an motor car than it was 30 years ago.
The motorists(and air travellers) aren't going to go quietly and given that,that is most of the populous its a real problem for any government that wants to stay in power, so it has to be slowly,slowly catch the monkee,from the government's perspective.

Just another point that if it wasn't so tragic would make me laugh out loud.
China,who are hosting(or should that be ghosting) the next Olympics (the epitomy of health )are struggling with air polution in Bejing so bad that they are begining to confiscate cars and ban them from the streets.
Nothing like a good old dictatership to stamp out global warming
Perhap our dear Mr Brown is going about it all wrong

[dropout]

so it has to be slowly,slowly catch the monkee,

Problem is the monkey is running at breakneck speed. That is why government will always fail. It suits government apparachniks to go slowly. They're on reasonable incomes with secure jobs and pensions - why rush and put that at risk? By constantly planning longer term "solutions" individual officials can avoid having to face up to their eventual failure since they will long since have moved on or retired.

[reohn2]

so it has to be slowly,slowly catch the monkee,

Problem is the monkey is running at breakneck speed. That is why government will always fail. It suits government apparachniks to go slowly. They're on reasonable incomes with secure jobs and pensions - why rush and put that at risk? By constantly planning longer term "solutions" individual officials can avoid having to face up to their eventual failure since they will long since have moved on or retired.

I agree totally, that is why "democracy" doesn't work,the first thing that any government does is to ensure it stays in power and it can't do that by being unpopular.The car is a very popular piece of kit.

[dropout]

"democracy" doesn't work.

So is China the answer - a liberal economy "controlled" by an oligarchic government that can make unpopular decisions? I think not - the oligarchs will just be in the pockets of the capitalists without the moderating influence of popular democracy.

[reohn2]

"democracy" doesn't work.

So is China the answer - a liberal economy "controlled" by an oligarchic government that can make unpopular decisions? I think not - the oligarchs will just be in the pockets of the capitalists without the moderating influence of popular democracy.

The reason for my writing democracy in inverted commas as I did was to emphasise the fact that we aren't living in a real democracy.
China is a dictatorship much as this country was a hundred years ago,then the Labour movement was born which lead to the situation we find ourselves in at the moment one hopes when and if the Chinese Labour movement ever happens they will have learned some lessons from our experience.

I read somewhere that out of the 60m people living in the UK around half(30m) are eligible to vote out of that 30m between 30%and 37% regularly do vote,shall we say a maximum of 15m?(50%) Out of that 15m, 14m are commited to one of the two big parties,a further 600,000 are commited to Lib dems or other minor parties,independents, etc.That leaves 400,000 floating voters.
Shall we say these statistics are wildly inacurate and that the 400,000 is in reality 4m, that still means that 4m people are deciding who runs the show in a country with a population of 60m, that, if my maths are right is 2.4% of the population.Of course it can be argued that everyone has the choice to vote whichever way they want to, or not at all but the fact still remains that 2,4% of us decide who rules the remaining 97.6%
The tragedy is that that the politrickians know this and do nothing about it because it suits them.
But then thats "democracy"(note the inverted commas)

PS I think we're on the same side

[mhara]

'Democracy' rather than anything nastier however, since the only thing stopping people from voting is their own behaviour. Apathy rules OK.

When you come from a country where thousands of people have died to get the freedom to vote it always shocks me, when out canvassing, to hear people say they can't be bothered to vote .

People who continually whinge about the way things are, but aren't prepared to get involved in affecting how those things are - well, they just mystify me.