Coronavirus

keep hearing of a new breakout on news in Japan.

 

probably his family?

 

In non COVID related news I took my lad for his first vaccinations.

Will be back in 4 and 8 weeks to get his top ups and keep him safe, preventing kids dying.

 

I think there are many people on this forum, that if it weren't for the advancement of medical intervention, that would probably be dead by now.

Even if the outcome of that medical intervention wasn't to stop immediate death, but to stop an earlier death as a consequence of a medical condition.

I often consider myself lucky to reach the age I have, when I've seen friends lose their lives at a very early age, and of course natures loss of family members.

Care homes are full of our elderly, or were until Hancock had an ingenious plot to kill them off. My point is care homes are full because most British families are not the ones looking after their old folk.

We expect nurses and doctors to intervene, we expect there to be medication for all our conditions, and once frail, we want to dump the care onto someone else, because we don't have the time or the skills as life goes full circle on us, from cradle to grave.

I hear what Big Ern is saying, and at what point in the future will we have to control the population or let death take natures course, crass maybe, but also reality either that or halt further medical advancement, because we can't afford the cost and space of everyone living to gone one hundred years old.

 

No, you're not a sociopath, you're an advocate of self-extinction.

 

So let me get this straight, you’re labelling me an advocate of self extinction, because I don’t agree with the notion that both society and medical science should stand back and allow deadly pandemics to do nature’s work?

So your stance must be that every vaccine invented by man, was somehow wrong, and we should have allowed, polio, TB, HIV, Ebola and every other virus there’s ever been to just do ‘it’s job’?

You’re a ****ing lunatic.

 

I said 20 years so there will be an equilibrium.
And yeah, in the long run they were a bad idea without some thought towards what would happen when the population increases to unmanageable levels. But hey, keep your fantasy, maybe someone will find a magic wand and cure all the problems the over-population is causing, which is only going to increase faster.

 

There's no hope for California tbh. Nature never intended it for human habitation; it's a similar story with Australia, a vast landmass that for 60,000 years supported a tiny human population which was thoroughly integrated with their environment.

You can only go so far ****ing with nature. California and Australia are doomed.

 

Remember the first time I went to California and seeing those gated communities down in the OC with their crisp green manicured lawns. Then glancing off into the distance and just seeing desert everywhere.

They've had a massive problem with drought and wildfires recently. And they usually rely on the snowmelt from the Sierra Nevada to top up their reservoirs. They've been tapping into deep groundwater in the last few years to supply their massive agricultural belt in the central valley. Growing almonds is a huge drain on water resources.

 

Human population growth is actually slowing though rather than growing. I think the 'over population' argument being responsible for environmental degradation is a red herring. It's actually more about extreme inequality, excessive consumption of the world's rich nations, and a system that priorities endless growth, consumption and profit accumulation over social and ecological well-being.

You have to remember that whilst places like India and Africa get blamed for over population and the associated resource/climate issues. 'Famine is caused by too many people with too few resources' is a classic trope. It's actually rich nations like China and the US that contribute over half of the world's Co2 emissions that lead to things like drought, flood, crop failure etc.

The reality is that the worlds poorest people (often with the highest birth rate) only contribute around 10% of the world's Co2 and account for consuming a mere fraction of the planet's resources.

 

Bro you need to sort yourself out. If it's excessive consumption, China fall way down the list.

If it's too many humans and just absolute emissions being pumped out, then china tops it but India which you have absolved of CO2 issues is actually the 3rd most polluting country

 

And hear I am cleaning out peanut butter jars for recycling....why the **** are we bothering when it was one coal fired power station a week being built in china not so long ago!

 

I wasn't really absolving India of Co2 issues, more drawing parallels with them being blamed for over population. Maybe Bangladesh would have been a better example. High birth rate, low emissions and carbon footprint, yet suffer some of the worst effects from sea level rises and changing weather patterns due to climate change.

Although that said, the birth rate in Bangladesh has been falling for some time now.

 

Bangladesh is basically a flood plain,

 

It is. Probably going to see mass migration from Bangladesh in the next few decades years due to rising sea levels .

 

Not an issue regarding mass migration, but much like building on flood plains in the uk, barriers etc can be built. See NL for examples of living in areas that are flood plains. Where will the Dutch go?

 

I don't know if you could build the infrastructure on the kind of scale needed to protect Bangladesh. Projections are that by 2050, 17% of Bangladesh will be underwater, displacing 20 million people, who will likely migrate into India and Myanmar as refugees.

 

Why not just further inland as the sea level rises? Mayan mar, good luck with that move.

 

They can come here and bring their coffee shops with them