by road to nowhere 29 Replies latest social current

  • 2+2=5

    She’s so far out of her depth she’s embarrassing herself.

    Meanwhile real environmental scientists, who may have worked decades prior to Greta even being born, get little recognition.

    Sailing the the worlds oceans, tweeting hate at airline passengers and mineworkers isn’t admirable, just really silly.

  • LoveUniHateExams

    Greta is 16 years old. And 16 year olds know nothing, generally speaking.

    Forget, for a moment, that she is on the autism spectrum.

    It's good that she takes an interest in the welfare of the planet but education should be a priority - she should be thinking about what she wants to do with the rest of her life ... what subjects she'd like to pursue, what career she would like to go into, and learning how to socialise with other teenagers and adults, learning how to act responsibly, etc.

    Instead her parents approve of her travelling for weeks across the Atlantic on a yacht when she should be learning stuff at school.

    Her parents are failing her, I think.

  • punkofnice

    I'm beginning to think that this Greta stuff is getting to become a bit 'yesterday's news'.

    I don't think it'll be long before the trendies and permanently triggered lefty fascists adopt another cult to follow. Probably something to do with gender butthurt or some crap.

    This, I think, might be very detrimental to her mental health.

  • JimmyYoung

    True she is loosing her spin. The shine is coming off. Not to mention she is nothing but a parrot who spits back only what she is told not what she came up with through experience or investigation. She obviously had OCD and locks on to something and can not move on. Her father is a radical eco nut and she has been unduly influenced by his radicalism.

  • cofty

    So Redvip insults me because I don't buy into environmentalism with sufficient enthusiasm and Jimmy insults me because I don't dismiss it with the required amount of contempt.

    This is typical of what passes for discussion. Mouths wide open and minds firmly closed.

  • redvip2000

    Just a correction that I was speaking in general terms, and not about any one person. I have no reason to insult you.

    And also it's really sad that folks who thrive to have a cleaner planet, are now assigned a term (environmentalism), which has the stink of a religious cult.

    I reject that term and others like it -- they are best suited for types who refuse science in exchange of ideology.

    Again in general terms.

  • cofty

    Redvip - I said that the solution to climate change is technology. You replied that 'hoping on technology is a product of self centered, lazy and stagnant mind'.

    I have no reason to insult you.

    I agree.

    it's really sad that folks who thrive to have a cleaner planet, are now assigned a term (environmentalism), which has the stink of a religious cult

    We all aspire to a cleaner planet. You don't get to claim the moral high ground. Just because I don't uncritically buy into all the propaganda doesn't mean that I am any less passionate than you about the future of planet earth.

    I said quite explicitly that the environmentalist movement is a cult. It has dogma, prophets, orthodoxy, heresy and apostasy.

    Have you not noticed that the loudest voices conflate green with red?

    Climate activism is all a part of anti-capitalism, anti-patriarchy, feminism and social Marxism. It is no accident. The Green movement is just another utopian ideology. It has its roots in The Frankfurt School and Herbert Marcuse in particular.

    The last person to acknowledge that they are following a cult is the cult member - we should know.

  • JimmyYoung

    Technology can help but there nothing on the horizon that will take the place of fossil fuel. You can not fly a passenger plane on sunshine or batteries. Its still not easy to run a Tesla across country like you can a gas or diesel car. Tech can not save the planet if the population keeps on growing. 1860 one billion people just over 100 years later and its 8 billion. This is nuts. We are stretching known farming techniques to the limit as it is. We need petro chemicals to keep insects at bay and as fertilizer to produce BPA just to keep afloat as it is. Genetic modifications has helped enormously and people who whine about it have no idea how many would starve if we did not use this. Not to mention its used by nature and man for thousands of years. Grafting is Genetic modification. No one wants to address the fact that there are already too many people on the planet as it is. And the idea that it will plateau and go down is not honest IMO. A graph of population over all of human history, where has it ever went down?

  • Diogenesister
    Road to nowhere I am still stockpiling fuel for the coming ice age.
    If things get really dire do you all have any recipes for long pig

    Hmmm I’ll ask my Polynesian husband....he tells me about the ancestral delights of ”Long Pig”😂😂😂

  • Earnest

    JimmyYoung : A graph of population over all of human history, where has it ever went down?

    I take your point as far as the twentieth century is concerned, although it's interesting that birth rates have gone down dramatically in first world countries.

    But I do wonder how you know there were 4 million in 10,000 BCE.Our World in Data gives its sources here with the following variation:

    Renfrew and Bahn (1996) (upper) 20 million
    Renfrew and Bahn (1996) (lower) 10 million
    Thomlinson (1975) (upper) 10 million
    Thomlinson (1975) (lower) 1 million
    Livi-Bacci (1997) 6 million
    Kremer (1993) 4 million
    McEvedy and Jones (1978) 4 million
    HYDE 3.1 2.43 million
    Our World in Data 2.43 million

    Also, I notice there is no dip reflecting the fall in population after the Flood, approximately 2000 BCE.

Share this