Movie Time: The Age of Stupid

[Flyfisher]

Seems only one opinion ALLOWED in this thread and there is no interest in any other side.

I do hope not. As someone who is basically gloomy about our ability to head off serious climate change, I'd love to hear a positive proposals that would change my mind. But they have to withstand scrutiny; it's no good just saying 'don't worry, something will turn up'.

I entirely agree that over-population is the root of all the problems. I'm sure the planet could support a billion people to the highest standard of living and almost certainly without any environmental problems. But we are where we are and it looks like the predicted environmental problems are going to take effect quicker than we can get our global population down to a more sustainable level. Gaia theory predicts that if we can't curb our damaging numbers the planet will.

But there's no reason to stop having children, just have less. One per couple (or, in practice, per woman) would be a pretty good start and would significantly reduce the global population before the end of the century.

 

[yamin]

But there's no reason to stop having children, just have less. One per couple (or, in practice, per woman) would be a pretty good start and would significantly reduce the global population before the end of the century.

But how? I agree that we can't just say 'somethng will turn up' - I'm not suggesting that, but I am also not an expert and cannot suggest an alternative way forward. However, the fact that there is not (yet) a viable alternative to the draconian measure of restricting women to one child doesn't mean that its the right thing to do, neither does it make it an option that is any more workable! By saying that only one opinion is allowed on this site I am expressing the fact that as you look at the stream of messages, ANY dissenting voice has been loudly and extensively shot down! Now I can see how this happens. Those of us who may be considered 'head in the sand' (guilty as charged but waiting for realistic guidance) are not spending hours poring over the available facts and figures to support the claims for the other side. Whereas the zealots that no doubt are amongst us (or so it would appear from some of the posts) have a passionate interest in proving their case - because they passionately believe in it! That cannot be considered impartial on any level! Its just the same as believing the boss of a washing powder commercial when he says his powder is way better than anyone elses - he can provide 'scientific fact' - but that isn't necessarily impartial or peer reviewed in any way, and we wouldn't dream of being taken in by it! But because environmental concerns are such an emotive subject, and because its so much more of a 'scientific' subject, we feel we need to believe the supporters - even though they are as self interested (proving themselves right) as the washing powder man (increase sales). So on this site I suggest we have something like 80% concerned, but don't want to be hysterical, members, and 20% 'there is no doubt and we will neither tolerate nor consider any other view' members. And other than mouthy old me and maybe a couple of other dissenting voices, no one wants to enter the arena and get eaten by the lions!

 

[JoceAndChris]

I've already been mauled by a couple of lions this week and am sitting in the sun licking my wounds.

Dear Yamin, you have stolen everybody else's monthly supply of exclamation marks. That aside, it is nice to read another view.

 

[yamin]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (oops, sorry!!!) :lol: Now I'm stealing everyones smileys. Sending healing antibiotics your way for your wounds (genetically modified, obviously! And there I go again........) :roll:

 

[Lime]

But Lime, there is an obvious flaw in your logic - if we don't have children, we will die out anyway! And if we decide that yes, we need SOME children, who is going to make the decision about WHO can have those children? Does that not have a ring of nazi-ism about it? (I stress, you have NOT suggested this of course, I'm not accusing you) - it is indeed a quandary, but the answer, beyond encouraging less children and educating, does not lie in 'stopping people seeing children as a valuable resource'. One way, IF you are right, lies certain destruction of the earth and the human race, but by eliminating children you achieve the same thing! And once more, I would challenge you that if you have children, then restricting your view on this to saying people should not have children, is a prime example of pushing something that doesn't have any negative effect on your life, or involve YOU having to give something up. If you do not have children then of course you may push this view and feel vindicated for doing your bit!

How is the crux of the argument altered or changed by my personal circumstances?
It isn't, so I'll not rise to your bait.
The stark reality for all of us, with or without children, is that all the man-made environmental problems we have are driven primarily by mankind's need for land and resources which are specifically caused by human population growth.

Foolish comments concerning nazi-ism are not appreciated either.

 

[JoceAndChris]

If women are denied the chance to have a baby they are liable to become highly unliveable-with creatures prone to hysteria, despair, OCD, falling in love, and shopping frenzies.

If you don't believe me ask Chris.

Why are we here if not to reproduce?

Oh, I forgot, we can restore our period properties. A very poor substitute, in my opinion.

(thanks for the anti-bs Yamin I think I'm likely to need a regular supply)

 

[skier-hughes]

How is the crux of the argument altered or changed by my personal circumstances?
It isn't, so I'll not rise to your bait.

I can see the point Yamin is making, it's like saying cars will be banned from tommorow, so any of you with one can keep yours, but nobody else can buy one.

 

[Lime]

How is the crux of the argument altered or changed by my personal circumstances?
It isn't, so I'll not rise to your bait.

I can see the point Yamin is making, it's like saying cars will be banned from tommorow, so any of you with one can keep yours, but nobody else can buy one.

If the population is controlled in some way (I don't think mankind will control it) it has to start somewhere.
Personally I think mankind is stupid enough to behave just like the Easter Islanders.

 

[yamin]

[

The stark reality for all of us, with or without children, is that all the man-made environmental problems we have are driven primarily by mankind's need for land and resources which are specifically caused by human population growth.

Foolish comments concerning nazi-ism are not appreciated either.

As I made extremely clear in my message, I was not even suggesting a hint of nazi-ism in your attitude/opinion. I made that very clear and I make the point again. However, you keep saying that poulation growth is to blame, and I keep saying, that, IF you are right, then how would you propose to slow it down? You may find any mention of Nazi-ism or other deeply distasteful controls offensive, but thats like saying you want to eat meat but you don't want anyone to tell you how its killed - if you are so determined that we should slow down population growth, HOW are we going to achieve that? If you felt compelled to have a child, would you be stopped by someone like yourself telling you not to? I don't think you would. So you'd need legislation - what? A fine? No one will pay! A law? How 1984 is that? And what do you do when its broken? Take the children into care and fill the prisons with the parents? Any society needs educated people t be the scientists/doctors/lawyers etc etc of the future - how are you going to ensure that the parents of those are able to procreate, whilst stopping the others? With an ultimate 1 child per couple population, the elderly care needed will be woefully under matched by the number of younger people able to do it!

In short, I actually don't disagree with you (though I don't profess to be an expert or that my opinion is necessarily THE right one) - I also think it would be good to slow down poulation growth, but, other than a sustained attempt (and it would always only be an attempt) to slow it by educating those who have a lot of children, its just not workable, without extremely distasteful methods, which you cannot shy away from. So whilst doing what we can to slow the growth, we need to explore other methods - thats all I'm saying.

I think people have heard enough from me. I promise no more long replies (not today anyway!) :roll:

 

[Lime]

yamin I think you highlight the problem without any help from me.
The very mention of humanity controlling it's birth rate and nazi-ism is immediately brought into the discussion.
Until attitudes change and it is accepted that adding more and more people is the real concern nothing will improve.
No matter how many slight changes any of us make to our life style the world's environmental deterioration will continue unabated.
As I said originally

Man is breeding out of control and until that is dealt with everything else is just window dressing.

and Man (the generic form) has to take that responsibility.

 

[yamin]

OK Lime, we all know where you think the problem lies. I am not qualified to argue that, and as I said, intuitively I actually agree. But why will you not answer the question? Still I ask. How? Tell me, I'm ready to hear! I keep asking the same question, but you will not answer it. Quite simply, how? If we're being hysterical/dramatic/whatever by bringing up Nazi-ism etc, tell me YOUR way!

 

[MdB]

I'll give you a solution which is currently working and which nobody complains about for population control. It does have a little downside though....

The solution is simple, make people happy that they will be looked after and / or can look after themselves in old age. This occurs when countries develop, have a good welfare state and wars stop (at least for the general population). I believe I am correct in saying (read - too lazy to look it up) that all the major economic powers (per capita) have negative population growth if you rule out immigration. Countries which had a high population growth and which have avoided wars and grown their economies are now seeing far lower rates of population growth.

The downside, of course, is that this economic growth is based mainly on oil.

 

[Flyfisher]

I agree with Yamin that it's almost impossible, and probably unacceptable unless public attitudes change dramatically, to enforce population controls. So, the answer to "How?" is that it must be voluntary. In an ideal world, people would realise the ultimate destructiveness of an increasing population and would therefore limit themselves to, say, one child per couple (woman) until the population is reduced to a sustainable level and then to two (and a bit to allow for child mortality). But, of course, we're not living in an ideal world and people don't seem to be particularly concerned and so it won't happen.

Which is, I think, an interesting parallel with the green movement that is encouraging everyone to reduce their carbon footprint, use less energy, consume less etc etc. Again, the answer is "How?". Again, in an ideal world, people would adjust their behaviours out of concern for the environment, but we're not and they won't, which is the basis for my rather gloomy outlook on the future. As I've said before, I think it's a sociological problem, not a scientific one.

 

[skier-hughes]

Interestingly discussed on "The Big Questions" BBC this morning, well limiting children, not the movie!!

 

[biffvernon]

That ridiculous review by a well known satirist of the green movement that pford linked to makes much of criticising the science behind the film.

The researcher whose name appears in the film credits is a friend of mine. She got the science right, as would be expected from someone with a first in natural science from Cambridge.

This is no more an argument with two sides as would be a discussion of whether or no the Earth is flat.

 

[Flyfisher]

Biff, despite your insistent denial about there not being two sides to the argument the fact remains that - regardless of your obvious belief that the facts are beyond dispute - not everyone is convinced (I'm not counting myself among those, by the way). So, like it or not, you - or rather the green movement - have a problem - the problem of convincing people that the threat is real. It doesn't matter that you're (probably) right, the issue is to convince people and to explain the actions they need to take to avert disaster. Getting the science right is looking increasingly like the easy part of the whole issue.

 

[yamin]

I'm sorry Biff but have you any idea how blinkered your reply makes you look? I had to read it twice to be sure you were serious! You can't just stamp your foot and shout loudly that you are right! A first in science from Cambridge is impressive but doesn't, of itself, mean that she can't be wrong/biased etc! The only thing that 'proves' science, as much as one can, is peer review and randomised, controlled trials that are adjusted for other factors that could influence the result. So, the black rat did not cause the plague, but everyone would have sworn blind that it did, and so it looked until they discovered that it was the fleas that the rat carried that caused it, not the rats themselves. There are many things that can influence a result, or make it look different, depending on how the facts are presented. But you can see how the mistake was made! Again, I am not saying that the arguments may not have merit, but shouting about firsts from Cambridge and that there is NO argument is not the way to get people to come on board! In fact, it frankly instantly puts me off putting credence to anything you say! Sorry, but thats the problem with emotionally based argument and blinkered belief in any apparent 'facts' that support your argument- and you would now swear black is white rather than ever see another side to the argument! Why are 'you' (by which I mean people who are apparently unable to admit of any other possibilities) so threatened by another side to the argument that you won't even have a sensible discussion of it?

 

[Pford75]

someone with a first in natural science from Cambridge

Biff - I understand that you are passionate in your belief and are frustrated that not everyone shares your view as pasisonately. But comments like this are part of the problem. You suggest that we should believe 100% a film (which has attracted some criticism/challenge) and drastically change our lifestyles (including perhaps not having children) on the basis that one of the people involved has a first in natural science from Cambridge???

I have a first in Computer Science, an MSc and an MBA from MIT.....does that mean noone is allowed to disagree with me on subjects of Computing? :wink:

But seriously, as long as the 'green' movement adopts the houlier than thou approach...preaching to the masses that they are smarter, better educated and that the proles should get with the program....I can't see rapid wholesale change in behaviours.

Note - I am not personally disputing the science....but the way in which the debate is being approached.


Interestingly, there was a profile on one of the film writers/directors (?) in the Sunday Times this weekend. Rich kid from upper middle class family, spent her youth skiing abroad every year....now preaching to the masses that they shouldn't be flying.

 

[biffvernon]

Oh come off it. Yamin, I wasn't shouting. You use of the capitalized 'NO', however, is regarded as shouting in netiquette.

Frankly, we just don't have time to pussyfoot around this issue anymore. Basically the message of the The Age of Stupid is that we have from now till the December Copenhagen meeting to get our governments to take action which just might save our civilization. I no longer time for people who try to put down those who are working their butts off to save our species. If that sounds harsh it's nothing compared to the prospect of extinction.

 

[yamin]

Ok Biff, its absolutely your right to feel this way, and so strongly, but just be aware that as I and a few others have pointed out, you have actually provided us with nothing that persuades us to walk this walk with you - rather the opposite in fact. If your fellow campaigners are the same, then as pointed out by others better able to express it than me, you will have to look to your methods of spreading the word to explain its failure to catch on, and not just blame the ignorant masses.