Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Frank Hovis

Hasta La Vista, Failure

Recommended Posts

Arnold Schwarzenegger leaves public office, but will he 'be back'?

Arnold Schwarzenegger will depart public office on Monday, ending a seven-year stint as the "Governator" of California that has sharply divided opinion.

By Jon Swaine, New York 4:01PM GMT 02 Jan 2011

His replacement, Jerry Brown, a Democrat who was also governor from 1975 to 1983, will be sworn in amid uncertainty over what the former Hollywood actor and bodybuilder will do next.

Having taken the helm of the troubled state declaring "failure is not an option", Mr Schwarzenegger, 63, leaves with an approval rating of just 22 per cent and a tripled $28 billion budget deficit.

His decision to focus on tackling climate change was criticised by opponents and commentators who said he should have prioritised fixing the state's economy, the eighth largest in the world.

His departure, which comes amid fears California could become insolvent, has prompted headlines in the US media such as "Hasta La Vista, Failure".

Yet it is thought Mr Schwarzenegger is keen to press on with efforts to reduce global warming, possibly taking on a role as an independent statesman akin to that of Al Gore, the former US vice-president.

"There are a lot of important things that I want to say," he has said on Twitter. "My struggle for reform will continue, my belief in environmental issues and in protecting the environment will continue."

It is also presumed that he will seek to cash in on the publishing and public speaking industries, having spent $25 million (£16 million) of his own money on his two election campaigns.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8236072/Arnold-Schwarzenegger-leaves-public-office-but-will-he-be-back.html

There's the world's problems in microcosm. The governor ignores the fact that the economy is going down the tubes and continues to piss money away and focus upon Al Gore's fairy stores. What a tit.

Still, at least he's managed to halve their house prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change is dead.

We now need to make sure we kill half the world's population so that the green's other bugbear, "overpopulation", can be given a suitable answer.

They worry me the greens. They may have long hair and eat vegetables but they are ******ing dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change is dead.

We now need to make sure we kill half the world's population so that the green's other bugbear, "overpopulation", can be given a suitable answer.

They worry me the greens. They may have long hair and eat vegetables but they are ******ing dangerous.

Please explain how the planet can cope with say 12bn people, where are the jobs going to come from? How are you going to increase food production? Then there's the issue of clean water. Plus how do you contain disease?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

So nothing in this then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please explain how the planet can cope with say 12bn people, where are the jobs going to come from? How are you going to increase food production? Then there's the issue of clean water. Plus how do you contain disease?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

So nothing in this then?

Every human couple should have the right to reproduce. There's no way you can regulate reproduction.

Ironically, if you look at the 'greenest countries' (least advanced with lowest CO2 production) they reproduce at much higher rates then the wealthy countries that consume a lot (highest CO2 production).

Poverty = lots of kids.

It's called Catch22 and it means that the life on Earth as we know it is not sustainable regardless of what we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every human couple should have the right to reproduce. There's no way you can regulate reproduction.

Ironically, if you look at the 'greenest countries' (least advanced with lowest CO2 production) they reproduce at much higher rates then the wealthy countries that consume a lot (highest CO2 production).

Poverty = lots of kids.

It's called Catch22 and it means that the life on Earth as we know it is not sustainable regardless of what we do.

Poverty = lots of kids as you expect lots to die before they reproduce

Life on earth is sustainable, but probably not as we know it, agreed; the state of fish stocks is but one example as CC is such a hot topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please explain how the planet can cope with say 12bn people, where are the jobs going to come from? How are you going to increase food production? Then there's the issue of clean water. Plus how do you contain disease?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

So nothing in this then?

WTF do jobs have to do with numbers? So people cant breed if they dont have a job for the child?

are there not millions already that work to grow their own food?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every human couple should have the right to reproduce. There's no way you can regulate reproduction.

Ironically, if you look at the 'greenest countries' (least advanced with lowest CO2 production) they reproduce at much higher rates then the wealthy countries that consume a lot (highest CO2 production).

Poverty = lots of kids.

It's called Catch22 and it means that the life on Earth as we know it is not sustainable regardless of what we do.

fortunately disease is also rife in those places and keeps sustainable numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fortunately disease is also rife in those places and keeps sustainable numbers.

Fortunately for whom exactly??? :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ecosystem as a whole?

Find me parents that would worry about the ecosystem after losing their child...

Humans are not designed to worry about the ecosystem as a whole. We always put our own first - that's our nature.

Would you sacrifice your own son to save 1000 people in Africa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Find me parents that would worry about the ecosystem after losing their child...

Humans are not designed to worry about the ecosystem as a whole. We always put our own first - that's our nature.

Would you sacrifice your own son to save 1000 people in Africa?

You would kill others to protect your own, but in countries where disease and famine are rife the birth rate is high as a consequence since many will die before they reproduce; all you need is to replace yourself after all, and there is probably not as much emotion involved as you would think.

Population size of all creatures normally fluctuates around what is called the 'carrying capacity' of the ecosystem (stochastic influences excepted). Food supply and disease sort this out.

You don't need to worry about the ecosystem as it will sort you out, not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would kill others to protect your own, but in countries where disease and famine are rife the birth rate is high as a consequence since many will die before they reproduce; all you need is to replace yourself after all, and there is probably not as much emotion involved as you would think.

Poor and rich mothers cry equally deep after losing their children. Are you saying that non-white people from under-developed countries love their children less? Sadly, one doesn't get used to losing children.

You don't need to worry about the ecosystem as it will sort you out, not the other way around.

Agreed. That's why I think that all those who want to tax us to 'save the planet' are con-men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor and rich mothers cry equally deep after losing their children. Are you saying that non-white people from under-developed countries love their children less? Sadly, one doesn't get used to losing children.

Probably, but in societies where infant death is common I would expect that they move on 'emotionally' very quickly, probably with another birth. In socieies where the family size is large and death is frequent the individual child will also matter less, so long as at least one replaces you that is all that matters. Simple biological reality. No life without death. Skin colour does not come into the argument by the way.

Agreed. That's why I think that all those who want to tax us to 'save the planet' are con-men.

It depends, if you accept that a large crash in population size, such as a war over resources, is more acceptable. For sake of argument, if we accept that increasing GHGs will alter the temperature at any place in one way or another from its present state (warmer or colder), then natural resources on land and in the sea will change, which will affect us.

Taxation is a human political response to try to circumvent the natural system of rescource limitation by influencing behaviour.

IMO investment in alternative energy sources is more worthwhile, nuclear and renewables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change is dead.

We now need to make sure we kill half the world's population so that the green's other bugbear, "overpopulation", can be given a suitable answer.

They worry me the greens. They may have long hair and eat vegetables but they are ******ing dangerous.

Indeed.. what this country (/world) needs is more people. Much more people. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Africa?

REMEMBER the great droughts of the African Sahel in the 1970s and 1980s? The place was going to pot, everyone said. Farmers were destroying their soils so fast that they were triggering permanent desertification. Famine would become a semipermanent state. Whatever happened?

Nobody would say today that these countries are buoyed up on an ocean of prosperity. They remain among the poorest in the world. But apocalypse has been postponed. So it's funny that nobody is asking why, since those pilloried farmers must have been doing something right.

Seared in many of our memories are the TV images of Ethiopia's famines in the 1980s, and the reporter telling us of the irreversible cycle of ecological decline. There were too many people for the land. No amount of rain could help now. Well, some good rains and the removal of Colonel Mengistu's Marxist tyranny has enabled the farmers to work wonders. Ethiopia now exports grain to its neighbours. Across the Sahel, most countries now have sufficient grain most years. It doesn't always get to the poorest inhabitants any more than Porsches "trickle down" to the poor. But it is there. Often, with no thanks to governments.

Michael Mortimore, one of Britain's most experienced Africa researchers, is not surprised. He says the missing element in everybody's calculation was the skill and initiative of African farmers. He has spent 30 years investigating the strategies of farmers in one part of the Sahel, the villages in northern Nigeria. This is one of the most densely populated and arid farming regions on the continent, yet it thrives—with a constant cross-fertilisation of ideas among farmers, constant cross-breeding of domesticated millet and sorghum with wild varieties, and constant trading.

Mortimore's recent research in the Machakos district of Kenya, with Mary Tiffen of the London-based Overseas Development Institute, tells a similar story. This landscape was decreed on the verge of turning to desert during the 1930s and again in the 1950s—the victim of poor farming methods and spiralling population. Yet today it is greener, more productive and more densely populated than ever. Its farmers are selling green beans to Britain, avocados to France and cut flowers to the Dutch.

These findings have raised hard questions about the conventional Western view that rural Africa is hurtling towards immutable ecological limits. Mortimore believes much of Africa is not overpopulated, but underpopulated. In many places there are insufficient people to plant trees and dig terraces, organise water works and think up new solutions to make their fields more productive. More hands to work and brains to think can more than compensate for the extra mouths to feed.

Machakos and northern Nigeria seem to offer a way forward for Africa. Alternatively, they may just be special cases. Either way, you'd think someone would want to find out. But efforts by Mortimore and Tiffen to find funds for similar work in six nations across the Sahel have so far failed.

Now back home in Dorset and completing a new book on his Nigerian research, Mortimore rails against the fashionable view of farmers as "victims"—victims of everything from environmental pressures and international capitalism to their own ignorance and incompetence. It is a dead end, leading to a despair and fatalism among Western analysts that rather comically mirrors the impression they have of their subjects. In truth, he says, African farmers are resourceful, knowledgeable, marketwise, innovative and able to transform their environments and their lives for the better.

This analysis matters. It means we are wrong to assume that rising populations always damage the environment. And wrong to assume that global warming will mechanistically translate into so many more people going hungry.

Mortimore's analysis is not a manifesto for disengagement. But it suggests that development aid should be targeted towards helping successful peasant farmers to innovate at least as much as towards rescuing the failures.

Most important, it means that Africa is not a basket-case either, to be abandoned or treated as a test-bed for every latest development theory. From outsiders it requires assistance that is on tap rather than on top. It requires Africans themselves to start playing to the continent's strengths. And one of its greatest strengths is its farmers.

link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Californians are lucky to finally get shot of him, he's just another example of selfish boomerism; free trade and liberalism on the way up, and when he made it to the top introduce poxy climate emission regulations so the next generation are prevented from accumulating their own wealth.

I'm surprised he was able to use the Republican brand as a ticket into office, he doesn't strike me as a classic republican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please explain how the planet can cope with say 12bn people, where are the jobs going to come from? How are you going to increase food production? Then there's the issue of clean water. Plus how do you contain disease?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

So nothing in this then?

How do you think we acquire food then? There isn't a finite amount delivered by the food pixies that we all have to fight over, people create their own food. So if we have more people it's fair to assume we'll end up with more food.

If anything in the EU the major issue is one of a declining population, this'll certainly reduce living standards and food output over the long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably, but in societies where infant death is common I would expect that they move on 'emotionally' very quickly, probably with another birth. In socieies where the family size is large and death is frequent the individual child will also matter less, so long as at least one replaces you that is all that matters. Simple biological reality. No life without death.

That's a nasty assumption. Doesn't square with your user name. And I think it's dead wrong - people who suffer the death of loved ones value life far above the utilitarian end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Californians are lucky to finally get shot of him, he's just another example of selfish boomerism; free trade and liberalism on the way up, and when he made it to the top introduce poxy climate emission regulations so the next generation are prevented from accumulating their own wealth.

I'm surprised he was able to use the Republican brand as a ticket into office, he doesn't strike me as a classic republican.

I was surprised when I found out he was being replaced by Jerry Brown (is that the one referenced by the Dead Kennedys?), a Democrat. I had thought Arnie was a Democrat with his "screw the economy" philosophy and eco-mentalism. The Republicans should expel him from the party as he is a liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a nasty assumption. Doesn't square with your user name. And I think it's dead wrong - people who suffer the death of loved ones value life far above the utilitarian end.

I do not think it is a nasty assumption. The prime function of offspring is to continue the species, especially the parents own genes. In hunter gatherer societies offspring do this in many ways, including by making the family unit larger allowing labour diversification, and providing warriors to protect resources. That is not to say people do not grieve for the loss of their genetic offspring, which serves a useful function, it is just to accept why we are here. We are a part of the natural world not apart from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if he will be saying "I'll be back!", or driving his eco-hummer collection out to the desert somewhere, to play with his lederhosen, and cuckoo clocks! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need to worry about the ecosystem as it will sort you out, not the other way around.

Agreed. That's why I think that all those who want to tax us to 'save the planet' are con-men.

It would be more honest if they phrased it differently, but it remains the case that if we push the ecosystem to far it will turn around and decimate/wipe us out to anthropomorphise things slightly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.