Don't miss it. Meat: A Threat To Our Planet
Another BBC TV programme on why meat is bad for you and the planet, presented by a tearful Liz Bonnin.
Doubtless brought to you in a typical BBC detached, impartial investigation.
The BBC could just make one catch-all documentary to cover all their biassed opinions: "If you enjoy it, it's bad for you and you must replace it with something that you hate".
" It's illegal, it's immoral or it make you fat"
Who cares ?
I like meat. Humans are meant to eat meat. End of.
It's gaining a little traction now (be careful near women of childbearing age and Catholics) but reducing the *human* population by 50% is probably the best thing for "the planet". Which if history is anything to go by is quite safe for the next 3 billion years. Humankind less so.
+1
My late wife often said there are just too many people. We never had kids, so haven't contributed to the problem, but I bet most of the ER ladies have!
and it might educate you which is even worse.
and they probably wear lycra
Yes, it's a quick way to end a "what should we do to save the planet" debate for a lot of the yummy mummy brigade.
The problem is our current economic model is entirely predicated upon never ending growth. Which means a ceaselessly expanding population.
Until reality kicks in.
Ultimately it's how all civilisations have fallen. They simply can't keep growing. Either geographically or economically (via proxies like food and fuel). At which point ... well history tells us.
+1
The BBC4 Storyville documentary about the China one-child policy was very interesting. They should have broadcast that on BBC1 or 2 on a prime time slot.
Deafening silence about over population in Labours election manifesto, just more of the same bribes to appeal to the very group who are causing it.
It's hardly a party political issue. It's an entirely ideological one. As long as we use money, we need growth. No matter how many times you wind the bobbin up, you will end up needing more people to fuel that growth. Either as producers. Or as consumers.
Part of the current economic woes are caused by hitting that barrier. We can't make - or access - new consumers anymore. So we either have to make the ones we have more efficient, or reduce production.
But you won't find anyone getting votes for that.
Just FTAOD, this isn't a tree-huggy greeny POV. I'd love to have loads of nukes powering the UK.
Complete and utter tosh.
Money has been used throughout human history under expanding and contracting populations.
The [roblem is government debt, not money
No matter how many times you wind
You dont need that growtyhh. Machines can create wealth without the need for humans
I'd vote for that.
Well yes. and almost no work and lots of leisure and anout 10 million population.
More sense to have some nukes thinning the herd.
Yes I'm sick of whats bad for me this week is not next week in the media generally. Most things will kill you if you go berserk. Sheep are not dangerous unless one falls on you. grin. Anyone know how John Gummers children's mad cow brains are doing? Brian
Its unfair to just blame the bbc in this. It seems to be a media thing. I seem to recall a certain Woody Allen poking fun at this in Sleeper, with regard to smoking. Brian
Not really.
No it does not. There can still be a growth in what services are provided to a non expanding population, most obviously with those who can afford very little.
We are in fact now in the situation where the total of India and China isnt even self replacing anymore and they are by far the two biggest countries.
Doesn?t have to with a gradual reduction in the rate of population growth.
That's radically overstated too.
That?s not what happened with Rome, Greece, India or China or Spain or Portugal or the Netherland or even the British Empire.
It doesn?t in fact tell us anything like that.
I think in that film smoking had been found to be good for your health, not bad for you but pleasurable.
'They' want us switching to eating insects. 'They' won't be, though!
In short, it's a GIANT Ponzi scheme.
It would be if any of the above were correct.
Socioeties expand until resource limits are reacvhed, Then they do one of three things. Find new resources, collapse or stabilise at the current level.
Usually the big state ones collapses. Cf Joseph Tainter.
Hunter gatherer populations were relatively stable for millions of years
China perhaps, but not India.
According to the Economist, the population of sub-saharan Africa will double in the next 20 years, while the population of Niger will double again.
Where are all these people going to go ?.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.