OT: BBC1 Monday 25th November at 2100

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.
--
Spike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

" It's illegal, it's immoral or it make you fat"
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, 21 November 2019 11:03:11 UTC, charles wrote:

and it might educate you which is even worse.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 21/11/2019 18:25, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:

I think in that film smoking had been found to be good for your health, not bad for you but pleasurable.
--
Max Demian

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 10:21:02 +0000, Spike wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 11:21:40 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

+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!
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

and they probably wear lycra
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 12:50:59 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 21/11/2019 22:48, Ray wrote:

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 ?.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22/11/2019 17:13, Andrew wrote:

To early graves
--
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I said TOTAL OF India and China for a reason.

Where they currently are. Nowhere near the density of HongKong or Shanghai or Tokyo.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 23/11/2019 06:01, Ray wrote:

You obviously haven't noticed all the news items showing boatloads of africans (mostly young men with a mobile phone and chip off both shoulders), wearing orange 'life jackets' setting off from North Africa, with their mobile phones preloaded with the Italian coastguards emergency number.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That happens because their prospects in the EU are much better than where they are coming from. Not because there isnt enough space for them where they are coming from.
When that was happening from china to HongKong before HongKong was handed back from china, it also wasn’t due to a lack of space where they were coming from, because there was in fact less space for them in HongKong than where they were coming from.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 14:17:37 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

In short, it's a GIANT Ponzi scheme.
--
Leave first - THEN negotiate!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22/11/2019 08:51, Cursitor Doom wrote:

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

--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 21/11/2019 11:21, Jethro_uk wrote:

+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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 15:16:24 +0000, Andrew wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.