OT - What will be completely unacceptable in 100 years - or even 50

[williamwright]

Exactly. Taking away from us things that are our right, using greeny bollocks as the excuse.

Bill

[williamwright]

How very bad for global warming! A massive great bus that does 10mpg carrying four people! You should be ashamed that you were a part of that.

Bill

[williamwright]

Have to? You mean bullied into it?

Bill

[T i m]

<snip>

Because?

Proof?

But what if all this 'climate change' you seem to be in denial of is real, people will be collateral damage in far far bigger numbers?

And you think they would be able to carry on being driven about whilst the rest of us are walking? You think 'we' would permit that?

As usual, those in denial of everything that potentially reduces their 'right' to be selfish will continue to push to be selfish till they are *made* to tow the line for the benefit of the vast majority.

Like, electric vehicles may not be the replacement to IC cars in a world where convenience is the top priority, but it's not the highest priority to those who live in the cities and don't have a car who are drying because of the pollution of those who don't live there? If they fix aerials for a living 'of course' they might have to have a 'works vehicle' but there is no reason it couldn't be electric, just that you might have to have an agreement re a work patch to not overlap with others doing the same, and therefore keeping the traveling to a minimum. It might seem radical now, but we could look back on what we are doing now in 50-100 years and see how wasteful it all was.

Arguing that you should have the right to continue doing anything

*you* want, at the cost to everyone, doesn't seem like the actions of a good citizen to me?

But then there are some who seem to consider doing good things to be only for greens and vegans, when it's something that most people actually do in any case, especially once they are made aware they are doing some bad things. More logical inconsistency?

Cheers, T i m

[Dave Plowman (News]

A full size bus carrying 3 or 4 people simply isn't viable.

[Dave Plowman (News]

There's an easy answer. Just lie about how much you care about the poorest in the land, and you'll get elected. Worked for May and Bojo (and Trump). Once in power, you don't need to do anything about it. Just say it will take time.

[Dave Plowman (News]

I can just imagine Waitrose delivering to the elite on a bus. Would certainly create jobs.

[michael adams]

Do you deny the existence of psycopathy as a mental condition ?

Do psychopaths mean nothing to you ?

Or again are you saying there's no evidence that hormones for one can have an affect on behaviour, quite possibly rendering it criminal ?

Such that were you to be injected with large quantities of testosterone, that you would not act differently ?

As would anyone unfailiar with the techniques of a) wringing chickens necks b) plucking chickens c) doing that thing with the giblets d) having access to an oven.

Among man's nearest genetic relatives are chimpanzees and bonobos, who look almost identical being themselves even more closely related genetically.

I could wiki all this stuff for the precise details but to be quite honest with you I doubt your sincerity. So let's just say in recent decades technology has allowed naturalists to film wildlife with motion activated remote cameras. Which was previously impossible. And footage they took of chimps came as a big shock. For far from being the playful herbivores beloved of Desmond Morris and "Congo" chimps were filmed pulling chimps from other groups apart, literally limb from limb. Chimps that has wandered int the wriong territory weren't simply chased off but were actively pursued and killed in the most grisly way imaginable.

Their near realives the bonobos howver weren't similarly agressive but spent all their time shagging.

Human aggression increses with population density at least insofar as Polynesian people are concerned. Some are very agressive such as the Maori other less so on the islands. All of whom are genetically identical. Jared Diamond

A "superior intellect" surely is one which acknowledged the primary role of emotion in all human affairs ? That along with the role hormones.

Responsibility to who or whom ?

There are all different sorts of people in the world which is a necessary characteristic of any social species such as humans. Not everyone can be a leader just as not everyone can be soft or hard hearted, extroverted or introverted etc etc

Being forced to look after weaker animals, which would be quite contrary to some people's nature, Conservatives for instance, could be quite distressing to many people and quite possibly threaten their mental health.

michael adams

...

[michael adams]

Years ago window cleaners used to carry their ladders around on trailers attached to their bikes.

You'll simply need to splash a bit on the 4 wheel model.

A proper collar and tie, polished boots, and a decent suit of clother wouldn't go amiss either.

michael adams

...

[Paul]

In modern times, we're more ambitious.

A lot more ambitious. Building supplies, not a problem.

Paul

[Tim+]

Of course it isn?t. But that?s the current reality in my area.

Tim

[The Natural Philosopher]

Must be a labour council then, running heavily subsidised 'social routes'...

[Tim+]

I?m in Scotland. The bus is free for me too.

Tim

[Fredxx]

Which makes man a higher being. Other primates can also make tools.

Give him a plate of cooked chicken as part of a balanced meal and he'll end a healthy boy.

There is a hierarchy of animals with man at the top. It is natural for him to control his world. Some of the weaker animals, ie the ones nearing extinction, are being 'looked after' though perhaps not enough is being done.

A bit like this for you rpleasure:

[T i m]

On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 10:18:17 -0700 (PDT), polygonum_on_google [e-mail] wrote: <snip>

Oh, that still happens does it (most of our clocks change themselves and when we are asleep). ;-)

That's kind of you. ;-)

Yes, re-print all those shop opening signs and timetables to suit when you can see where you are going at least one end of the day.

Keeping everything the same but just time shifting us to suit the available light seems the easiest thing to do?

Cheers, T i m

[Pamela]

I think you will find Michael Adams is trolling you.

[Pamela]

What a lunatic statement.

Why does it have to be naturally occurring when synthetic substances can also cause craving?

Of course he's not but you're trying to put words in his mouth.

You're getting out of your depth and any minute now we will have some of your special calculations for exponential growth of species. That will be fun.

[Tim Streater]

Yes, but he's trolling right back so they're even.

[Tim Streater]

Since we've just done that, the question becomes, should we leave the clocks on GMT or GMT+1 ?

[T i m]

<snip>

Whilst he might be, he actually gives me the chance to consider all the BS that those that think they are carnivores or have a right over every other animal ... can come up with and deal with them, without having it to do it with anyone who matters. ;-)

Cheers, T i m