Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BBC Silent On Radio 3 Program Calling For Death Of  
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10937 posts, RR: 37
Posted (6 years 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2400 times:

BBC Silent on Radio 3 Program Calling for Death of Billions

Click on the site below to see "the warped morality of the British cultural elite".

" On 5 November, the upmarket Nightwaves on BBC Radio 3 aired a discussion about overpopulation between Dr Susan Blackmore (a neuroscientist) and Professor John Gray (of the London School of Economics)....

Dr Blackmore said the "fundamental problem" facing the planet today is that "there are too many people". Professor Gray agreed. Then Dr Blackmore declared: "For the planet's sake, I hope we have bird flu or some other thing that will reduce the population, because otherwise we're doomed."

When Monty Python made fun of the "Upper-Class Twits"....Had no idea that they are the Majority of Brits.

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/45876,...sians-are-self-serving-pessismists


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineScrubbsYWG From Canada, joined Mar 2007, 1495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2359 times:

So it begs the question, is the earth overpopulated?

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2337 times:

Talk about an inconvenient truth, this one is it.

Dr. Blackmore is correct - The traditional, natural ability of the Earth to control the population has been circumvented by people. For example, for the past 30 years, the population of the Horn of Africa has been more than what the land can support. Nature would reduce the population, via starvation or Malaria, and those few that were left would have enough resources. But instead we send food and medicine, preventing nature from taking its course, and perpetuating the problem, including shortages.

We also have a problem with aging populations. You used to be lucky to make it past age 45-50. Now we have medical treatments that can extend life tremendously. Retirement used to be reserved for the very lucky few that lived to 65 or more. Now pretty much everyone gets there and beyond, and lets face it - once you are retired, you are a drain on the resources of society as a whole.

This has been well known for a long time. It's a catch-22. An Inconvenient Truth.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2245 times:

It was a debate, not a manifesto.
The broadcaster did not have a view, they broadcast a debate.


User currently offlineCptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2142 times:

Dreadnought writes in part (Rep 2): "... let's face it - once you are retired, you are a drain on the resources of society as a whole."

Hmmm...I'm thinking that looney-ness would piss off a lot of people that have somewhat depended on me since I retired. And such drivel to come from someone in your age group  Smile regards...jack



all best; jack
User currently offlineTriebwerk From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2123 times:

" For example, for the past 30 years, the population of the Horn of Africa has been more than what the land can support"

That's a little like saying, "the population of Venice is far more than what the land can support." Well, that's because Venice was initially swampland; after extensive modification to the area, that patch of swamp is now home to 270,000 people.

Human capability and technology has come to the point where the Horn of Africa can support far more people than what nature intended. Are we not to send astronauts in space because the they would be more than "what space could support?"


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25704 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2118 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting MadameConcorde (Thread starter):
Click on the site below to see "the warped morality of the British cultural elite".

What a nonsensical article. It is an excellent function of the BBC to allow a multitude of voices to speak.

The publisher does not necessarily agree with the opinions expressed.

Quoting GDB (Reply 3):
It was a debate, not a manifesto.
The broadcaster did not have a view, they broadcast a debate.

 checkmark 

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9545 posts, RR: 42
Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2086 times:



Quoting MadameConcorde (Thread starter):
Had no idea that they are the Majority of Brits.

Rubbish. The "Majority of Brits" had no idea about the programme so it's no wonder there weren't many complaints.

Comparing it to "Brandgate" is ridiculous. In one case you have a philosophical debate and in the other case you have personal abuse, aired in public. Chalk and cheese, as they say.

Stating that some natural phenomenon that unavoidably kills a lot of people would have some benefits is not "calling for the deaths of billions". Try it some time: try calling on Bird Flu to strike down billions of people and let us know what difference it makes. We await your findings.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9292 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2020 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Dr. Blackmore is correct - The traditional, natural ability of the Earth to control the population has been circumvented by people. For example, for the past 30 years, the population of the Horn of Africa has been more than what the land can support. Nature would reduce the population, via starvation or Malaria, and those few that were left would have enough resources. But instead we send food and medicine, preventing nature from taking its course, and perpetuating the problem, including shortages



I agree with you on that issue, now as a retired person, and the drain on society issue. Hmmm. I will have to think about that.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineMyt332 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 9112 posts, RR: 70
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1964 times:



Quoting MadameConcorde (Thread starter):
Click on the site below to see "the warped morality of the British cultural elite".

I don't see it? Perhaps you should stay clear of Britain though if it offends you.

Quoting Triebwerk (Reply 5):
Are we not to send astronauts in space because the they would be more than "what space could support?"

They'd have to be fat astonaughts!  Wink

Quoting David L (Reply 7):
The "Majority of Brits" had no idea about the programme so it's no wonder there weren't many complaints

Indeed, Radio3 only has about 50 listeners and most of them are in bed by 8:30pm!



One Life, Live it.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1893 times:



Quoting Cptkrell (Reply 4):
Hmmm...I'm thinking that looney-ness would piss off a lot of people that have somewhat depended on me since I retired. And such drivel to come from someone in your age group regards...jack

Maybe I did not make myself totally clear. I tried to in the wording I used.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
once you are retired, you are a drain on the resources of society as a whole.



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 8):
I agree with you on that issue, now as a retired person, and the drain on society issue. Hmmm. I will have to think about that.

What I am trying to say that in the strictest sense, retired people are no longer productive members of society, and speaking strickly logically, they are a cash drain because of the expense of keeping them alive and in good health, and the real estate they occupy, could otherwise be used elsewhere, regardless whether they are on welfare or are entirely using funds they have saved up from their productive years.

It's the same argument as has been used in certain cultures for euthanasia - as soon as someone is not productive or not being trained to be productive, we no longer need them. Of course I am in no way advocating this - we are not machines which we scrap once no longer useful. I'm just pointing out that the benefits of modern society and technology that has given us long lifespans brings other problems as well.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17828 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1865 times:



Quoting MadameConcorde (Thread starter):
Dr Blackmore said the "fundamental problem" facing the planet today is that "there are too many people". Professor Gray agreed. Then Dr Blackmore declared: "For the planet's sake, I hope we have bird flu or some other thing that will reduce the population, because otherwise we're doomed."

Scientists were wrong about this before, when we were all told the planet's population would swell to 20 Billion in short time when in fact it has rather leveled off. Why whould we believe these folks?



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1824 times:

Maverick raises a good point, in the mid 1960's, there was a strong body of informed opinion that the population of the UK would reach 75 million by 2000.
In fact, by then, it had barely reached 60 million.

But they had some reason to predict this back then, they had all seen the post war Baby Boom happen.
However, other things happened to, the pill, much better educational and career opportunities for women in particular.
They had kids later and generally, fewer of them.
Proving that increased wealth did not mean a continued population rise.

However, in much of the 3rd world, these conditions often do not exist, or only for a few.
Having lots of kids allows for the higher child mortality, but still allows for enough to survive to look after their parents in old age, in the absence of any kind of social safety net.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
BBC Wrong On Democratic Support Of President Bush? posted Thu Jan 11 2007 17:44:16 by AerospaceFan
Man Arrested For Suspicion Of Rape On Myspace posted Thu Jun 8 2006 03:11:36 by Jetjack74
For All Of The Potheads On Here posted Thu Oct 6 2005 10:04:16 by AAFLT1871
Lobbyists Swarm The Treasury For Piece Of Bailout posted Wed Nov 12 2008 08:47:04 by PPVRA
North Korea ‘uses Doubles To Hide Death Of Kim’ posted Mon Sep 8 2008 05:37:16 by Mortyman
Bosnia / Posters Call For Execution Of Gays! posted Sat Sep 6 2008 12:35:49 by Oa260
Teens Charged In Beating Death Of Illegal In PA posted Sat Jul 26 2008 15:50:28 by Falcon84
Death Of Free Internet Is Imminent? posted Tue Jul 22 2008 11:27:56 by MadameConcorde
Bear Convicted For Theft Of Honey posted Sun Mar 16 2008 10:30:20 by RacingGreen07
Alert Over Scramble For Control Of Energy Resource posted Mon Mar 10 2008 09:33:57 by Mortyman