A little truth for a change.

[NickDReed]

It’s not.

Not a privilege, or not a democratic society?

 

[Fergie 307]

So what is the alternative? Should you, or perhaps Jacob, be allowed to vet the result of any democratic election or referendum, and overturn any you don't like. If that is the case why bother. Elections will often lead to outcomes that be seen as daft. Look at the US and Trump, arguably a big mistake, and one that looks very much set to be repeated. But that is democracy, until someone comes up with a better idea we are stuck with it.

 

[RupertV]

It wasn't a mistake. It was a democratic decision made by the electorate. I suppose Remainers still smart at the reality.

It would seem that a lot of leavers are also smarting at the reality now that they know they were conned - just saying.

 

[DrPhill]

n.b. population growth isn't the main issue, most of excess CO2 generation comes from the "first world".

"In high-income countries, the material footprint per capita – the amount of primary materials needed to meet our needs -- is more than 10 times larger than in low-income countries. And the Group of 20 major economies (G20) accounts for 78% of global greenhouse gas emissions"
https://www.un.org/en/actnow/facts-and-figures

 

[Fergie 307]

You have to make an intelligent judgement of the facts as presented. And not read Daily Mail, Telegraph, or watch GB news etc.

Media groups don't get CC funding, except the media coming from the research itself of course.
Why on earth would CC research be "biased", except of course research coming from parts of the fossil fuel industry and it's off shoots.
Many don't understand the science of course but that doesn't mean that the massive research done over many years by a very large body of intelligent and science-educated people, is some sort of fraud.

Anyone who participates in these threads should know that Jacob's opinions on the subject of bias should be taken very seriously. He has far greater expertise in this field than anyone else on the forum.

 

[Jacob]

So what is the alternative? Should you, or perhaps Jacob, be allowed to vet the result of any democratic election or referendum,

The referendum was not a decisive vote on whether or not to leave, it was asking for an opinion; "Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?"
The govt could ignore the opinion but the expectation was that it should be investigated and could be acted upon after due process, negotiations, if these were satisfactory, with no commitment at the start.
Instead we just got "Get Brexit Done" slogans, false promises and a head-down-brain-off charge.

 

[NickDReed]

The referendum was not a vote on whether or not to leave, it was asking for an opinion; "Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?"
The govt could ignore the opinion but the expectation was that it should be investigated and acted upon after due process, with no commitment at the start. Instead we just got "Get Brexit Done" slogans and head down brain off charge.

Are you suggesting that 70 odd percent of the voting population turned out because they thought their vote was effectively meaningless, and the government might ignore the result anyway?

 

[Fergie 307]

The referendum was not a vote on whether or not to leave, it was asking for an opinion; "Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?"
The govt could ignore the opinion but the expectation was that it should be investigated and acted upon after due process, with no commitment at the start. Instead we just got "Get Brexit Done" slogans and head down brain off charge.

But Jacob surely one has to ask, why seek the opinion of the electorate if there was no intention to act upon it? Or put the boot on the other foot. Had the result been in favour of remain, would you have been happy for it to be ignored? No, I am quite certain that in those circumstances you would have been shouting from the rooftops that "the people have spoken", and taking remain as a done deal.
I am sure the vast majority of those who voted did so in the expectation that the outcome would be acted upon. Otherwise it would have been a fairly pointless exercise. It really is high time you got over it.

 

[niall Y]

I would have to agree. I mean -, why ask a question , if one doesn't want to hear the answer? Perhaps the government should have had enough confidence, not to have posed the question in the first place.

 

[Keith Cocker]

But Jacob surely one has to ask, why seek the opinion of the electorate if there was no intention to act upon it? Or put the boot on the other foot. Had the result been in favour of remain, would you have been happy for it to be ignored? No, I am quite certain that in those circumstances you would have been shouting from the rooftops that "the people have spoken", and taking remain as a done deal.
I am sure the vast majority of those who voted did so in the expectation that the outcome would be acted upon. Otherwise it would have been a fairly pointless exercise. It really is high time you got over it.

Got over it!!! I'm not going to get "over it" until we rejoin. And we will do.

 

[Keith Cocker]

I would have to agree. I mean -, why ask a question , if one doesn't want to hear the answer? Perhaps the government should have had enough confidence, not to have posed the question in the first place.

Cameron thought it would shut the Leavers up and head off a threat from Farage's fascists if he held hold a token referendum which he expected to win. He was, and is, an entitled *****.

 

[Jacob]

But Jacob surely one has to ask, why seek the opinion of the electorate if there was no intention to act upon it?

Good question. It was a fairly pointless exercise to start with. Cameron assumed the vote would be for remain and the end of the issue, but the whole thing was just feebly done. That's why the berk had to resign.

Or put the boot on the other foot. Had the result been in favour of remain, would you have been happy for it to be ignored? .....

No I would expect both sides to put forward their arguments, argue the case in an intelligent way, investigate what could be negotiated, before they came to any conclusion.

 

[deema]

I’d suggest back to subject or it will correctly become a locked thread.

 

[Cobbs]

I’d suggest back to subject or it will correctly become a locked thread.

At least Phil has had his money's worth. (And he really must have run out of popcorn by now...)

 

[Terry - Somerset]

https://www.unfpa.org/world-population-trends#readmore-expand
Population growth is by and large a reaction to population stresses and instability. It's a basic survival mechanism throughout the living world, ensuring continuation of the species itself in spite of death and destruction of large numbers of the individuals thereof!

Yes people contribute to CO2 emissions and the biggest factor by far is fossil fuel use. But this is a "first world issue" and much of the global population is relatively carbon neutral.
Good news in that the cause is a simple issue, but the remedy is not so simple - it means massive changes. They are happening anyway but not in a way we would like (floods, drought, etc etc).

Reproduction is a response to the survival of the species and for millennia necessary given infant mortality , untreatable disease and injury. The main barriers to survival are now largely solved.

8bn (soon 10bn+) are not needed to secure humanity's future. Over-population may even kick start population decline through conflict over resources - food, water, materials etc. Suggesting it is simply part of some natural order is complacent.

Dismissing the use of fossil fuels as simply a "first world issue" is manifestly wrong - they are not just a small percentage of global populations as you imply.

• per capita ~40% of global populations emit CO2 at or above the level of most EU economies
• 63% of global emissions come from 6 countries representing 46% of global population - China, US, India, Russia, Japan, Germany.

Russia may simply be profligate. India makes the top table by virtue of population size.

China is the global manufacturing hub but this is not justification for complacency. As an indicator China has 319 cars per 1000 (UK = 600). China car ownership has grown 300% in just 12 years - it seems likely they are on course to repeat the mistakes of the west.

The opportunity for the developing world to learn from the mistakes of the first, and avoid over-consumption from which they will then need to retreat, needs to be addressed.

Blaming the "first world" is simplistic - an political dogma not rational argument. One may equally blame them for developing science, agriculture, medicine etc which can so hugely improve the lot of global communities and without which over-population and emissions would not be an issue.

 

[AJB Temple]

Jacob - your old Chapel house looked really nice. Would suit me very well but now sold I see.

 

[Cabinetman]

Nice attempt at a deflection Adrian haha

 

[Jacob]

Jacob - your old Chapel house looked really nice. Would suit me very well but now sold I see.

Yep, moved on.
Haven't moved the web site on yet though - work in progress. 123-reg have made big changes and I've been a bit slow on picking up changed details, ftp etc.
Now in a slightly tatty 60s 3 bed with large garage for a workshop. Lots have been done to the house but mostly really badly - so I'm now having to restore parts to 60s condition, which is the last thing you'd expect!

 

[RobinBHM]

Consensus and peer reviews?

That helps to an extent

 

[Jacob]

Reproduction is a response to the survival of the species and for millennia necessary given infant mortality , untreatable disease and injury. The main barriers to survival are now largely solved.

But not solved for all. Birth rates falling in first world conditions but tend to rise in 3rd world as reaction to stresses, which is the point I was making.

8bn (soon 10bn+) are not needed to secure humanity's future. Over-population may even kick start population decline through conflict over resources - food, water, materials etc. Suggesting it is simply part of some natural order is complacent.

It is very much the natural order. First bit of biology many learn at school is the life cycle of the amoeba. In a nice undisturbed pond they repro slowly. Pond dries up and they "encyst" to survive, and when the environment improves they repro explosively. Similarly with many life forms, including ourselves. Different mechs of course - we don't "sporulate" - well I don't at any rate. What's complacency got to do with it?

....

Blaming the "first world" is simplistic - an political dogma not rational argument. ....

No it is merely a fact. No blame attached but the solution lies more in our hands than the 3rd worlds.
Does over-population cause poverty? Yes and no, and poverty causes over-population, which can ensure species survival in difficult circumstances.