On 4 Oct 2010 at 9:54am tilting at windfarms wrote:
Dear Matt Kent,
its great to know that your fellow climate change advocates have such a loving and beneficient view of their fellow humans. I'm sure this film will really help your cause.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 12:27pm Rationalist wrote:
What is is "climate change advocate"? Is someone proposing that we should deliberately change the World's climate?
Presumably you mean an advocate of attempting to deal with and/or prevent anthropological climate change. Do you consider this unwise? If so, let me ask you a couple of questions Do you own a fire extinguisher? Do you have fire insurance?
On 4 Oct 2010 at 12:43pm stan wrote:
respond to the film please. My views are irrelevant to the issue.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 12:45pm Rationalist wrote:
Doh. I meant
"anthropological" > "anthropomorphic"
& "is is" > "is a"
On 4 Oct 2010 at 12:50pm Rationalist wrote:
"My views are irrelevant to the issue."
Of course they are relevant. You're referring to the of the message the film is trying to present (whether well or poorly done [IMHO poorly]) using a "them" and "us" mentality. e.g. "your fellow climate change advocates" & "your cause".
The cause is everyone's cause.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 12:56pm stan wrote:
ok, thanks for the response,actually I am not a denialist but just unconvinced by the big state response. Use wind and solar myself but cannot think this film will help but in fact hinder the cause of 10:10.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 1:20pm Rationalist wrote:
Agree. That twat Delingpole is enjoying himself mocking the film.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 1:44pm not from around here wrote:
What film?! Is anybody else allowed to know what you are talking about or is this and exclusive thread for the converted?
On 4 Oct 2010 at 2:02pm stan wrote:
NFAH,Go to you tube and put in 10:10.Sorry I can't link to it as am on mobile. They keep taking it down as they are a bit embarassed by it now.
As for Delingpole,I agree he is a one trick pony.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 2:21pm not from around here wrote:
Ok, sorry didn't realise that was the name of the film. Will have a look.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 2:31pm Matt Kent wrote:
Dear Tilting at Windfarms
Blimey, I woke up this morning wondering what cereal to feed the kids. I didn't realise the environmental apocolypse was solely my problem.
But I have just seen the 10:10 mini film so that I can respond to your comment, and quite frankly I find it grotesque and unnecessary.
However, and on a slight tangent, what is wrong with wanting to use less energy anyway? From reading the Independent at the weekend, the Chinese have been buying most of the world's resources as their energy needs increase on an annual basis similar to the total use of the UK (Oh, and double by 2030). That may suggest that there might be a problem with energy production in the very near future, don't you think?
On 4 Oct 2010 at 3:03pm tilting at windfarms wrote:
nothing wrong at all Matt,
I cycle,walk,have a very small house and go on holiday by wind power (not always, ok) but I certainly don't expect the chinese to change their policy because of it. I am accidentally green because I'm a bit cheap, wear old clothes etc and enjoy physical activity. But it doesn't make me hate people who think differently or want to blow them up!
On 4 Oct 2010 at 4:44pm WilliamDyer wrote:
Maybe people could elect to have fewer children? Huge carbon footprint for every child brought into the world, especially in the Western World. Not to mention consumption of resources, and adding to the net overpopulation of our planet.
Wasn't that the message they conveyed in the classroom scene?
On 4 Oct 2010 at 5:18pm stan wrote:
William,
Europeans including us have been having fewer children for many years,that is why we will probably be having a rapidly declining population in 20 years. As a nation we will have more people but they will be old.(I know that sounds mad but think about it.) I really hope people look into the concept of "Demographic Winter". It is fascinating.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 5:47pm stan wrote:
William,
Europeans including us have been having fewer children for many years,that is why we will probably be having a rapidly declining population in 20 years. As a nation we will have more people but they will be old.(I know that sounds mad but think about it.) I really hope people look into the concept of "Demographic Winter". It is fascinating.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 7:30pm rebel clown wrote:
But the games industry produces stuff like this for our kids, every week and stuff that is far more real. The reaction to this film is what makes it so funny. Oh and also the fact that it was so ridiculously silly.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 7:49pm Peter Byron wrote:
After 4 Weddings and a Funeral I would like to kill Richard Curtis. Peter 'Baldrick' Byron 
On 4 Oct 2010 at 7:54pm WilliamDyer wrote:
@stan
I agree with the conclusion of the argument you've made, but looking at the human population GLOBALLY there is no problem at all in meeting the need for young humans to replace/care for the old - they just live outside the old world borders.
I'm not one for starting a race to the statistical bottom, you can see this with a very simple bit of maths. Take a trip to www.wolframalpha.com (the computational knowledge engine) and enter 'global birth rate' then 'global death rate'. Looking at a per second figure, its 4.15 - 1.79 persons, or a net growth of global population of 2.36 humans per second. All of them young.
I did look into Demographic Winter (the documentary). Produced by SRB Documentary LLC (based in Salt Lake City), the executive director Barry McLerran can hardly be said to be an unbiased source. He's also ED of the Family First Foundation, an organisation that believes that 'Almost every social ill can be directly traced to the disintegration of the natural family. Marital instability, divorce, disregard for marriage, declining fertility, and decreasing parental involvement all contribute to increased drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, juvenile delinquency, venereal disease, crime, increased suicide and a variety of other social problems.'
Times change. Our birthrate falls, we are replaced by those cultures where birthrate is high, and our progeny are no longer physical, but ideas.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 7:58pm Peter Byron wrote:
Good god William, only got to the second line and was spinning, very good post though, but one I need to read first thing in the morning. Best to you my friend, Peter :|
On 4 Oct 2010 at 8:11pm WilliamDyer wrote:
Im not sure I understand what I wrote myself.
On 4 Oct 2010 at 8:13pm Peter Byron wrote:
Trust me my friend even in my drunken state I know it was very articulate, well said, will read full posting tmrw. Best Peter
On 4 Oct 2010 at 9:08pm stan wrote:
great reply william,
I am not a mormon by the way! If you look at Phillip Longmans' work I think he is not religious in his outlook. There is a good lecture of his at the Long Now Foundation website. He sounds fairly rational about it without an idealogical axe to grind.
On 5 Oct 2010 at 8:01pm WilliamDyer wrote:
Long Now Foundation you say - NOW I'm interested. Will hit it up when I get a minute and we can take this on at a future date.
Thanks for the chat guys - good to get a bit of to-and-fro without accusations of being David Smith or somesuch...
On 7 Oct 2010 at 6:35pm Peter Byron wrote:
William you are far to intelligent to be mistaken for that buffoon. Good on you, enjoy reading you. Best., Peter