Biofuels bring chaos on food markets

youcanhandlethetruth · 14-04-2008, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aardvark

Geoffrey, I agree, but less people living a longer and better life is IMHO desirable.

YCHTT, I am going to die prematurely. I know that to live a longer life I must exercise more, eat less fatty food, drink a lot less and generally be more puritanical. I don't smoke, but in all other respects live a risky life. If I live a long life I will be pleasantly surprised, but I'd rather die young enjoying myself. If people stopped focussing on a long life and lived a full life we could get the population down. (It doesn't matter at what age you die, you still make use of 90% of the NHS facilities you will use in life in the last 2 years of that life.)

So you're asking people to damage their health to bring down the population ?

Unbelievable !

Is that in UKIP's manifesto ?

If you want to live a risky life that's up to you but why should people follow suit to fulfil some high level government or global target.

Your argument is simply ridiculous in my opinion.
You say "sacrifice your health/life" to improve the life of others on this planet.

What else do you advocate ? Heroin use ? Suicide ?

Please do share your opinion - I'm fascinated to understand......

Besoeker · 15-04-2008, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

I saw Aardvark's point

Aardvark's point was made in post #7.
You were still referring to premature death in post #12.
12>7

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

I forgot too Besoeker that you see yourself as god - this could well explain why you think people should give up the right to have children.

I didn't advocate that people should give up the right to have children.
That's yet another unfounded assumption about me.
You claim that you can read properly. Clearly, that extends to reading stuff that isn't there.

Aardvark · 15-04-2008, 09:44 AM

YCHTT,

What I'm saying is that I don't intend to change my lifestyle just to eke out a couple of extra years in an old people's home. In the days of the nanny state people are being told exactly what they should eat and drink and laws are being changed to make us all live the puritan lifestyle.

It is not about living longer, as far as I am concerned, but about enjoying the life you have.

I don't like smoking, but I oppose the ban. Pubs could have been made to have smoke free rooms or extractors, but the ban, EU led, is total. It's not about the health of bar staff since most bar staff know the risks and can work in a smoke free restaurant if they choose. Publicans knew the risks before they became involved. Many bar staff and publicans smoke.

I enjoy eating fruit and veg, but I don't need to be constantly told how many portions are 'ideal'. If I want chips I'll eat chips.

I will drive within the speed limit, but I enjoy speed and, where conditions allow, will go as fast as I can. I've owned a motor bike and I used to drive a MGB GT - not expensive, but more fun than a Ford Fiesta. I just wish my present car had more oomph.

Life is about risk and people should be encouraged to push the limits. I have more respect for people who die young falling off mountains or racing motor cars than I have for those who wish they'd done it, but choose to die in bed at a ripe old age rather than enjoy life to the full. I got 14 hours into flying selection with the RAF, but at least I tried to be a fighter pilot (I ended up as a navigator) - I scared myself a couple of times, but I have looped and barrel rolled an aeroplane.

It's not UKIP policy to encourage risk because we live in a politically correct world.

I'd never encourage people to squander their lives with suicide or dangerous drug use, but I'm not sure that making everyone live a long life of utter misery and depression is exactly kind either.

Aardvark · 15-04-2008, 09:54 AM

Oddly, I attended a lecture on risk assessment at the Environmental Health Officers conference (I went as Vice-Chairman of the district environment committee). The government of Lithuania made a conscious decision not to tax tobacco to increase life expectancy. The reason was the state pension (a massive burden on any society) is paid at 65 (IIRC) and the life expectancy in Lithuania is 66 (something like that). By taxing tobacco it was calculated that people would live to 67-68, but the tax on tobacco would not cover the additional pension. The decision was made, rather cynically, to leave tobacco virtually tax free.

A similar decision has probably been taken in China where smoking is on the increase. China needs to reduce its life expectancy to prevent the decreasing number of workers, caused by the one child policy, having to fund massive pension and health care burdens.

Geoffrey Collier · 15-04-2008, 11:27 AM

We certainly discuss our topics widely, don't we! We go from birth control to smoking in pubs.

Besoeker: In a well balanced population, multiply the birth rate by life expectancy rate, and it should be c.1000. For example a generation ago, the United Kingdom the life expectancy was c. 73.5 years. The birth rate was 13.5, therefore 73.5 X 13.5 = 992.25. That was indicative of a reasonably balanced population. In most western countries, at the same time, similar figures would appear. Population varies over the generations. A high UK population birth rate in Victorian times, which was to drop dramatically between the wars. War, emigaration /migration also has to be taken into account. Even so, the formula still has merit as a sound guide.

Take Bangladesh, B.R 200 per 1000, Life Expectancy 38 , therefore, 200 X 38= 7600. Can we see why the formula cannot be used in an unbalanced population with a terrifically high-infant mortality rate and other distortions. I haven't looked at Sweden in recent times, but you may find it interesting: rich, 200 years of peace, etc. etc.

In western Europe, high immmigration, with the immigrants birth rates, for the first couple of generations reflecting the country of origin, and not the host countries, does produce difficulties. Population control, certainly, but the consequences, hopefully to create a balanced population in all its manifestations, will not be done in a matter of a few years. Africa has highly populated countries, Nigeria, Kenya, and a couple of others, but in the main, population isn't their main problem. Latin America, I fear, will be the problem area for all kinds of reasons.

Anyway, I found your comments interesting.

TannyD · 15-04-2008, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

Oh what a great argument !

Because "we all die" therefore "we should all die prematurely".

Will you be the first to volunteer and provide the earth with more room ?

I'm being serious - if it's so important, what makes you so special ?
Or are you happy to be wiped out in the interest of "life" ?

I'm sure the new world order elite would agree with you though.
After all they are the ones who are desperately seeking life extension technologies before wiping out 80% of the population.

I'd be tempted to laugh but it's actually true !

Could you please inform me of where exactly I said I wanted people to all die?

TannyD · 15-04-2008, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Aardvark's point was made in post #7.
You were still referring to premature death in post #12.
12>7

I didn't advocate that people should give up the right to have children.
That's yet another unfounded assumption about me.
You claim that you can read properly. Clearly, that extends to reading stuff that isn't there.

Is youcan on some sort of substance???

Or could they be *looks around* a

?

Besoeker · 15-04-2008, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TannyD

Is youcan on some sort of substance???

Or could they be *looks around* a

?

Or an agent provocateur?
Or maybe all of the above?

youcanhandlethetruth · 15-04-2008, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TannyD

Could you please inform me of where exactly I said I wanted people to all die?

You said:

"I don't have a problem with reducing the world's population."

So either
a) You want to kill people to "make room"
b) You want to stop people's right to have children.

Which is it ?

youcanhandlethetruth · 15-04-2008, 09:44 PM

By the way you're the one who's probably drugged to the eyeballs.

But probably on TV, lies and deception.

Nice try at trying to make me out to be a drug addict though.....

15-04-2008, 09:44 AM	#23 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,726	YCHTT, What I'm saying is that I don't intend to change my lifestyle just to eke out a couple of extra years in an old people's home. In the days of the nanny state people are being told exactly what they should eat and drink and laws are being changed to make us all live the puritan lifestyle. It is not about living longer, as far as I am concerned, but about enjoying the life you have. I don't like smoking, but I oppose the ban. Pubs could have been made to have smoke free rooms or extractors, but the ban, EU led, is total. It's not about the health of bar staff since most bar staff know the risks and can work in a smoke free restaurant if they choose. Publicans knew the risks before they became involved. Many bar staff and publicans smoke. I enjoy eating fruit and veg, but I don't need to be constantly told how many portions are 'ideal'. If I want chips I'll eat chips. I will drive within the speed limit, but I enjoy speed and, where conditions allow, will go as fast as I can. I've owned a motor bike and I used to drive a MGB GT - not expensive, but more fun than a Ford Fiesta. I just wish my present car had more oomph. Life is about risk and people should be encouraged to push the limits. I have more respect for people who die young falling off mountains or racing motor cars than I have for those who wish they'd done it, but choose to die in bed at a ripe old age rather than enjoy life to the full. I got 14 hours into flying selection with the RAF, but at least I tried to be a fighter pilot (I ended up as a navigator) - I scared myself a couple of times, but I have looped and barrel rolled an aeroplane. It's not UKIP policy to encourage risk because we live in a politically correct world. I'd never encourage people to squander their lives with suicide or dangerous drug use, but I'm not sure that making everyone live a long life of utter misery and depression is exactly kind either. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

15-04-2008, 09:54 AM	#24 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,726	Oddly, I attended a lecture on risk assessment at the Environmental Health Officers conference (I went as Vice-Chairman of the district environment committee). The government of Lithuania made a conscious decision not to tax tobacco to increase life expectancy. The reason was the state pension (a massive burden on any society) is paid at 65 (IIRC) and the life expectancy in Lithuania is 66 (something like that). By taxing tobacco it was calculated that people would live to 67-68, but the tax on tobacco would not cover the additional pension. The decision was made, rather cynically, to leave tobacco virtually tax free. A similar decision has probably been taken in China where smoking is on the increase. China needs to reduce its life expectancy to prevent the decreasing number of workers, caused by the one child policy, having to fund massive pension and health care burdens. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

15-04-2008, 09:44 PM	#30 (permalink)
youcanhandlethetruth Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,180	By the way you're the one who's probably drugged to the eyeballs. But probably on TV, lies and deception. Nice try at trying to make me out to be a drug addict though..... __________________ Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed. cointelpro/halfwits: Akria,Clippo,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist,MikeUK

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

15-04-2008, 11:27 AM	#25 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,006	We certainly discuss our topics widely, don't we! We go from birth control to smoking in pubs. Besoeker: In a well balanced population, multiply the birth rate by life expectancy rate, and it should be c.1000. For example a generation ago, the United Kingdom the life expectancy was c. 73.5 years. The birth rate was 13.5, therefore 73.5 X 13.5 = 992.25. That was indicative of a reasonably balanced population. In most western countries, at the same time, similar figures would appear. Population varies over the generations. A high UK population birth rate in Victorian times, which was to drop dramatically between the wars. War, emigaration /migration also has to be taken into account. Even so, the formula still has merit as a sound guide. Take Bangladesh, B.R 200 per 1000, Life Expectancy 38 , therefore, 200 X 38= 7600. Can we see why the formula cannot be used in an unbalanced population with a terrifically high-infant mortality rate and other distortions. I haven't looked at Sweden in recent times, but you may find it interesting: rich, 200 years of peace, etc. etc. In western Europe, high immmigration, with the immigrants birth rates, for the first couple of generations reflecting the country of origin, and not the host countries, does produce difficulties. Population control, certainly, but the consequences, hopefully to create a balanced population in all its manifestations, will not be done in a matter of a few years. Africa has highly populated countries, Nigeria, Kenya, and a couple of others, but in the main, population isn't their main problem. Latin America, I fear, will be the problem area for all kinds of reasons. Anyway, I found your comments interesting.