RichM
You’re forgetting Amps is Ginger Rich
Fostering flambé haired savants with corned beef skin on a continuously warming planet would be cruel at best.
Amps is a good bloke, annd an humanist ant heart, all too keen that SPF technology would be outstripped by the skincare needs of his offspring.
Fair play to Amps, he’s walking the talk as they say.
RichM you don’t need 3 or 4 kids - that’s where the population problem is.
RichM There is something that Hugo has said which sort of makes sense (I think). Amps has chosen not to have kids as a rationale for what he is doing to protect the planet. Yet based on his views of me flying and he doesn’t, must also suggest that anyone who has kids (ie opposite of what he is doing) aren’t making the right choices for our planet? Am I on the right path here?
But if we all do the same as Amps, as he clearly thinks he lives his life in a positive way to our planet / society, then we will be extinct within 100 odd years anyway
Yes, that is what his “logic” indicates.
If having no kids is a commendable, morally righteous act which helps save the planet, then it would imply that having kids is an objectionable, morally improper act which helps destroy the planet.
Along_the_Wire you don’t need 3 or 4 kids - that’s where the population problem is.
The average birth-rates in the west are already notably below replacement rate and falling…
Replacement rate in developed countries is 2.1 kids per woman - in the UK the fertility rate is currently just 1.49 kids per woman, in the EU it’s 1.46 kids per woman, in the US it’s 1.66. While over in Japan it’s 1.26, and China is way down at 1.18.
hugopal I’m not talking about the west, I’m talking about the issue with the global population.
I’m aware of birth rates in the west - I read newspapers too.
We need more Fred Wests to battle climate change
Along_the_Wire I’m not talking about the west, I’m talking about the issue with the global population.
I think it calls for Amps to do the morally righteous thing and get a boat to Benin, Uganda, Congo, Pakistan and Iraq etc. and get them to slow down…
I put the recycling out every Monday.
This is Dave Angel signing out.
hugopal If having no kids is a commendable, morally righteous act which helps save the planet, then it would imply that having kids is an objectionable, morally improper act which helps destroy the planet
No it doesn’t imply that at all. Thats what your contrarian, idiotic reasoning implies it is.
Lol. Some team they’d have been
hugopal because he’s talking about a personal choice and there could be a number of reasons as to how that would impact his own carbon footprint. Hursty asked him about his personal contribution, you’re the one who implied the nonsense and what you wrote is some of the dumbest shit I’ve read on here in a while, and that’s really saying something.
Hursty
There’s nothing wrong with being challenged to do more though is there, within reason.
We could all do more.
Let’s use Ed as an example.
Putting his rubbish out isn’t really much of an effort, but isn’t the limits of what he does either - don’t think he owns a car either and is a public transport kinda guy. More positives.
Could he do more, probably.
But harassing him to do so without recognising the good he already he does is a bit imbalanced.
However, there are vast swathes of people who just don’t think about it - I watched some cunt in the supermarket car park just idling a big diesel ute thing for half an hour, you could see the plumes of shite drifting across the car park. See same outside schools FFS.
More awareness = good, and change needs advocates. Even if snooker fans are inconvenienced.
LT42 Hursty asked him about his personal contribution, you’re the one who implied the nonsense
A contribution indicates a positive act.
Your waffle has not explained how if you can consider not doing something to be a positive, how you could then consider doing that thing to also be something positive.
