- Oct 2013
Oh, “fairly well known” then.IT companies, CIOs , individual IT staff and the list goes on... Its fairly well known that it was a minor problem, that should have been treated as standard maintenance... but thanks to the hype a lot of people made a lot of money..... in some cases a lot of pretend work was done , all paid for.... and CIOs abused the excuse to inflate their IT budget.....
I think the US is more Christian dominated than London. I doubt there will be such protest in the Bible belt. The 2012 Texas Republican agenda was to prevent education in higher order thinking skills and they went to the supreme court in a fight to have the creationist story in science books and taught as though it were equal to explanations of evolution. At the supreme court level, Texas lost but culturally these Christians dominate.No? You don't think those massive climate change protests in London show that people care? Or the global protests by schoolchildren?
For heaven's sakes, the climate change group is even called "Extinction Rebellion"!
I do not believe so. It was commonly believed our planet does not have enough resources for the whole world to have the same standard of living as the US. Our military might assures we can fight for the resources our economy needs? Vietnam and Iraq were not threats to the US and our weapons are not environmentally friendly.I'm accepting the studies' conclusions. I recognize that we are causing a mass extinction. My personal opinion [note that I'm posting as a common Historumite here] is that it's natural. Human species has caused extinctions and we are going to cause further extinctions.
The alternative is to renounce to our beloved modernity. I remember the myth of "Arcadia" and the good savage ... the pivotal question is: is it really possible to make such an utopia real in our modern world?
According to the report, the direct and indirect drivers have zero to do with Christianity. The poor farmers using slash and burn agriculture are not motivated by Christianity. The explosion in palm plantations is not caused by Christianity. Nor is overfishing, cargo ship dumping or plastic waste.I think the US is more Christian dominated than London. I doubt there will be such protest in the Bible belt. The 2012 Texas Republican agenda was to prevent education in higher order thinking skills and they went to the supreme court in a fight to have the creationist story in science books and taught as though it were equal to explanations of evolution. At the supreme court level, Texas lost but culturally these Christians dominate.
In a democracy moral decisions should be based on scientific thinking, but we are not teaching that. When we switched the education for technology, we left moral training to the Church. Now we have no idea what a search for truth and science have to do with moral judgment and democracy.
I hate to say this, but the Christian mythology is a problem when it comes to things like dealing with the environment.
(note that isn't my idea).How do we deal with population growth. That’s the problem. Anyone have any ideas at all?
it has.have zero to do with Christianity.
This is exactly what has been done, notably by the UN, since the '70's, with tweaks along the way. The emphasis is on choice, as you say, when given a choice fertility rates lower. These sort of programs have been successful around the word, with the notable exception of sub-saharan Africa. The biggest roadblock seems to be individual African governments, who have been slow or resistant to implement and support fertility programs. Still, the UN is confident that fertility rates will lower even here by 2100. Thus their world population projection of 11.5 Billion people by then. This means, of course, that if everything goes according to plan, the world will have to support 4 billion more people, as climate change worsens.(note that isn't my idea).
I already said briefly that it's enough to reason a bit. I think I also mentioned that I give my very small project if family planing.
The population growth it's linked to a figure: aprox. 2,1 fertility rate is the zero line. Over, population is growing, underw, population is decreasing.
World statistics say that in the last decade, there is only one part of the world significantly over that line: Subsaharian Africa. The rest of the world, with small exceptions, is at or under that line. Also, practically all over the world, the fertility rate had stagnated or decreased. Even in Subsaharian Africa.
The population growth is linked to two things: how many children a women give birth, and starting at what age.
How many children, it's obvious. The age of first birth is less thought at, although it's extremely important: first child at the age of 15, means more than 6 generations in a century. First age at 20, means only five. First birth at 25, means only four generations.
Generally speaking, the populations that have a low first children age are also the ones having more births per woman.
Also low first birth age and more children is related to the economical aspect (of the person/community/population), the educational aspect and the mentality/religion aspect. It's why the discrepancy between Subsaharian Africa and the other regions of the world is so big: it's the place where the factors are the strongest and coupled the most.
Solution is to be found by taking those things into account and realise one thing: the immense majority of girls would prefer to not have a kid at the age of 14, but later, most women would like having a couple of kids iñstead of a half a dozen.
If they've given the chance, if they knew that they can, if they would have the choice.
Family planing programs running for a longer period in the region had proven that it works: in the regions covered, first birth age grew, number of childrens felt (in the case I know of, the first birth age went to 17-18, number of children felt to 3 - average).
The question that might be asked is: why should I, why should "we" finance "them"?
Simply because it's in "our" interest: reducing the population growth there is the cheapest way to reduce the "pressure" on "us". It's something logical and efficient even if I addopt the most a raciest white supremacist ideology: it's cheaper than building fences, paying board patrols and buffer state's dictators.
<citation needed>And guess what, btw:
US was financing the kind of programs I was talking about for some time, and results started to show.
The Christian anti-abortion, anti-family planning lobby managed to obtain freezing those programs...