The Irony Thread

15681011

Posts

  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,846
    Not trivial - The seabed being ruined mining cobalt for "environmentally friendly" electric cars.

    I know, double posting and wasting energy.
    Cheers anyway.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • ProssPross Posts: 21,081
    pblakeney said:

    Not trivial - The seabed being ruined mining cobalt for "environmentally friendly" electric cars.

    I know, double posting and wasting energy.
    Cheers anyway.

    There's just no way to be truly sustainable without either a huge decrease in population or the world reverting to existing as a subsistence culture. Although it would help if we went to reducing the resources we use as much as practicable obviously. Every time we start to change to something new to overcome a problem it creates a new problem.
  • bompingtonbompington Posts: 6,810
    pross said:

    There's just no way to be truly sustainable without either a huge decrease in population or the world reverting to existing as a subsistence culture

    Reverting to a subsistence culture would, of course, bring about the desired decrease in population in double quick time.

    For all the validity of environmentalist arguments, there is a pretty fundamental and frankly quite religious desire for a more innocent age lurking very strongly in there - that somehow we would all be happier if we went back to living off the land.

    I'd love to see them try it.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,846
    I did suggest a few years ago that the best solution for the welfare of the planet was the eradication of human beings. Didn’t go down well. Unsurprisingly. 😈
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • chris_basschris_bass Posts: 4,896
    pblakeney said:

    I did suggest a few years ago that the best solution for the welfare of the planet was the eradication of human beings. Didn’t go down well. Unsurprisingly. 😈

    Is this a modern take on "if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it did it make a sound?"

    "if we save the planet but no one is there to witness it did we really save it at all?"
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • orraloonorraloon Posts: 5,306
    pblakeney said:

    I did suggest a few years ago that the best solution for the welfare of the planet was the eradication of human beings. Didn’t go down well. Unsurprisingly. 😈

    We could make a start by removing 52% of the UK population segment which voted in 2016. Additional benefit of raising average IQ as well.

    (Ok, gammons and / or snowflakes, this is a joke. If you don't know what I mean by the word 'joke' DYOR)
  • ProssPross Posts: 21,081
    The Royal Mint is losing money by making money.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,310

    pross said:

    There's just no way to be truly sustainable without either a huge decrease in population or the world reverting to existing as a subsistence culture

    Reverting to a subsistence culture would, of course, bring about the desired decrease in population in double quick time.

    For all the validity of environmentalist arguments, there is a pretty fundamental and frankly quite religious desire for a more innocent age lurking very strongly in there - that somehow we would all be happier if we went back to living off the land.

    I'd love to see them try it.
    1. It wasn't more innocent. Look up the Tollense battlefield or read this

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/prehistoric-massacre-ancient-humans-lake-turkana-kenya.amp.html

    2. We still live off the land (and sea), just in a more elaborate way.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • elbowlohelbowloh Posts: 1,982
    pblakeney said:

    I did suggest a few years ago that the best solution for the welfare of the planet was the eradication of human beings. Didn’t go down well. Unsurprisingly. 😈

    I didn't go quite that far, but i have previously suggested that the best way to saving the planet is a global pandemic that wiped out, i don't know, say 40% of the population.
    Felt F1 2014
    Felt Z6 2012
    Red Arthur Caygill steel frame ??
    Tall....
  • mtb-idlemtb-idle Posts: 2,076
    I was sitting in a presentation once which was being given by a Swiss tech company explaining the benefits of their new system and why we should buy it.

    Any questions? they asked.

    At the moment, we do this (insert task here) every day, will this new system allow us to do this?

    "No" was the response.

    "Well that's great isn't it" said the questioner.

    "yes, err... no, errr... yes, errrr...(lightbulb moment) Ah, irony!" said the confused presenter.
    FCN = 4
  • pinnopinno Posts: 37,209
    rjsterry said:

    pross said:

    There's just no way to be truly sustainable without either a huge decrease in population or the world reverting to existing as a subsistence culture

    Reverting to a subsistence culture would, of course, bring about the desired decrease in population in double quick time.

    For all the validity of environmentalist arguments, there is a pretty fundamental and frankly quite religious desire for a more innocent age lurking very strongly in there - that somehow we would all be happier if we went back to living off the land.

    I'd love to see them try it.
    1. It wasn't more innocent. Look up the Tollense battlefield or read this

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/prehistoric-massacre-ancient-humans-lake-turkana-kenya.amp.html

    2. We still live off the land (and sea), just in a more elaborate way.
    I disagree with the author. I do not think humans have a natural predilection for conflict.

    I think it comes down to environmental pressures. Lake Turkana sits in an extremely hot and arid environment.
    I have been there. It's hot, dry and any changes to weather patterns would put pressure on resources quickly.

    There is little evidence that humans were farming at this point and therefore hunter gatherers were more susceptible to climatic change:

    "The temporal evolution of the transition from foraging to farming is shown in six time slices from 8000 BC to 2000 BC in fig. 3. At 8000 BC, no farming is visible anywhere on Earth, "

    https://journals.openedition.org/geomorphologie/7756?lang=en

    As far as losing 40% of the world's population is concerned, it would be us that would have to go.

    Couple living in detached house in Surrey, 2 cars, 2 kids (driven to school), holidays abroad, big house, annual heating and electricity bill £2k - Carbon footprint: off the scale.

    Man and wife living on a jetty made out of plastic, no cars, no heating, 7 kids., carbon footprint: tiny.

    The consumption of resources is unsustainable. So this argument that there is always a compromise even in the event of technology that reduces an environmental footprint, means only that the technology concerned has a long way to go.
    For example, Cobalt is used readily in computers, smart phones, laptops, tablets and therefore, if the recycling technology was there, we would be able to extract the Cobalt at less cost than mining of the sea bed.

    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/gallery/2016/oct/18/the-e-waste-reduce-waste-old-technology-mountains-in-pictures

    It's somewhat concerning when people say that we cannot reduce our environmental impact to the point that it is sustainable.
    That's a) an assumption and b) well, we have to or it's ciao bella.

    There is already evidence amongst a school of well studied Dolphins of the coast of Florida that the rise in premature fetal deaths is caused by plastics.

    At what point does the plastic start to seriously impact water systems globally, so the the birth rate and deformities become unmanageable? Or (and IMHO), it generates weaknesses in the immune systems of mammals and invertebrates leaving man and other species highly susceptible to disease and then extinction.
    At what point does the combination of plastic pollution, pollution, climate change, acidification of the seas, bacterial collapse, trigger a catastrophic chain of events?

    I do not think that point is far away.

    When grassland becomes Savannah* and Savannah becomes desert, then the impact on herbivores is massive.
    Without the staple crop that is grass, the food chain becomes very fragile.

    *The Savannah is highly susceptible to drought and fire. Funny that. In fact even Jungle has become so dry on the dry season, we can put a match to it.

    However, ecosystems recover very quickly.
    There is categorical evidence that better nutrition of soils in temperate climates can yield 3 x current crops - mineral dust, worm cast, better use of (aerobic) manure* etc etc.
    *Silo's full of slurry are simply methane producers.
    Alternative energies are still in their infancy and their use is accelerating fast.
    (Even the Saudi's are planning $550m project to produce solar energy).

    We have still yet to fundamentally change our consumer habits, lifestyles, choices for anyone to conclude that achieving sustainability is not possible.
    This is just the dismissive babble of cynics not willing to change and not willing to do their bit by making different choices or voicing concern.

    S - The Brazilian beach volleyball team
    W - Wiggle Honda
    "This year will be harder than last year. But that is good news; this year will be easier than next year."
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,846
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,310
    pinno said:

    rjsterry said:

    pross said:

    There's just no way to be truly sustainable without either a huge decrease in population or the world reverting to existing as a subsistence culture

    Reverting to a subsistence culture would, of course, bring about the desired decrease in population in double quick time.

    For all the validity of environmentalist arguments, there is a pretty fundamental and frankly quite religious desire for a more innocent age lurking very strongly in there - that somehow we would all be happier if we went back to living off the land.

    I'd love to see them try it.
    1. It wasn't more innocent. Look up the Tollense battlefield or read this

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/prehistoric-massacre-ancient-humans-lake-turkana-kenya.amp.html

    2. We still live off the land (and sea), just in a more elaborate way.
    I disagree with the author. I do not think humans have a natural predilection for conflict.

    I think it comes down to environmental pressures. Lake Turkana sits in an extremely hot and arid environment.
    I have been there. It's hot, dry and any changes to weather patterns would put pressure on resources quickly.

    You weren't there 10,000 years ago. The climate may well have been slightly different, but yes if there are limited resources (when are there not?) then people fight over them. As do other animals. I'm sure you've seen footage of our nearest animal relatives beating the s*** out of rival groups for dominance of a particular area.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • chris_basschris_bass Posts: 4,896
    rjsterry said:

    pross said:

    There's just no way to be truly sustainable without either a huge decrease in population or the world reverting to existing as a subsistence culture

    Reverting to a subsistence culture would, of course, bring about the desired decrease in population in double quick time.

    For all the validity of environmentalist arguments, there is a pretty fundamental and frankly quite religious desire for a more innocent age lurking very strongly in there - that somehow we would all be happier if we went back to living off the land.

    I'd love to see them try it.
    1. It wasn't more innocent. Look up the Tollense battlefield or read this

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/prehistoric-massacre-ancient-humans-lake-turkana-kenya.amp.html

    2. We still live off the land (and sea), just in a more elaborate way.
    10,000 years ago? pffft, can't be true the earth is only 6,000 years old - the bible says so!
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • pinnopinno Posts: 37,209
    rjsterry said:

    pinno said:

    rjsterry said:

    pross said:

    There's just no way to be truly sustainable without either a huge decrease in population or the world reverting to existing as a subsistence culture

    Reverting to a subsistence culture would, of course, bring about the desired decrease in population in double quick time.

    For all the validity of environmentalist arguments, there is a pretty fundamental and frankly quite religious desire for a more innocent age lurking very strongly in there - that somehow we would all be happier if we went back to living off the land.

    I'd love to see them try it.
    1. It wasn't more innocent. Look up the Tollense battlefield or read this

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/prehistoric-massacre-ancient-humans-lake-turkana-kenya.amp.html

    2. We still live off the land (and sea), just in a more elaborate way.
    I disagree with the author. I do not think humans have a natural predilection for conflict.

    I think it comes down to environmental pressures. Lake Turkana sits in an extremely hot and arid environment.
    I have been there. It's hot, dry and any changes to weather patterns would put pressure on resources quickly.

    You weren't there 10,000 years ago. The climate may well have been slightly different, but yes if there are limited resources (when are there not?) then people fight over them. As do other animals. I'm sure you've seen footage of our nearest animal relatives beating the s*** out of rival groups for dominance of a particular area.
    No I wasn't but the end of the African humid period estimates range from 6000bc to 4500bc. The lakes from Lake Natron and Lake Magadi through to Lake Turkana fed the Nile during this period and there is evidence from pollen remains, that there was denser foliage around Lake Turkana.
    But, beyond the vegetation along the tributaries of the Nile, there is scant information as to the extent of the greenery and if the demise of the AHP started around the time of this massacre, maybe climatic changes was a catalyst for this event.

    I'm sure you've seen footage of our nearest animal relatives beating the s*** out of rival groups for dominance of a particular area.

    Yes, but how much of that is due to reduction of habitat?

    They put rats in a cage of a given size and slowly added a rat, one by one over a period of time. It got to a certain density and then they started sporadically and spontaneously fighting.
    S - The Brazilian beach volleyball team
    W - Wiggle Honda
    "This year will be harder than last year. But that is good news; this year will be easier than next year."
  • shortfallshortfall Posts: 1,725
    Labour's Brexit policy. Has this already been mentioned here? What a load of horse.s.h.i.t that is.
  • chris_basschris_bass Posts: 4,896
    shortfall said:

    Labour's Brexit policy. Has this already been mentioned here? What a load of horse.s.h.i.t that is.

    whether you like it or not how is it ironic?
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • shortfallshortfall Posts: 1,725

    shortfall said:

    Labour's Brexit policy. Has this already been mentioned here? What a load of horse.s.h.i.t that is.

    whether you like it or not how is it ironic?
    Because they're telling us that they're going to negotiate a better deal and then campaign against it in a referendum.

    Because they think they can negotiate a better deal in the first place when the EU know they want to remain anyway.

  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,430
    shortfall said:

    shortfall said:

    Labour's Brexit policy. Has this already been mentioned here? What a load of horse.s.h.i.t that is.

    whether you like it or not how is it ironic?
    Because they're telling us that they're going to negotiate a better deal and then campaign against it in a referendum.

    Because they think they can negotiate a better deal in the first place when the EU know they want to remain anyway.

    The idea of Corbyn negotiating a better deal of any sort is quite amusing. For him to then not back his own deal in a referendum is just ridiculous. It hasn't exactly done them many favours in the polls.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • chris_basschris_bass Posts: 4,896
    shortfall said:

    shortfall said:

    Labour's Brexit policy. Has this already been mentioned here? What a load of horse.s.h.i.t that is.

    whether you like it or not how is it ironic?
    Because they're telling us that they're going to negotiate a better deal and then campaign against it in a referendum.

    Because they think they can negotiate a better deal in the first place when the EU know they want to remain anyway.

    I don't think either of those are ironic - stupid maybe but not ironic
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,857 Lives Here
    Stevo_666 said:

    shortfall said:

    shortfall said:

    Labour's Brexit policy. Has this already been mentioned here? What a load of horse.s.h.i.t that is.

    whether you like it or not how is it ironic?
    Because they're telling us that they're going to negotiate a better deal and then campaign against it in a referendum.

    Because they think they can negotiate a better deal in the first place when the EU know they want to remain anyway.

    The idea of Corbyn negotiating a better deal of any sort is quite amusing.
    I'm glad you're recognising that the British weakness in the Brexit negotiations is structural rather than to do with personalities.
  • elbowlohelbowloh Posts: 1,982
    Stevo_666 said:

    For him to then not back his own deal in a referendum is just ridiculous.

    No different to Raab negotiating a deal then quitting because he didn't like the deal.
    Felt F1 2014
    Felt Z6 2012
    Red Arthur Caygill steel frame ??
    Tall....
  • homers_doublehomers_double Posts: 6,350
    elbowloh said:

    pblakeney said:

    I did suggest a few years ago that the best solution for the welfare of the planet was the eradication of human beings. Didn’t go down well. Unsurprisingly. 😈

    I didn't go quite that far, but i have previously suggested that the best way to saving the planet is a global pandemic that wiped out, i don't know, say 40% of the population.
    Didn't some guy on Avengers try and do that?

    Advocate of disc brakes.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,430

    Stevo_666 said:

    shortfall said:

    shortfall said:

    Labour's Brexit policy. Has this already been mentioned here? What a load of horse.s.h.i.t that is.

    whether you like it or not how is it ironic?
    Because they're telling us that they're going to negotiate a better deal and then campaign against it in a referendum.

    Because they think they can negotiate a better deal in the first place when the EU know they want to remain anyway.

    The idea of Corbyn negotiating a better deal of any sort is quite amusing.
    I'm glad you're recognising that the British weakness in the Brexit negotiations is structural rather than to do with personalities.
    I'm not saying that though.

    Trust you to get the wrong end of the stick. Try reading all 14 words above again and give it another go :)
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,430
    elbowloh said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    For him to then not back his own deal in a referendum is just ridiculous.

    No different to Raab negotiating a deal then quitting because he didn't like the deal.
    One involves a referendum, the other one doesn't...
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • webboowebboo Posts: 2,058
    Someone who is a big fan of punk music and also being a die hard Tory.
    Could you get anymore ironic than that.
  • orraloonorraloon Posts: 5,306
    webboo said:

    Someone who is a big fan of punk music and also being a die hard Tory.
    Could you get anymore ironic than that.

    Alanis M?
  • WheelspinnerWheelspinner Posts: 4,233
    TV News item yesterday about climate change and the impact on farming and agriculture. One of the interviewees was a vineyard owner, who was 100% sure that climate change was causing hotter summers and more intense heat, which was damaging his grapes and affecting both quality and quantity of production of their (rather luxuriously priced) wine.

    Fair enough.

    What does he do? Footage of him using a (diesel-powered) tractor crawling through the vines with great big fark-off fans mounted either side, spraying a "specially developed coating - effectively a sunscreen" (his words) over the grapes to reduce the impact of the sun. Then he was also installing mesh shade-cloth - made from lovely 100% synthetic fabric, probably on the other side of the world and shipped here - to help.

    WTAF do muppets like him think might be contributing factors in climate change? 🙄😒🙄😒🙄
  • capt_slogcapt_slog Posts: 3,120
    edited 29 November
    The other day the BBC ran a piece about one of the 'marginal seats', the gist of this was "that in places like these the outcome of the election will be decided".

    They followed this up, immediately, with a piece about registering to vote and whether voting should be compulsory, "because every vote counts".

    If every vote counts, then why will the election be decided in marginal seats?

    I live in a safe seat, my vote counts for sod all.
    The older I get, the better I was.

    Call it "booty" if you like, to me it's still a fat @rse.
  • capt_slog said:

    The other day the BBC ran a piece about one of the 'marginal seats', the gist of this was "that in places like these the outcome of the election will be decided".

    They followed this up, immediately, with a piece about registering to vote and whether voting should be compulsory, "because every vote counts".

    If every vote counts, then why will the election be decided in marginal seats?

    I live in a safe seat, my vote counts for sod all.

    that is genius "every vote counts" is literally the opposite of what our electoral system stands for.
Sign In or Register to comment.