Reply With Quote
More people = less available space per person probably. Not difficult to work out.Originally Posted by Holsterman
Firstly, they won't have any customers, and secondly they will be shut down by the police.
More people = less available space per person probably. Not difficult to work out.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
I guess so, but not what was written. It's like it's a second language.
Anyway, there's plenty of scope for an expanding population, if we can manage our resources more efficiently and stop fossil fuel usage.
That's an interesting statement, can you elaborate on it a little, who do you mean and where will their customers come from?
Blimey you're right of course, just 3 channels in my early childhood, imagine that today. Better programmes then too, though that'll probably be the nostalgia talking.
Perhaps the 'many artificially maintained by “drugs” and other medical advances' might be a reference to 'old' people here...
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
!960: BBC & ITV only. 1964: arrival of BBC2 - which came on the new-fangled 625 lines!
How time flies.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
There does seem to be a barely-restrained narrative of "let's kill off the oldies, by rights they should be dead already" with Andyg. I wonder how he'll feel about that in 20 years' time.
Any self employed with over 50k income will run out of money with no income or support package. So they will emerge from lockdown to hunt earnings. No specific trade or profession - it will apply to all.
Can't really divine who else he might mean tbh R, but how to decide, where do you draw the line... ballot or 'death panel, enforced euthanasia for those requiring too many drugs perhaps...but how much is too much...or just go with an age limit, seems a bit arbitrary, inhumane.
Last edited by Passenger; 16th April 2020 at 13:25.
According to David Attenborough, and I tend to believe he's a trustworthy and clever chap, all the arable land available on earth (without even more deforestation) is currently being farmed. Fresh drinking water is also a massive issue.
So I wouldn't say there is massive scope for population expansion, even if we could somehow employ all these new people in a post fossil fuel driven world.
Sent from my SM-A105FN using Tapatalk
That's because we are eating way too much animal protein and wasting water.
Universal Credit. It'll be fine.
https://www.gov.uk/apply-universal-credit
I've wondered about that, it presumably is available to those who wish to apply/meet the criteria isn't it, I mean the over 50k self employed earners still have this recourse don't they...
Is this thread becoming another candidate for being moved to the Bear Pit?
I would have thought that people earning over Ł50k would have savings. Once savings fall below a certain level, everyone is eligible for UC.
Still can't see how many self employed people would manage to find work under the current lockdown situation.
They are both a big part of the problem yes, certainly growing crops instead of rearing animals for meat is far more land efficient and water wastage is woefully the world over.
But watch his documentary "A life on our planet", it is interesting, frightening, thought provoking and quite beautiful all at the same time. He does at the end suggest ways we can improve things, but not so that we can carry on with ever growing population expansion, just to save things as they are now.
Sent from my SM-A105FN using Tapatalk
If the arguement that's going on about which age groups are expendable or not then yes, it could be.
Sent from my SM-A105FN using Tapatalk
Why would you think that? Lots of people (of all ages) are being maintained by drugs and medical advances. Also perhaps you need to define “old” for the benefit of all?
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Hang about a minute. Where did I say kill all the oldies FFS.
BTW I am 60 next month, but if I am living with a debilitating illness in 2 months time with little hope of recovery, then I would like to at least have an opinion as to how I would like to spend my remaining days. Currently this opinion is not available to me.
Last edited by Andyg; 16th April 2020 at 12:34.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
So perhaps the disabled, the old, the infirm, those with underlying conditions, are all an intolerable drain on medical and financial resources which would be better used to help the fit and able. If thats not what is being implied please explain what is?
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Universal credit which is available to those on low income or out of work - neither of which apply to the group I’m talking about ?
That’s one way of looking at it. Another way is that we simply have to many mouths to feed and that it’s only through modern irrigation, GM, factory farming practices, pest control, etc is that we can feed the billions that already exist. By increasing the population you become more dependant upon technologies and will cause even more damage to the environment.
Also, you need to define the “we” - lots of countries do not eat “to much animal protein” nor do they “waste water”, however many of these countries already suffer from starvation.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nce-who-advice
Don’t forget that Universal Credit is paid from Taxation. If people are not spending or earning then they are not paying tax. In which case the government will be unable to pay it out. They could of course borrow the money, but then all loans have to be repaid at some point. So not necessarily a problem for the boomers and millennials, but a problem for the generation X’s
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
If you are talking about voluntary euthanasia for terminally-ill people, I agree with you, with appropriate safeguards.
I'm talking about westernised countries, and those with a growing middle class, such as China.
I see veganism, or near-veganism in all our futures. Raising animals for food is unsustainable.
This isn’t correct.
My Father (who is 70), is to all intents and purposes terminally ill, and he received his letter saying he should consider shielding for 3 months to avoid catching Corona Virus.
It did also state that the Government/NHS completely recognise that people in his situation may choose to exercise their right to go outside, whilst maintaining social distancing rules, rather than spend a huge chunk of his remaining life confined to his own home.
We are still human, we still have free will, even during this time.
It's no good buying an expensive watch one day and moaning about no government support the next day.
There was quite a lot of confusing messaging coming out from the Govt about this to start with, around making sure "essential" work could continue. That messaging has softened significantly and it seems that anyone who can't work at home can go to their work as long as they can do so safely.
The rules around construction have been clarified and both commercial and residential works are permitted to continue.
Of course, whether customers want the workers to visit is another matter altogether.
I'm not sure what Andy meant either.
Last edited by Passenger; 16th April 2020 at 13:13.
Some parts of this forum make pretty grim reading - and I don’t just mean this thread. ‘Who should live or die, the old and disabled don’t count, what should I invest in once businesses recover. Ooh, will more Rolex become available?’ Not a very pretty picture.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What has the shape of the government’s support package got to do with whether I bought a watch?
Huh? This isn’t just about me Mick. It’s about electricians, plumbers, photographers, etc etc
Just so we are clear - my income WILL survive this as I am able to do a considerable amount of my role from home and via e-comms. I am far more concerned about my clients who have 50k+ income who are being hung out to dry here. So yes I will moan about the package if it means my clients could lose everything because the package offered is fundamentally skewed and unfair to them. Does that clarify my stance ?
Yes it does and that is fair enough. However HMG has a responsibility to protect the public purse and as a taxpayer you be able to see that also.
It's nothing personal, just trying to keep tax levels down.
Lowering the total payment amount but extending it to all means fairer and the same total amount spent so the public purse would be no worse off. Also the public purse has a duty to protect the whole public
Last edited by RustyBin5; 16th April 2020 at 13:37.
They can claim UC Rusty but it won't be as generous as the Ł2,500 furlough scheme. It's their income today that matters, doesn't matter how much they were earning up to Feb/March?
Not until they use their savings up I thought as UC is means tested on capital over 16k? Sorry I don’t have figured in front of me do this might be inaccurate
Sorry, yes if they have 16K in savings. However they can claim something called new style JSA which is unemployment benefit based on NI contributions if they paid NI for the two tax years ending Apr 2019? There is also a similar sickness benefit if that situation applies. Not Brewsters, but something?
They can’t apply for JSA either as they are not unemployed. They are self employed with no income - it’s an important distinction.
Regs have been relaxed under current crisis - tell them to claim! Lots of self-employed have claimed already
RHang about a minute. Where did I say kill all the oldies FFS.
You didn't say that.
What you did say was:
Your question:A reply:Your response:So you gave four examples of your own choosing as to what changes you would like to see in the future, one of which was the size of the global population and you made the point that many of those people are still here because they are artificially maintained by “drugs” and other medical advances.
BTW I am 60 next month, but if I am living with a debilitating illness in 2 months time with little hope of recovery, then I would like to at least have an opinion as to how I would like to spend my remaining days. Currently this opinion is not available to me.
I've got some good news: your opinion(s) are still available to you.
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Please please Eddie remove this post...like the last one it's getting to the my dick is bigger than your dick if you don't agree with me.
Should be in the Bear Pit along with all the same sad posters...
Let's get G & D back to what it should be.
Wow, why should I bother, you seem quite happy to infer and suggest what being implied to suit your own narrative.
However to attempt to provide some clarity and few questions for you.
a) do you accept that medical resources (people, drugs, technology, etc ) are finite?
b) do you accept that no one can live for ever?
c) do you accept that quality of life is more important than longevity?
d) do you accept that people should have the right to determine their own death?
Now the given the answers to a) and b) are absolute. This only leaves c) and d). Personally my responses to both would be yes. Yours however might not.
So for clarity, I am not suggesting we “kill the old”, the handicapped, the infirm, etc, or whatever BS you are peddling today.
What I am suggesting that we actually show some humanity and allow some to make their own decision regarding their treatment and that medical science takes a step back and looks at the impact of treatment to the quality and longevity of people’s lives. Plus treatment needs to be more about quality rather than longevity. I have witnessed first hand people going through numerous rounds of chemo and radiation treatment (which has destroyed both them and their families physically and mentally) for the sake of a few very painful extra months. At no point was the patient/there families are given a choice.
What we actually need is more honestly, more humanity and for patients/families to fully understand the implications of the treatments offered and the impact this will have on the individuals quality of life. The problem with this is that it needs a grown up conversation and unfortunately we do not seem capable of having one.
Strangely people often talk about never wanting to make their pets suffer, yet they seem unable to do the same for their loved ones. I wonder why that is?
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Doctors don't have the power to compel patients to accept any treatment offered, they should work in partnership with each other.
https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guida...p-and-teamwork
I'm in complete agreement with that.
But the legislation has to be changed first and that requires sufficient public sway to achieve it.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
I have some recent experience of what constitutes "quality of life".
My mother had a massive stroke, lost 30% of her brain function, and went into a stroke unit. Fortunately she had written a living will, drafted by a respected firm of lawyers, and so we knew that, in her circumstances, she wanted to have all sustenance and medical intervention withdrawn.
However, the hospital legal team looked at her living will and said that, regretably, it wasn't valid in her circumstances since the will didn't stipulate her precise condition. For example, unconscious but breathing unaided. Nor could the clinicians be certain she wouldn't improve to a degree that would constitute a quality of life as she would have determined. They couldn't explain what that would look like, and obviously nor could she. But as an example, bed bound, feeding through a tube and partial consciousness but smiling at grandchildren could easily constitute quality of life for some.
Perhap most telling, with a patient in my mother's predicament, nobody could say if she could hear or not, and whether, if she could, listening to the radio might qualify as quality of life.
Others would certainly have a clear idea of what that phrase means to them but, given what I now know, it's impossible to put every possible permutation of quality of life into written form.
The point being "quality of life" is a nebulous and highly subjective area and, now, when I hear fit and healthy people discussing it as a remedy for others I am not filled with confidence.
One last thing; after the funeral my Dad, who survived my mother, fired the respected firm of lawyers.
That is awful. What a predicament to be in
You are absolutely correct, when a patient is unable to communicate, it is impossible to assess QoL. It's also very difficult to get the prognosis right. Everyone seems to think that doctors "know everything", but that is a very long way from the truth.
There was a very thoughtful episode of Star Trek (TOS) which examined this.
Last edited by Holsterman; 16th April 2020 at 19:53.
Posting Permissions
