India could get 60% of its electricity from non-fossil fuel sources within 10 years - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in India.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#14756151
@One Degree

No. You seem to be doing that thing again where you assume certain arguments on behalf of someone else that do not necessarily follow from their claims.

The worst thing we can do is rely in obsolete technologies that pollute our natural environment, when we have the ability to maintain an equal standard of living while using much cleaner technologies.

Such a transition to non-fossil fuels is, of course, highly idealistic. But it is still more realistic than expecting people to stop procreating.
#14756154
No. You seem to be doing that thing again where you assume certain arguments on behalf of someone else that do not necessarily follow from their claims.


Come on. I got you on that one. Give me a thumbs up.
#14756349
One Degree wrote:You are suggesting we sacrifice our living standards for more people to exist. To what purpose? Reducing the population of the Earth allows us to increase the lifestyle of everyone. Sustainable quality of life should be our goal, not quantity of humans.

Why should people who love children make sacrifices to their family size when people who produce the bulk of pollution both historically and currently aren't willing to sacrifice living in a big empty house or driving a big empty car?

The least developed countries are the most dependent upon coal. China is developing, but still the worse polluter and has a population of 1 billion. Reduction of their population would have a dramatic effect on pollution.

Dependency is misleading. A country that produces 100MW of electricity, 90% of which comes from coal produces less pollution than a country that produces 100GW of electricity, 10% of which comes from coal. Also a lot of pollution is caused when goods are produced for export and would more accurately be attributed to consumers in the markets where they are sold.

How do you propose China reduce its population? It already implemented the harshest and most brutal family planning policy in human history.
#14756422
Why should people who love children make sacrifices to their family size when people who produce the bulk of pollution both historically and currently aren't willing to sacrifice living in a big empty house or driving a big empty car?
I already responded to a similar question earlier. It is not necessary for them to.


How do you propose China reduce its population? It already implemented the harshest and most brutal family planning policy in human history.
They have done their part. I simply said the West should not be criticizing them for it.
#14756435
Family planning is not always the best strategy. It can lead to demographic imbalances and other problems in the long term. It is better to achieve first world status and then families will naturally have less children.

I think the first world middle class have far too high living standards. There is a declining birth rate in most of Europe and the political elites have thought that immigration is the solution when the real problem is individualism and careerism. Western culture is quite anti-natal now days. It is why Westerners love to tell the third world to not have more children. Big families are good and there is nothing wrong with them. In the old days Europeans used to have big families but today they have become selfish and anti-children. Lithuania has a declining population and it is a country of less than 3, million people. I am sure some idiots will tell Lithuanians that they should stop having children and just find a solution in mass immigration from the global south.
#14756437
Family planning is not always the best strategy. It can lead to demographic imbalances and other problems in the long term. It is better to achieve first world status and then families will naturally have less children.

I think the first world middle class have far too high living standards. There is a declining birth rate in most of Europe and the political elites have thought that immigration is the solution when the real problem is individualism and careerism. Western culture is quite anti-natal now days. It is why Westerners love to tell the third world to not have more children. Big families are good and there is nothing wrong with them. In the old days Europeans used to have big families but today they have become selfish and anti-children.


Infinite population versus finite resources equals catastrophe. Emotional arguments will not change this. We must control and reduce population by the most humane methods possible. That method is individuals choosing to have fewer children. This is not selfish. They are guaranteeing a future for their progeny.
#14756586
Polluting is fun. When I was in a shared house where the bills were included in the rent and we used to open all the windows and have the heating on full blast cus why not? It was the landbaron paying for it. Every wasted joule of energy was a victory over the bastard.
#14789135
I just don't think this is possible without better energy storage technology. You'd still need so many load bearing plants that can produce a stable level of energy to prevent blackouts that I just don't see them hitting this number. In a decade no less.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Meanwhile, your opponents argue that everyone e[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Were Israelis not taking Palestinian land and hom[…]

People tend to forget that the French now have a s[…]

Neither is an option too. Neither have your inte[…]