Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message
locked post

Cognitive Dissonance: An Illustration

Posted on 7/13/17 at 12:11 pm
Posted by FearlessFreep
Baja Alabama
Member since Nov 2009
17295 posts
Posted on 7/13/17 at 12:11 pm
[/img]

Here are the two articles in the above tweet, in case you thought even The Guardian wasn't that brazen:

January 2016: Refuge influx helps halt decline in Germany's population

From the article above:
quote:

Last year, the country registered the arrival of 1 million asylum seekers, the near entirety of whom were under 65 and of working age. Nevertheless, whether to restrict the number of arrivals remains a point of debate despite public and business support for Merkel’s stance on refugees, and backing by her party, the CDU. At last month’s congress, only two of the party’s 1,001 delegates voted against her decision not to put a ceiling on the number of refugees to welcome.


July 2017: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

From the article above:
quote:

The new study, published in Environmental Research Letters, sets out the impact of different actions on a comparable basis. By far the biggest ultimate impact is having one fewer child, which the researchers calculated equated to a reduction of 58 tonnes of CO2 for each year of a parent’s life.

The figure was calculated by totting up the emissions of the child and all their descendants, then dividing this total by the parent’s lifespan. Each parent was ascribed 50% of the child’s emissions, 25% of their grandchildren’s emissions and so on.

“Population reduction would probably reduce carbon emissions but we have many other tools for getting global warming under control,” he said. “Perhaps more importantly, cutting the number of people on the planet will take hundreds of years. Emissions reduction needs to start now.”
Simply put, you cannot express grave concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and simultaneously encourage millions of people moving from low-emitting nations to high-emitting nations without being literally insane.
This post was edited on 7/13/17 at 12:20 pm
Posted by Wtodd
Tampa, FL
Member since Oct 2013
67488 posts
Posted on 7/13/17 at 12:21 pm to
Personally I don't care what Germany does; I think they're fricked tho BUT not having babies and inviting immigrants into your country are not a good comparison.
Posted by KamaCausey_LSU
Member since Apr 2013
14523 posts
Posted on 7/13/17 at 12:23 pm to
One is redistributing the population of the world and the other is adding to the population of the world.
Posted by ShortyRob
Member since Oct 2008
82116 posts
Posted on 7/13/17 at 12:26 pm to
quote:

One is redistributing the population of the world and the other is adding to the population of the world.
The first link is recognition that reduced birth rates to the point of shrinking population are harmful to society.(which is absolutely true)

The second advocates reduced birth rates.
Posted by jptiger2009
Baton Rouge
Member since Feb 2009
9616 posts
Posted on 7/13/17 at 12:28 pm to
there is nothing wrong with correcting your wrong stance. Of course, one large enough for us to know about terrorist attack will be enough to validate billy joe's opinion.

a "woke" world stays in a state of psychological stress.
Posted by FearlessFreep
Baja Alabama
Member since Nov 2009
17295 posts
Posted on 7/13/17 at 1:49 pm to
quote:

The first link is recognition that reduced birth rates to the point of shrinking population are harmful to society.(which is absolutely true)
I don't think shrinking population is necessarily harmful to society.

The world's resources are finite, and the earth has a definite maximum carrying capacity. One could argue that we haven't reached it yet, but if you are one of the millions worldwide who believe anthropogenic climate change is an existential threat to the human race, it's impossible to logically argue that the global population can continue to grow.

And yet, providing the fastest-growing populations of the world the 'safety valve' of virtually unlimited immigration (which the first article indicates was supported by literally 99.9% of the delgates of Merkel's political party) not only increases the population of the host country, but enables the fleeing immmigrants' homelands to continue their globe-threatening expansion.

It still amazes me how people can encourage tens of millions of people to move themselves and their families so that they can add to the catastrophic rise in greenhouse gas emissions, while simultaneously condemn the citizens of developed nations for reproducing.
Posted by Salmon
On the trails
Member since Feb 2008
83579 posts
Posted on 7/13/17 at 1:54 pm to
quote:

Simply put, you cannot express grave concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and simultaneously encourage millions of people moving from low-emitting nations to high-emitting nations without being literally insane.


I will never understand how y'all hold certain publications to have the same thoughts on everything

One article is from a German blogger, the other is from their environmental editor

Perhaps 2 people having 2 different ideas is a good thing?
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram