- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Cognitive Dissonance: An Illustration
Posted on 7/13/17 at 12:11 pm
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:
July 2017: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children
From the article above:
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: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.
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.”
This post was edited on 7/13/17 at 12:20 pm
Posted on 7/13/17 at 12:21 pm to FearlessFreep
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 on 7/13/17 at 12:23 pm to FearlessFreep
One is redistributing the population of the world and the other is adding to the population of the world.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 12:26 pm to KamaCausey_LSU
quote:The first link is recognition that reduced birth rates to the point of shrinking population are harmful to society.(which is absolutely true)
One is redistributing the population of the world and the other is adding to the population of the world.
The second advocates reduced birth rates.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 12:28 pm to FearlessFreep
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.
a "woke" world stays in a state of psychological stress.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 1:49 pm to ShortyRob
quote:I don't think shrinking population is necessarily harmful to society.
The first link is recognition that reduced birth rates to the point of shrinking population are harmful to society.(which is absolutely true)
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 on 7/13/17 at 1:54 pm to FearlessFreep
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?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News