Stay at Home where possible - Wear a Mask - Get vaccinated x


twitter

support the forums by visiting these sites

support the forums by visiting this site

shortcuts

Gossip
Poofery
Showbiz
Back Page

support the forums by visiting these sites

support the forums by visiting this site

support the forums by visiting this site

support the forums by visiting this site

support the forums by visiting this site

support the forums by visiting this site

support the forums by visiting this site

support the forums by visiting this site

support the forums by visiting this site

support the forums by visiting this site

support the forums by visiting this site

Poll: Would you buy an electric car??
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Yes
42.86%
6 42.86%
No
57.14%
8 57.14%
Total 14 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Electric car
yes, or no??
#21
So the nations concerns are trip hazards and queue jumping,

How very British LOL
Reply
#22
Yeah - and one guy phoned in to say he was worried animals (such as rats!) might chew the cables!   Huh
Reply
#23
(25-05-2021, 01:00 PM)adidas Wrote: What's to stop someone unplugging your car & plugging in theirs instead?  If was overnight charge you might not even notice surely?
The cables lock to the car and can only be released when the car is unlocked by the owner (or when the car key is close by) Approve
Reply
#24
But how are people without their own garages supposed to be able to charge at home??

For terraced streets (and maybe blocks of flats), it ain’t gonna work. Confused

Even if you convert streetlights, they might only be on one side of the street.

Maybe we’ll need charging lay-bys or something similar.
Reply
#25
(25-05-2021, 07:37 AM)Heinrich Wrote:
(25-05-2021, 06:46 AM)Jwb52z Wrote:
(23-05-2021, 06:34 AM)Parsifal Wrote: Are we going to save the planet for future generations or aren't we?
Use public transportation.  It's more Earth friendly.

The problem with public transportation, at least in the US, is that it won't ever be universal, so to speak, because land owners are never going to willingly sell their land that they are now using to make money through various farming practices.  Rural people almost never have access to public transportation.  Then, there's the fact that public transportation isn't set up for convenient travel for those who aren't able bodied, but that's a whole other problem.

Exactly. It's easy for a New Yorker to say that, harder for a rural Minnesotan like me to do. Cars are a way of life in the country. We have driving classes in the curriculum, then permit and license tests in the summer. We even offer farm permits to kids at 14 because agrarian practices require it.

You absolutely cannot take a bus into town when transporting literal tons of grain. Not that buses even go on rural roads. Cabs do not exist out that far and I doubt Uber and the like run out there. If they do, there wouldn't even be enough of them.

Of course! Bow

The guiding principle has to be, as Emmanuel Macron put it, there is no Planet B.  All solutions have to emanate from there.  There will be many ideas, some better than others.  The point is that to save the planet we have to change the way we live.  Statistics pop up all the time showing that it is not possible for the Earth to sustain worldwide the way of life in the U.S. and western Europe.  So where to start?

On the subject of public transportation, well, the ubiquitousness of the private automobile only goes back to about the 1950s.  What was before then?  Public transportation and urban living (and autos for the wealthy).  In the U.S. the move to the suburbs resulted from a rising middle class (unions) combined with highway projects e.g. the Eisenhower administration's Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 which created 41,000 miles of interstate highways (cloverleafs and all).  And of course, people lived in rural areas too and they had their vehicles, but nothing like today.  It was a totally different world.

The point (again) is that to save the planet for the future we have to change the way we live, perhaps to a simpler more eco-friendly way of life (most likely with expanded public transportation and, perhaps, electric cars).

And ... that won't fly. So we're fucked. Bye bye Earth.
[+] 1 user Likes Parsifal's post
Reply
#26
Well having less kids would be a start. No, seriously. Because every new baby will need healthcare, education, transport, not to mention food, clothes, consumer goods etc.

I think most environmentalists are completely shooting themselves in the foot, because whilst promoting CO2 reductions, they are totally relaxed and on board with the global population rising to 10½-bn, or even more.

That is total lunacy. At some point the sheer size of the population would counteract all of the reduced emissions, possibly even increasing them. And would continue to put excessive strain on habitats and water resources.

No species has a right to dominate the planet. Not even us. No-one should keep having children because they can.
[+] 1 user Likes jumbler's post
Reply
#27
No worries jumbler.  Much of the world is experiencing lower birth rates already which will create its own crisis (soon!) e.g. reduced tax base and an older population.
You're profile says that you're 41-y/o.  If you retire at 65 then you will be worse off than 65-y/o's retiring today.  Among other things, NHS will be on the chopping block due to less tax revenue.

If I recall correctly, Italy is already experiencing negative population growth (deaths > births).  That's not good for Italy.
Reply
#28
But that’s old school thinking, isn’t it?? Don’t think natalist - think about how society can adapt to that.

We haven’t always had mega populations - they really are a thing of the last 50/60 years or so.
Reply
#29
Something that would help would be easier immigration to absorb population aging. John Oliver covered that a while back in regards to Germany specifically but also Europe in general. The world's population keeps growing so that's the fastest way to rebalanace.

Maybe that'll work in my favor when I'm 70. I'll retire to Uruguay and be a comfortable polar bear.
Reply
#30
(25-05-2021, 10:32 PM)Parsifal Wrote: Among other things, NHS will be on the chopping block due to less tax revenue.
I figure we would probably keep it - but have some obscene tax rises to pay for it somehow.
Reply
#31
(25-05-2021, 10:39 PM)jumbler Wrote: But that’s old school thinking, isn’t it?? Don’t think natalist - think about how society can adapt to that.

We haven’t always had mega populations - they really are a thing of the last 50/60 years or so.

It's called doing the math.  Smaller and older population = Sad

(25-05-2021, 10:41 PM)Heinrich Wrote: Something that would help would be easier immigration to absorb population aging.

For the U.S. two suggestions are being put forth:
1. Women have more babies
2. Increase immigration.

Feminists won't like 1.
Republicans don't like 2.

(25-05-2021, 10:42 PM)jumbler Wrote:
(25-05-2021, 10:32 PM)Parsifal Wrote: Among other things, NHS will be on the chopping block due to less tax revenue.
I figure we would probably keep it - but have some obscene tax rises to pay for it somehow.

You're suggesting having obscene tax rises on a smaller younger population to support a larger older population?
Where have you been?
Reply
#32
Promoting population growth by impregnating people has never worked out for the countries trying it. Romania's still feeling those effects. I think it'd be a lot easier to shuffle the people we already have and less pain and misery for birthing people.
[+] 1 user Likes Heinrich's post
Reply
#33
You're not making sense Heinrich.
Choosing between 1 million newborn babies and 1 million Guatemalans of all ages does not give the same result.
Long term the newborn babies choice is best.
Short term we need some Guatemalans NOW (legal ones who will pay taxes).
In all likelihood neither will happen.
Reply
#34
It's ridiculous to demand that of birthing people and it hasn't worked, historically. When you can carry a child to term and raise it, see how you'd feel. You fail to consider the perspectives of others in a lot of your solutions.

Immigration shuffling is easier and then we don't have to wait two decades for it to kick in. In the twenty years for such a boom to become economically viable, a lot of that older population will die anyway and we'll have too many people and not enough jobs, as with my generation. Not to mention the burden put on these larger families because one breadwinner cannot support them.
Reply
#35
Surveys show that couples want more children, especially women, but can't afford them.  Therein also lies the issue that today a single breadwinner can no longer support a family.  Those days are gone.  What changed?  Worth thinking about.  I don't know where you get your information about what hasn't worked historically.  Sounds like fake news to me.

Personally I'm in favor of both options 1. and 2., i.e. a mix of the two.  Getting either of them to fruition let alone a mix of the two doesn't look very promising.

Your math about older population dying away and not enough jobs makes no sense. Loon

Let's remember that we're talking about electric cars.
Reply
#36
(25-05-2021, 11:30 PM)Parsifal Wrote: Therein also lies the issue that today a single breadwinner can no longer support a family.  Those days are gone.  What changed?  Worth thinking about. 
Houses prices have remained high (shot through the roof). And due to equal ops/female empowerment, women feel as entitled not only to have a career, but feel it’s necessary to support themselves and their family. So you have a whole generation of people who are more committed, financially.
Quote:Let's remember that we're talking about electric cars.
And that too. Approve
Reply
#37
I would comment on the first part of jumbler's post, but feel a responsibility to help bring this back to electric cars (and related climate issues) since I'm partly guilty for steering us off. Spank
Reply
#38
On the subject of the environment and reproduction: David Attenborough fans make Trump supporters look sane in comparison. David Attenborough is officially the crazy old guy in the streets in apocalyptic movies ranting about the end of days.
Reply
#39
Hang on, one page ago Parsi was exhorting us to "change our own mindset" to save the planet and then someone mentions population control and he goes all old school on our asses,

A bigger population may be all well and good for taxes, but it isn't going to save our planet, no many how many electric cars we build,  Sad
[+] 1 user Likes Ollie2UK's post
Reply
#40
Sometimes you make sense and sometimes you don't. Wink
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

important

Please read the rules and blacklist BEFORE posting

No porn, fakes, models, leaked sex/nudes, personal ads, spam, petitions or selling on the board. Pictures should be of famous male celebrities over 18.
We reserve the right to ban you from the service if the rules are broken.
No images are hosted on this site. All are hosted on individual members webspace. We do not claim any rights over images posted and assume the poster has permission to do so.
If you believe an image should not be displayed here please contact us to request removal.

By posting on the forums, you agree that you remain solely responsible for the content of your messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold us harmless with respect to any claim based upon transmission of your messages. We reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you.

links

famousmalesfamousmales.com
twitter@famousmales
facebookfamousmales
instagram@famousmales_com
britishmade in the UK

 

contactcontact us
teamthe staff
cybersocket