c) Try this out. It is very very crude as stuff isn't linear which I am assuming it is but it will do for the explanation as otherwise it would be very complex
According to the internet the output from humans of CO2 through just breathing is about 1kg per day
Let us say the average profligate factor for a country is 'x' That is how many more times per head CO2 is produced in that economy
Let us say the population is 'y'
Let us say the birth rate is 'w'
Let us say a generation is replaced every 'z' years.
Let us say that the year you want to predict the CO2 output for is 'v' years away
The CO2 output for that country is then 1xywv/2z
[snip]
Now waiting for this absolute drivel of maths to be massacred as I know there are lot more able people on PB than me. Sorry!
In general you are right but there is a factorial change that you need to take into account. We're supposed to be getting to "net zero" where everyone is net responsible for zero emissions.
On your formula you can drop the 1 it isn't doing anything or necessary so xywv/2z is the formula.
Now swap out x for 0 since we've moved to net zero.
The formula then becomes 0ywv/2z = 0
w (and y) cease to matter once they're multiplied by 0. They only matter if we're not at zero.
So the technology to get us to zero is what matters. Once you've done that, then the quantity of people is irrelevant.
The 1 was there to show the 1 kg had been taken into account when multiplied by the profligation factor. It was in response to @HYUFD 's statement yesterday hence why I showed all of that, but other than the whopper of assumptions I made re being linear and not taking into account exponential growth that applies to births there is also a whopper of an error. Hint see what happens if you put in a prediction for 1 year away!
I don't want to embarrass myself any further.
Just trying to prove to HYUFD that population is a factor in CO2 production, which to be honest shouldn't need stating after all zero people produce none, some people produce some, lots of people produce more. For most people that is a given, but this is HYUFD we are dealing with.
Indeed but its only a factor if we've failed to reach net zero.
The issue is we're supposed to be using our technology to get to net zero. If we can get to net zero then it doesn't matter what our population is. 1 million, ten million, 7 billion or 50 billion - whatever figure you times by zero the answer is always zero.
I hate to say this but HYUFD is right on this one. For the wrong logic, but he's right. Technology is the key. If our technology makes us reach net zero then having double or half the population times by zero won't make any difference at all.
I don't disagree with that. Never did disagree with the issue (if you see the posts I agreed with HYUFD on that). It is the bloody logic that gets me.
Sadly I think if we are going to get out of the mess it may be that we do have to rely on technology like carbon capture (I don't see us doing it any other way) before it is too late as I don't see other technical advancements coming in time. I'm not sure how that works in a capitalist world though.
Of course if we overcome the carbon issue, population growth will bring the next lot of issues with it (water, food, etc). I am very pro population control as a solution (not in the Hitler type of way) as that can be very rapid (within a generation). It does mean though we can't have constant growth and there are a multitude of other problems like the age issue to deal with also with this approach, which means many don't like it. I suspect you may be in that camp.
Re HYUFD: As always with him it is the logic and only the logic. I mean he made the point that the West is more polluting than Africa, particularly per head with which I agree (I mean how can you disagree?). I have now had 4 arguments with him recently and out of those 4 I have actually agreed with him on the point he was making on 3 of them. I know, why the hell am I arguing with him if I agree with him? But he comes out with these 'mad as a frog in a box' deductions, which he did yesterday that was completely unfounded in any logic whatsoever. And although umpteen people tell him he just can't get it. I am baffled as to how someone can't see this stuff. To me he is unique. It seems to be an extreme case of the Kruger Dunning effect when it comes to deduction.
It is like having a family argument and suddenly you find your mad uncle is supporting you. Anyone sensible would ignore it, but me, I stupidly go and have an argument with my mad uncle instead because I am embarrassed to have my opinion supported by irrational arguments.
I agree with you on the issues with a certain other poster's logic (in general).
However on the issue with the environment the only thing that matters is technology. Realistically if we get to net zero by 2050 then we've achieved what we need to achieve - and if we haven't we've failed. But that only leaves us 28 years and two months until we reach 2050. Knock off nine months for pregnancies and you're talking 27 years and five months.
Being completely realistic the overwhelming majority of those who will be alive in 2050 are those who are alive or conceived already today.
There simply isn't the time or the possibility to affect population figures meaningfully in the next 27 years. Whether in that time you increase population by 2% or drop it by 2% is pretty irrelevant.
The only tool in our arsenal is technology, not population.
But 2050 is an utterly artificial date with no relevance in the real world. It is a target set up to try and force Governments to meet their commitments and although that is perfectly sensible, it should not be considered as anything more than that.
If the wider issue over and above climate change is population size (as I and many others believe it to be) then saying we can't do anything about it in the next 27 years as if that means we should not bother is a completely straw man argument. Yes technology will help us with net zero. It will not necessarily help us with the many other issues affecting the world some of which are even more serious. And it definitely won't help us if we don't recognise the problems in the first place. Technology only helps when it is properly directed to address the problems.
Now actually it appears that the best way to reduce global populations is to make everyone middle class - or some such equivalent. First world countries have reducing birth rates and the richer the country the more stable the natural population (excluding, for a moment, migration). What we should be aiming to do is massively improve living conditions and wealth in Africa, India and other Third World countries. In the long run that will do far more for our environment than any short term technological stop gaps.
On topic, aren't we in danger of assuming that those who think we were wrong to leave the EU also think that we should rejoin?
I voted remain, was disappointed at the time that leave won, but very strongly believe that the vote should have been delivered. Furthermore, I am 100% against those who tried to overturn the result, and as I believe that it is decades too early to think of rejoining, also see those who still see rejoining as an immediate possibility as actively working against the country's interests in trying to achieve the best outcome out of Brexit.
So it's perfectly possible to believe that leaving the EU was a mistake but also be committed to delivering Brexit in the best manner possible. And I'd wager that a very sizeable chunk of people would fall into that category. And that a plurality of that chunk would favour the tories as the only party that seems to be taking the priority of getting the best out of Brexit seriously.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
The left wing bias in academia has got stronger and stronger but I think it’s because, at some stage, the right wing gave up on facts.
Right wing academics do still exist, quite vocally, but they are definitely a minority. As usual though I think social media and noise exaggerate the size of the full-on left wing contingent in academia. I know a few people working in research, and most are soft centre-left or liberal types. But they just get on with their work and don't make a noise. The ones who shout loudest are those with more of a hard-left axe to grind. So the decibel meter distorts the reality as usual.
I think one also has to take self-interest into account: most universities are dependent on public funding, and their employees an extension of the broader public sector, so you'd expect them to skew left on economics to an extent as their livelihoods depend on it. It's the same for actors, and why they almost all join Equity.
Furthermore, the character of those interested in undertaking pioneering academic research will tend to be those interested in exploring something different to how society operates at present, and to do so largely in solitude, so whilst you will get some great ideas and breakthroughs here and there you'll also get some outlandish wackiness than doesn't translate into the real world.
Rome (depending on definition) took a century or so to die, did so with a whimper, yet ended up causing huge ructions.
Marc Morris' recent book on the Anglo-Saxons (well worth a read) says something along the lines of Britain falling back an Age due to trade and economic dislocation.
I do wonder how things would've gone had that megalomaniac Justinian not destroyed the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy.
That is some going. My aim each year is to read at least 100 books. It is my one ongoing resolution each January and most of the time I manage it. My record is 122 books in one year.
370 *buffs nails*.
Not many were long or 'serious', but some were. Started just because then became a mid year resolution to see if I could average 1 a day. Needed a few brief ones to manage.
Stalin was remarkably well-read too, he managed about 15,000.
That is remarkable given the length of Russian books. 1,200 pages of War and Peace; 800-odd of Anna Karenina. It's surprising he made it to double figures.
Many of them were English and French classics, and ancient writers. He expected his henchmen to be well-versed in the classics, as he liked to discuss them. Kaganovich was not, so he gave him a crash course in Russian literature.
Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Andrew Pierce made the point on GMB it was a global crisis which is exacerbated in the UK by Brexit. Denied by his Labour supporting Chum who put it all down to Brexit. I think that is right. Brexit has not helped but the problems are largely global.
I think what does not help is FBPE head cases blame Brexit for everything and basically lie and overexaggerate about some of the issues we have such as so-called shortages in supermarkets. Of course die hard brexiteers are just as bad too.
As for the cabotage changes surely this is all part of taking back control ? Would we have the flexibility to do this had we been in the EU. I do not know.
FPBE has, sadly, made me aware that my own "centrist" tribe that I thought were generally level headed, in favour of compromise and not given to emotional outbursts seems to contain plenty who are just as guilty of this hyper-partisan stuff as the crazies on the far left and right. It's been unedifying, particularly during the pandemic when many of them have doubled up as zero-covidians. Of course most of us in the Tory wet / Lib Dem / Blairite centre are nothing like that, but of course we're way less audible because we don't shout loudly on Twitter.
Cabotage changes may well be an example of taking back control from a societal perspective, but from a pure business and supply chain cost perspective it's a fairly simple equation: the fewer restrictions, the better. It's an example of one of those trade offs between business and social priorities which nobody seems to want to admit to. The idea something may be good in one respect and bad in another is apostasy.
I immediately expel FBPEs from my centrist tribe. Problem solved Has reduced my tribe, somewhat, but I don't think that matters as we're going to lose the next election anyway. Indeed, we might not have any parties representing us at all (Con: no; Lab: leadership, maybe, but not party; LD, too FBPE still, I expect, but we'll see; Green, no).
The trouble is the retweets. Means my timeline come what may is populated by retweeted FPBEs and retweeted blue hearts, even when I'm on my supposedly non-political vineyard / wine industry login.
I would like to see a bit more capital capital L Liberal from the Lib Dems. We are not an authoritarian party so should stop trying to be one.
Ah well, Twitter I use it only professionally and I must say I haven't come across FBPEs in my timeline - pretty much all my follows are fellow scientists/clinicians/family members/advocacy groups of the people we study and I think they'd all consider it unprofessional to put politics or Brexit views out there. I would.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
The left wing bias in academia has got stronger and stronger but I think it’s because, at some stage, the right wing gave up on facts.
Reality has a well known liberal bias, as Stephen Colbert said.
The facts of life are Conservative, as Margaret Thatcher said.
Were, to some extent. But "Conservative" has changed in the intervening years, hasn't it? In the US I'm not sure creationism, climate denial or anti-vaxx are particularly consistent with the facts of life. In Britain I remain to be convinced that our recent journey of national discovery is hugely facts-of-life inspired either.
Of course our recent journey of national discovery is hugely facts-of-life inspired.
Understanding the importance that the people we elect are the ones determining the laws we face is a fact of life. As opposed to the dystopian Utopian "imagine there's no country" John Lennon nightmarish bullshit.
American ‘redistricting’ is hillarious to watch from afar. They really do need a Boundaries Commission in each State, and a few do, but why would the party in power vote for that when Gerrymandering is the other option?
The answer, in a democracy, should be that the voters value a fair system and will vote for an alternative who will provide it.
Regarding Brexit, I think it is possible that it will end up getting cancelled. A few people will be fuming; but most will just shrug their shoulders and get on with life.
Not a chance in hell.
It can't be cancelled, it's happened. And it won't be reversed either.
Neither politicians nor the public are going to want to go through that again, and even if we did have a collective reversal the French would say non.
England will never again be a part of the EU.
It can. All it takes is for a government consumed by woke thinking to declare the whole thing as racist and proscribe any opposition to rejoining the EU on the same grounds. And then they can just sign us back up again on whatever terms the EU demand. You think that this is mad but that is how a lot of woke remainers think.
Or perhaps more accurately, how you think 'a lot of woke remainers' think. You have at least given us some insight into how you think...
I had my company leaving drinks last night. I was sitting in the corner with an ex-colleague (alumni of the firm) who's a very dark skinned female Egyptian in her mid-40s who - totally unprompted - spent 3 minutes ranting to me about how Woke the firm had become and how it was totally OTT. We were both slightly worse for wear but she was fed up being categorised and its divisiveness.
An ever bigger smile crept across my face as I listened and I eventually had to politely interrupt her to say I agreed with her 100%. 110%. 500%.
Sometimes people surprise you.
Your company sounds like an awful place to work.
That's why I left.
And why I've always been fairly relaxed about "political correctness/woke gone mad" in the private sector*. Companies that persistently do stupid things and enact stupid policies will lose good people and, consequently, do less well (even beyond losing good people if they waste their employees time). The market will sort it out, most likely. Equally, companies with a sexist/racist/homophobic culture will like fail too. The ones that prosper will be those with a good atmosphere based on sensible policies, open debate and compromise.
*And, indeed, most of the public sector - people there will also leave jobs if it gets too painful, the exceptions perhaps being health care and teaching where there are fewer opportunities to change job without also changing career, the private sector roles being fewer in number.
I've got little time for this 'meh, it will sort itself out' argument, which is rather dismissive and lazy. You might well be "relaxed" about it - I can assure you the last two years have been anything but relaxing for me.
If (and it's a big "if") what you describe happens it will take years and years - there will be a lot of dislocated careers and upset people along the way, people who didn't necessarily want to leave or move in the first place.
It's far better for open conversations to take place across government, the civil service, the major corporates, the third sector and media *now* about what common sense looks like - and exert a bit of leadership on best practice and guidance.
Otherwise, radical activists will fill the void under cloak of inclusion and be misguidedly followed by far too many.
The 'it will sort itself out' way of thinking could be justified up until about 2 years ago. You could justifiably believe that common sense would prevail; even though it was becoming increasingly clear that it wouldn't.
What we are now dealing with is a situation where a particular way of thinking has actually become the establishment, and people are expressing various forms of denial about it. However, its hold on the establishment is rather shaky as many people don't actually really subscribe to its belief system.
What is missing is a meaningful alternative. The idea of simply recreating the old liberal system of free speech and equality under the rule of law isn't enough. It doesn't satisfy the desire for immediate change.
The man suspected of killing five people with a bow and arrows and other weapons in Norway has been transferred to the public health service, a state prosecutor has said, amid continuing concerns about his mental health.
I guess this is because of his skin colour...right?
Peter Hitchens thinks it's being covered up as a terrorist attack so nobody will talk about his marijuana smoking
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
What evidence do you have that it's much exaggerated?
If anything, from anecdotal evidence from friends in academia, I think the study I cited above understates it. But I'm happy if you have evidence.
On state subsidies it's probably one area where Dom Cummings was right in a sense that he saw where the world was going. The only way the west can compete with highly subsidised Chinese industries undercutting is to have our own. Getting rid of state aid rules was a deal breaker in the EU negotiations for this reason. The EU rules are going to be a huge problem for European countries in the next two decades as the US, Japan, Korea and maybe even the UK climb aboard the state aid train.
China has shown that a planned/command economy can be made to work. The rest of the world has realised that some of that can be transposed to their own countries as well. I expect the UK will have very large state subsidies for science and technology research/development in the next decade that wouldn't have been possible within the EU.
American ‘redistricting’ is hillarious to watch from afar. They really do need a Boundaries Commission in each State, and a few do, but why would the party in power vote for that when Gerrymandering is the other option?
It would be funny if the people responsible didn't go about lecturing other people on 'democracy'.
Indeed. As we saw with their elections last year, where the level of micromanagement of the electoral process, by local politicians, was the sort of thing you would expect in Russia or China.
The UK does overall have a very good system of overseeing the democratic process - with the Electoral Commission, Boundary Commissions and police. Yes, they screw up occasionally - Darren Grimes waves hello - but democracy is usually seen to be done.
American ‘redistricting’ is hillarious to watch from afar. They really do need a Boundaries Commission in each State, and a few do, but why would the party in power vote for that when Gerrymandering is the other option?
The answer, in a democracy, should be that the voters value a fair system and will vote for an alternative who will provide it.
Voters don't value a fair system though. Sometimes even in democracies things are put in place which are not themselves popularly supported but which are important, like safeguards, burdens of proof and the like.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
The left wing bias in academia has got stronger and stronger but I think it’s because, at some stage, the right wing gave up on facts.
Right wing academics do still exist, quite vocally, but they are definitely a minority. As usual though I think social media and noise exaggerate the size of the full-on left wing contingent in academia. I know a few people working in research, and most are soft centre-left or liberal types. But they just get on with their work and don't make a noise. The ones who shout loudest are those with more of a hard-left axe to grind. So the decibel meter distorts the reality as usual.
My experience too. The characteristics that push people into academia - an open and enquiring mind, pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake, a desire to impart knowledge to the next generation, an empirical and sceptical bent, tolerance for relatively low pay - tend to be found at higher frequency among those of a liberal frame of mind. A similar kind of self selection bias explains why professions like the police and financial services attract more right wing people. The desire by some on the Right to demonise those with higher levels of education, basically because we can see through their bullshit, is one of the less pleasant developments of recent years.
Sometimes, I feel you're making progress - and then you post something utterly retarded like this.
You're the pb equivalent of Drew Barrymore in 50 First Dates: @OnlyLivingBoy stars in 50 First Posts - tediously rehearsing the same arguments on the same subjects each and every day, before clearing the cache overnight and going right back to square one the next.
I'm honoured to be compared to Drew Barrymore. Don't use words like "retarded" though, please. Not only does it cross the line in terms of personal abuse (a recurring problem for you, sadly) but it is also an unacceptable word to use.
Words and phrases you've used today: "the right wing gave up on facts", "(right wing) bullshit" and implying that right-wing people are idiots. No doubt you'll play dumb and cry foul now but you know precisely what you're doing.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
The left wing bias in academia has got stronger and stronger but I think it’s because, at some stage, the right wing gave up on facts.
Reality has a well known liberal bias, as Stephen Colbert said.
The facts of life are Conservative, as Margaret Thatcher said.
Were, to some extent. But "Conservative" has changed in the intervening years, hasn't it? In the US I'm not sure creationism, climate denial or anti-vaxx are particularly consistent with the facts of life. In Britain I remain to be convinced that our recent journey of national discovery is hugely facts-of-life inspired either.
Of course our recent journey of national discovery is hugely facts-of-life inspired.
Understanding the importance that the people we elect are the ones determining the laws we face is a fact of life. As opposed to the dystopian Utopian "imagine there's no country" John Lennon nightmarish bullshit.
The meaning of Conservatism has always shifted. Most Conservatives see more to their philosophy than simply reducing barriers to the free movement of people, capital, and goods, which is why most Conservatives support Brexit.
Most Conservatives see more to their philosophy than simply reducing barriers to the free movement of people, capital, and goods, which is why most Conservatives support Brexit.
The man suspected of killing five people with a bow and arrows and other weapons in Norway has been transferred to the public health service, a state prosecutor has said, amid continuing concerns about his mental health.
I guess this is because of his skin colour...right?
Peter Hitchens thinks it's being covered up as a terrorist attack so nobody will talk about his marijuana smoking
I certainly agree with Peter that drugs contribute to many mass killings.
c) Try this out. It is very very crude as stuff isn't linear which I am assuming it is but it will do for the explanation as otherwise it would be very complex
According to the internet the output from humans of CO2 through just breathing is about 1kg per day
Let us say the average profligate factor for a country is 'x' That is how many more times per head CO2 is produced in that economy
Let us say the population is 'y'
Let us say the birth rate is 'w'
Let us say a generation is replaced every 'z' years.
Let us say that the year you want to predict the CO2 output for is 'v' years away
The CO2 output for that country is then 1xywv/2z
[snip]
Now waiting for this absolute drivel of maths to be massacred as I know there are lot more able people on PB than me. Sorry!
In general you are right but there is a factorial change that you need to take into account. We're supposed to be getting to "net zero" where everyone is net responsible for zero emissions.
On your formula you can drop the 1 it isn't doing anything or necessary so xywv/2z is the formula.
Now swap out x for 0 since we've moved to net zero.
The formula then becomes 0ywv/2z = 0
w (and y) cease to matter once they're multiplied by 0. They only matter if we're not at zero.
So the technology to get us to zero is what matters. Once you've done that, then the quantity of people is irrelevant.
The 1 was there to show the 1 kg had been taken into account when multiplied by the profligation factor. It was in response to @HYUFD 's statement yesterday hence why I showed all of that, but other than the whopper of assumptions I made re being linear and not taking into account exponential growth that applies to births there is also a whopper of an error. Hint see what happens if you put in a prediction for 1 year away!
I don't want to embarrass myself any further.
Just trying to prove to HYUFD that population is a factor in CO2 production, which to be honest shouldn't need stating after all zero people produce none, some people produce some, lots of people produce more. For most people that is a given, but this is HYUFD we are dealing with.
Indeed but its only a factor if we've failed to reach net zero.
The issue is we're supposed to be using our technology to get to net zero. If we can get to net zero then it doesn't matter what our population is. 1 million, ten million, 7 billion or 50 billion - whatever figure you times by zero the answer is always zero.
I hate to say this but HYUFD is right on this one. For the wrong logic, but he's right. Technology is the key. If our technology makes us reach net zero then having double or half the population times by zero won't make any difference at all.
I don't disagree with that. Never did disagree with the issue (if you see the posts I agreed with HYUFD on that). It is the bloody logic that gets me.
Sadly I think if we are going to get out of the mess it may be that we do have to rely on technology like carbon capture (I don't see us doing it any other way) before it is too late as I don't see other technical advancements coming in time. I'm not sure how that works in a capitalist world though.
Of course if we overcome the carbon issue, population growth will bring the next lot of issues with it (water, food, etc). I am very pro population control as a solution (not in the Hitler type of way) as that can be very rapid (within a generation). It does mean though we can't have constant growth and there are a multitude of other problems like the age issue to deal with also with this approach, which means many don't like it. I suspect you may be in that camp.
Re HYUFD: As always with him it is the logic and only the logic. I mean he made the point that the West is more polluting than Africa, particularly per head with which I agree (I mean how can you disagree?). I have now had 4 arguments with him recently and out of those 4 I have actually agreed with him on the point he was making on 3 of them. I know, why the hell am I arguing with him if I agree with him? But he comes out with these 'mad as a frog in a box' deductions, which he did yesterday that was completely unfounded in any logic whatsoever. And although umpteen people tell him he just can't get it. I am baffled as to how someone can't see this stuff. To me he is unique. It seems to be an extreme case of the Kruger Dunning effect when it comes to deduction.
It is like having a family argument and suddenly you find your mad uncle is supporting you. Anyone sensible would ignore it, but me, I stupidly go and have an argument with my mad uncle instead because I am embarrassed to have my opinion supported by irrational arguments.
I agree with you on the issues with a certain other poster's logic (in general).
However on the issue with the environment the only thing that matters is technology. Realistically if we get to net zero by 2050 then we've achieved what we need to achieve - and if we haven't we've failed. But that only leaves us 28 years and two months until we reach 2050. Knock off nine months for pregnancies and you're talking 27 years and five months.
Being completely realistic the overwhelming majority of those who will be alive in 2050 are those who are alive or conceived already today.
There simply isn't the time or the possibility to affect population figures meaningfully in the next 27 years. Whether in that time you increase population by 2% or drop it by 2% is pretty irrelevant.
The only tool in our arsenal is technology, not population.
But 2050 is an utterly artificial date with no relevance in the real world. It is a target set up to try and force Governments to meet their commitments and although that is perfectly sensible, it should not be considered as anything more than that.
If the wider issue over and above climate change is population size (as I and many others believe it to be) then saying we can't do anything about it in the next 27 years as if that means we should not bother is a completely straw man argument. Yes technology will help us with net zero. It will not necessarily help us with the many other issues affecting the world some of which are even more serious. And it definitely won't help us if we don't recognise the problems in the first place. Technology only helps when it is properly directed to address the problems.
Now actually it appears that the best way to reduce global populations is to make everyone middle class - or some such equivalent. First world countries have reducing birth rates and the richer the country the more stable the natural population (excluding, for a moment, migration). What we should be aiming to do is massively improve living conditions and wealth in Africa, India and other Third World countries. In the long run that will do far more for our environment than any short term technological stop gaps.
I agree with almost all of that, but the discussion was originally on carbon emissions. Quite simply there is no chance of population changes making any real impact on carbon and climate change due to carbon emissions, before its made redundant.
Now you may believe that population levels are a concern for other reasons (I don't) but those other reasons remain the issue not carbon - trying to tack on population concerns for other reasons onto the carbon issue isn't going to get very far realistically.
I also completely agree with your conclusion. I think we should ensure is able to go 'middle class' because its the right thing to do in its own right, plus as you say it will bring down birth rates. So even if you're not bothered by population levels as I'm not, we still reach the same conclusion on that one even from differing starting points.
Most Conservatives see more to their philosophy than simply reducing barriers to the free movement of people, capital, and goods, which is why most Conservatives support Brexit.
Rome (depending on definition) took a century or so to die, did so with a whimper, yet ended up causing huge ructions.
Marc Morris' recent book on the Anglo-Saxons (well worth a read) says something along the lines of Britain falling back an Age due to trade and economic dislocation.
I do wonder how things would've gone had that megalomaniac Justinian not destroyed the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy.
Yes, I was reading about that recently, as I had not appreciated that apparently things were going not that badly in Italy as far as 'collapsing' goes up until that conflict. But then the Romans have good PR, particularly in contrast to some of whom they called 'barbarians'.
I think one also has to take self-interest into account: most universities are dependent on public funding, and their employees an extension of the broader public sector, so you'd expect them to skew left on economics to an extent as their livelihoods depend on it. It's the same for actors, and why they almost all join Equity.
Furthermore, the character of those interested in undertaking pioneering academic research will tend to be those interested in exploring something different to how society operates at present, and to do so largely in solitude, so whilst you will get some great ideas and breakthroughs here and there you'll also get some outlandish wackiness than doesn't translate into the real world.
Not convinced by this. Police & army are also publicly funded, but probably skew right wing... Actors on the other hand surely normally are self-employed and get their money from private tv/film production companies?
Most Conservatives see more to their philosophy than simply reducing barriers to the free movement of people, capital, and goods, which is why most Conservatives support Brexit.
Nobody who supports Brexit is a Conservative
Lower case c, Scott. Conservatives can be anything they want, including very un-conservative, as parties the world over do not match their name. Plenty of Liberal parties who are conservative.
But is an area where I get confused by the arguments. Some say Brexit was a very unconservative thing to do, others claim it was driven by conservative yearning for a 1950s heydey so was a very conservative thing.
That is some going. My aim each year is to read at least 100 books. It is my one ongoing resolution each January and most of the time I manage it. My record is 122 books in one year.
370 *buffs nails*.
Not many were long or 'serious', but some were. Started just because then became a mid year resolution to see if I could average 1 a day. Needed a few brief ones to manage.
Much closer to average this year around 60.
When I was about 15 our English master (Grammar school for teacher) told us to write a brief report on all the books we'd read in the last couple of of months. I was a bit of a bookworm, and I'd been ill so I'd read quite a lot, but dutifully did as I was bid. I can still recall his note on my homework...... I can't possibly read all this..... you've written far too much. And my handwriting was fine.
c) Try this out. It is very very crude as stuff isn't linear which I am assuming it is but it will do for the explanation as otherwise it would be very complex
According to the internet the output from humans of CO2 through just breathing is about 1kg per day
Let us say the average profligate factor for a country is 'x' That is how many more times per head CO2 is produced in that economy
Let us say the population is 'y'
Let us say the birth rate is 'w'
Let us say a generation is replaced every 'z' years.
Let us say that the year you want to predict the CO2 output for is 'v' years away
The CO2 output for that country is then 1xywv/2z
[snip]
Now waiting for this absolute drivel of maths to be massacred as I know there are lot more able people on PB than me. Sorry!
In general you are right but there is a factorial change that you need to take into account. We're supposed to be getting to "net zero" where everyone is net responsible for zero emissions.
On your formula you can drop the 1 it isn't doing anything or necessary so xywv/2z is the formula.
Now swap out x for 0 since we've moved to net zero.
The formula then becomes 0ywv/2z = 0
w (and y) cease to matter once they're multiplied by 0. They only matter if we're not at zero.
So the technology to get us to zero is what matters. Once you've done that, then the quantity of people is irrelevant.
The 1 was there to show the 1 kg had been taken into account when multiplied by the profligation factor. It was in response to @HYUFD 's statement yesterday hence why I showed all of that, but other than the whopper of assumptions I made re being linear and not taking into account exponential growth that applies to births there is also a whopper of an error. Hint see what happens if you put in a prediction for 1 year away!
I don't want to embarrass myself any further.
Just trying to prove to HYUFD that population is a factor in CO2 production, which to be honest shouldn't need stating after all zero people produce none, some people produce some, lots of people produce more. For most people that is a given, but this is HYUFD we are dealing with.
Indeed but its only a factor if we've failed to reach net zero.
The issue is we're supposed to be using our technology to get to net zero. If we can get to net zero then it doesn't matter what our population is. 1 million, ten million, 7 billion or 50 billion - whatever figure you times by zero the answer is always zero.
I hate to say this but HYUFD is right on this one. For the wrong logic, but he's right. Technology is the key. If our technology makes us reach net zero then having double or half the population times by zero won't make any difference at all.
I don't disagree with that. Never did disagree with the issue (if you see the posts I agreed with HYUFD on that). It is the bloody logic that gets me.
Sadly I think if we are going to get out of the mess it may be that we do have to rely on technology like carbon capture (I don't see us doing it any other way) before it is too late as I don't see other technical advancements coming in time. I'm not sure how that works in a capitalist world though.
Of course if we overcome the carbon issue, population growth will bring the next lot of issues with it (water, food, etc). I am very pro population control as a solution (not in the Hitler type of way) as that can be very rapid (within a generation). It does mean though we can't have constant growth and there are a multitude of other problems like the age issue to deal with also with this approach, which means many don't like it. I suspect you may be in that camp.
Re HYUFD: As always with him it is the logic and only the logic. I mean he made the point that the West is more polluting than Africa, particularly per head with which I agree (I mean how can you disagree?). I have now had 4 arguments with him recently and out of those 4 I have actually agreed with him on the point he was making on 3 of them. I know, why the hell am I arguing with him if I agree with him? But he comes out with these 'mad as a frog in a box' deductions, which he did yesterday that was completely unfounded in any logic whatsoever. And although umpteen people tell him he just can't get it. I am baffled as to how someone can't see this stuff. To me he is unique. It seems to be an extreme case of the Kruger Dunning effect when it comes to deduction.
It is like having a family argument and suddenly you find your mad uncle is supporting you. Anyone sensible would ignore it, but me, I stupidly go and have an argument with my mad uncle instead because I am embarrassed to have my opinion supported by irrational arguments.
I agree with you on the issues with a certain other poster's logic (in general).
However on the issue with the environment the only thing that matters is technology. Realistically if we get to net zero by 2050 then we've achieved what we need to achieve - and if we haven't we've failed. But that only leaves us 28 years and two months until we reach 2050. Knock off nine months for pregnancies and you're talking 27 years and five months.
Being completely realistic the overwhelming majority of those who will be alive in 2050 are those who are alive or conceived already today.
There simply isn't the time or the possibility to affect population figures meaningfully in the next 27 years. Whether in that time you increase population by 2% or drop it by 2% is pretty irrelevant.
The only tool in our arsenal is technology, not population.
Yes I agree. The population control argument is a view I have held for many years and I am nearly 67 so wasn't implausible many years ago. Time has run out for my solution I agree. We need to do all we can on all fronts though and although we will I believe live or die by what technology gives us, population control is going to be needed for the future whether for CO2 control or other reasons. The planet has limited resources and we are destroying it and population expansion can't continue forever.
c) Try this out. It is very very crude as stuff isn't linear which I am assuming it is but it will do for the explanation as otherwise it would be very complex
According to the internet the output from humans of CO2 through just breathing is about 1kg per day
Let us say the average profligate factor for a country is 'x' That is how many more times per head CO2 is produced in that economy
Let us say the population is 'y'
Let us say the birth rate is 'w'
Let us say a generation is replaced every 'z' years.
Let us say that the year you want to predict the CO2 output for is 'v' years away
The CO2 output for that country is then 1xywv/2z
[snip]
Now waiting for this absolute drivel of maths to be massacred as I know there are lot more able people on PB than me. Sorry!
In general you are right but there is a factorial change that you need to take into account. We're supposed to be getting to "net zero" where everyone is net responsible for zero emissions.
On your formula you can drop the 1 it isn't doing anything or necessary so xywv/2z is the formula.
Now swap out x for 0 since we've moved to net zero.
The formula then becomes 0ywv/2z = 0
w (and y) cease to matter once they're multiplied by 0. They only matter if we're not at zero.
So the technology to get us to zero is what matters. Once you've done that, then the quantity of people is irrelevant.
The 1 was there to show the 1 kg had been taken into account when multiplied by the profligation factor. It was in response to @HYUFD 's statement yesterday hence why I showed all of that, but other than the whopper of assumptions I made re being linear and not taking into account exponential growth that applies to births there is also a whopper of an error. Hint see what happens if you put in a prediction for 1 year away!
I don't want to embarrass myself any further.
Just trying to prove to HYUFD that population is a factor in CO2 production, which to be honest shouldn't need stating after all zero people produce none, some people produce some, lots of people produce more. For most people that is a given, but this is HYUFD we are dealing with.
Indeed but its only a factor if we've failed to reach net zero.
The issue is we're supposed to be using our technology to get to net zero. If we can get to net zero then it doesn't matter what our population is. 1 million, ten million, 7 billion or 50 billion - whatever figure you times by zero the answer is always zero.
I hate to say this but HYUFD is right on this one. For the wrong logic, but he's right. Technology is the key. If our technology makes us reach net zero then having double or half the population times by zero won't make any difference at all.
I don't disagree with that. Never did disagree with the issue (if you see the posts I agreed with HYUFD on that). It is the bloody logic that gets me.
Sadly I think if we are going to get out of the mess it may be that we do have to rely on technology like carbon capture (I don't see us doing it any other way) before it is too late as I don't see other technical advancements coming in time. I'm not sure how that works in a capitalist world though.
Of course if we overcome the carbon issue, population growth will bring the next lot of issues with it (water, food, etc). I am very pro population control as a solution (not in the Hitler type of way) as that can be very rapid (within a generation). It does mean though we can't have constant growth and there are a multitude of other problems like the age issue to deal with also with this approach, which means many don't like it. I suspect you may be in that camp.
Re HYUFD: As always with him it is the logic and only the logic. I mean he made the point that the West is more polluting than Africa, particularly per head with which I agree (I mean how can you disagree?). I have now had 4 arguments with him recently and out of those 4 I have actually agreed with him on the point he was making on 3 of them. I know, why the hell am I arguing with him if I agree with him? But he comes out with these 'mad as a frog in a box' deductions, which he did yesterday that was completely unfounded in any logic whatsoever. And although umpteen people tell him he just can't get it. I am baffled as to how someone can't see this stuff. To me he is unique. It seems to be an extreme case of the Kruger Dunning effect when it comes to deduction.
It is like having a family argument and suddenly you find your mad uncle is supporting you. Anyone sensible would ignore it, but me, I stupidly go and have an argument with my mad uncle instead because I am embarrassed to have my opinion supported by irrational arguments.
I agree with you on the issues with a certain other poster's logic (in general).
However on the issue with the environment the only thing that matters is technology. Realistically if we get to net zero by 2050 then we've achieved what we need to achieve - and if we haven't we've failed. But that only leaves us 28 years and two months until we reach 2050. Knock off nine months for pregnancies and you're talking 27 years and five months.
Being completely realistic the overwhelming majority of those who will be alive in 2050 are those who are alive or conceived already today.
There simply isn't the time or the possibility to affect population figures meaningfully in the next 27 years. Whether in that time you increase population by 2% or drop it by 2% is pretty irrelevant.
The only tool in our arsenal is technology, not population.
But 2050 is an utterly artificial date with no relevance in the real world. It is a target set up to try and force Governments to meet their commitments and although that is perfectly sensible, it should not be considered as anything more than that.
If the wider issue over and above climate change is population size (as I and many others believe it to be) then saying we can't do anything about it in the next 27 years as if that means we should not bother is a completely straw man argument. Yes technology will help us with net zero. It will not necessarily help us with the many other issues affecting the world some of which are even more serious. And it definitely won't help us if we don't recognise the problems in the first place. Technology only helps when it is properly directed to address the problems.
Now actually it appears that the best way to reduce global populations is to make everyone middle class - or some such equivalent. First world countries have reducing birth rates and the richer the country the more stable the natural population (excluding, for a moment, migration). What we should be aiming to do is massively improve living conditions and wealth in Africa, India and other Third World countries. In the long run that will do far more for our environment than any short term technological stop gaps.
As I pointed out the global average fertility rate is now 2.4 ie almost exactly at the replacement rate of 2.1 only and no more.
So the issue is not global population growth, the issue is getting technology and renewables to replace fossil fuels and other solutions to tackle other problems.
Indeed if global population growth falls further below the 2.1 replacement rate then the issue becomes we need more babies to produce more workers to pay for the ageing population, an issue currently confined mainly only to some parts of the West like Italy or Japan and to some extent here
On state subsidies it's probably one area where Dom Cummings was right in a sense that he saw where the world was going. The only way the west can compete with highly subsidised Chinese industries undercutting is to have our own. Getting rid of state aid rules was a deal breaker in the EU negotiations for this reason. The EU rules are going to be a huge problem for European countries in the next two decades as the US, Japan, Korea and maybe even the UK climb aboard the state aid train.
China has shown that a planned/command economy can be made to work. The rest of the world has realised that some of that can be transposed to their own countries as well. I expect the UK will have very large state subsidies for science and technology research/development in the next decade that wouldn't have been possible within the EU.
I have to admit, I don't feel comfortable with this train of thought.
The idea of the government picking winners I find to be very disturbing.
Maybe there's a better more competitive way to do it, where aid is possible without picking (or guaranteeing) winners. But I am uncomfortable with the entire notion even though I think you have a point.
I think one also has to take self-interest into account: most universities are dependent on public funding, and their employees an extension of the broader public sector, so you'd expect them to skew left on economics to an extent as their livelihoods depend on it. It's the same for actors, and why they almost all join Equity.
Furthermore, the character of those interested in undertaking pioneering academic research will tend to be those interested in exploring something different to how society operates at present, and to do so largely in solitude, so whilst you will get some great ideas and breakthroughs here and there you'll also get some outlandish wackiness than doesn't translate into the real world.
Not convinced by this. Police & army are also publicly funded, but probably skew right wing... Actors on the other hand surely normally are self-employed and get their money from private tv/film production companies?
But, they're normally viewed more sympathetically by right-wing Governments.
Most actors earn peanuts and rely on Equity for a fair wage as they know there are thousands of others who'd otherwise do the work for next to nothing. The one we know who are in a position to do what you describe are the top 0.1%.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
What evidence do you have that it's much exaggerated?
If anything, from anecdotal evidence from friends in academia, I think the study I cited above understates it. But I'm happy if you have evidence.
Personal experience, from studying for a PhD and working as a researcher. I've encountered academics from across the political spectrum. On average they skewed liberal/left for sure, but the idea that they represented some kind of monolith is laughable. Academics disagree with each other about everything.
On state subsidies it's probably one area where Dom Cummings was right in a sense that he saw where the world was going. The only way the west can compete with highly subsidised Chinese industries undercutting is to have our own. Getting rid of state aid rules was a deal breaker in the EU negotiations for this reason. The EU rules are going to be a huge problem for European countries in the next two decades as the US, Japan, Korea and maybe even the UK climb aboard the state aid train.
China has shown that a planned/command economy can be made to work. The rest of the world has realised that some of that can be transposed to their own countries as well. I expect the UK will have very large state subsidies for science and technology research/development in the next decade that wouldn't have been possible within the EU.
To a point. Another view is that China shows capitalism can flourish in the absence of democracy.
Most Conservatives see more to their philosophy than simply reducing barriers to the free movement of people, capital, and goods, which is why most Conservatives support Brexit.
Nobody who supports Brexit is a Conservative
Lower case c, Scott. Conservatives can be anything they want, including very un-conservative, as parties the world over do not match their name. Plenty of Liberal parties who are conservative.
But is an area where I get confused by the arguments. Some say Brexit was a very unconservative thing to do, others claim it was driven by conservative yearning for a 1950s heydey so was a very conservative thing.
Sometimes they claim both.
It's a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy. The only reliable indicator of a Conservative is whether they usually vote Conservative.
American ‘redistricting’ is hillarious to watch from afar. They really do need a Boundaries Commission in each State, and a few do, but why would the party in power vote for that when Gerrymandering is the other option?
It would be funny if the people responsible didn't go about lecturing other people on 'democracy'.
Indeed. As we saw with their elections last year, where the level of micromanagement of the electoral process, by local politicians, was the sort of thing you would expect in Russia or China.
The UK does overall have a very good system of overseeing the democratic process - with the Electoral Commission, Boundary Commissions and police. Yes, they screw up occasionally - Darren Grimes waves hello - but democracy is usually seen to be done.
The possibility of legal challenge needs to be there, as problems happen, but it shouldn't be seen as a necessary part of the game to screw over or avoid being screwed over by your opponents. Hopefully the headlines we see are disproportionate, but it almost feels like in the big races tweaking legal rules and seats, and sorting out challenges afterwards, is just an expected part of the process.
Stalin was remarkably well-read too, he managed about 15,000.
Though much of that may have been connected to checking whether the author should take a trip to the Lubyanka.
Partly, although he was surprisingly tolerant of writers who were implicitly critical of the regime. .
True. Bulgakov springs to mind though natural causes may have saved him from ultimate Stalinist justice. Maybe overthinking it but I tend to see the inconsistency of who ended up in a Gulag, on a date with Blokhin or just had their career screwed as part of Stalin’s satanic genius. You could never know when you had crossed the line so you were always in fear of crossing the line.
But is an area where I get confused by the arguments. Some say Brexit was a very unconservative thing to do, others claim it was driven by conservative yearning for a 1950s heydey so was a very conservative thing.
It was driven by Little Englander yearning for a 1950s heydey
Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Andrew Pierce made the point on GMB it was a global crisis which is exacerbated in the UK by Brexit. Denied by his Labour supporting Chum who put it all down to Brexit. I think that is right. Brexit has not helped but the problems are largely global.
I think what does not help is FBPE head cases blame Brexit for everything and basically lie and overexaggerate about some of the issues we have such as so-called shortages in supermarkets. Of course die hard brexiteers are just as bad too.
As for the cabotage changes surely this is all part of taking back control ? Would we have the flexibility to do this had we been in the EU. I do not know.
The major underlying issue is that the world's economy has been built on global supply chains / JIT logistics and that its limitations have been tested globally by the pandemic and exacerbated in the UK by Brexit. Longer-term, I think we are going to see quite significant on-shoring, particularly in the UK.
One other point. I always saw Brexit as a long-term thing, not short-term transformation, which is why I think the analogy of Irish independence vs the UK is quite a useful one.
Absolutely right. JIT supply chains only work when the whole global supply chain is functioning smoothly. If you are a car maker and you buy your glass windows from China or your interior trim from China, due to cheaper labour costs, and you are reliant on continuity of supply then the moment this happens you are stuffed. All the supplier has to do is declare Force Majeure and, in that case, won’t be liable to any consequential losses being passed back.
There will be significant onshoring to come in the future, you are quite right, as people evaluate the risk v reward. It has been seen as, if not risk free, minimal risk. Not any more. The reality is coming back to bite companies who pushed the Low Cost Country Sourcing mantra, indeed mandated it to their supply chain in many cases – hello Car Industry !!!.
One of the principle shortages for manufacturing has been in semiconductors. There is almost no chance of our onshoring that industry - rather more chance in Europe.
Tbh, I'm not sure Europe will get much of a bite either. Projects that are currently proceeding are in Korea, Japan and the US. No country in Europe will get the chequebook out and it would need a complete rewrite of state aid rules. Intel are talking big about a new EU foundry but they're also asking for €8bn. Who is going to give them that subsidy and how will they do it without breaking state aid rules? No one seems to know the answer to the questions and that means countries who are happy to pay the money are getting foundries. Aiui the new Japanese government is readying a $100bn industrial regeneration fund and the US is doing something similar, no country in the EU (or the UK) can compete with that.
We all want to decouple from China and Chinese supply chains but we're relying in private companies to do it in Europe. That's just never going to happen because companies will always pick the cheaper option and the cheaper option will generally be a Chinese import. In the end we just have to hope we can hang onto the coat tails of Japan and US to benefit from their state aid programmes. I don't see the UK or EU having anything close to what those two are doing.
On state subsidies it's probably one area where Dom Cummings was right in a sense that he saw where the world was going. The only way the west can compete with highly subsidised Chinese industries undercutting is to have our own. Getting rid of state aid rules was a deal breaker in the EU negotiations for this reason. The EU rules are going to be a huge problem for European countries in the next two decades as the US, Japan, Korea and maybe even the UK climb aboard the state aid train.
China has shown that a planned/command economy can be made to work. The rest of the world has realised that some of that can be transposed to their own countries as well. I expect the UK will have very large state subsidies for science and technology research/development in the next decade that wouldn't have been possible within the EU.
I have to admit, I don't feel comfortable with this train of thought.
The idea of the government picking winners I find to be very disturbing.
Maybe there's a better more competitive way to do it, where aid is possible without picking (or guaranteeing) winners. But I am uncomfortable with the entire notion even though I think you have a point.
The way to avoid picking winners, to a certain extent, is to subside/tax the real issue.
For example, a carbon tax/credits is a sensible way to reduce carbon usage, since the government isn't picking a specific winner.
On state subsidies it's probably one area where Dom Cummings was right in a sense that he saw where the world was going. The only way the west can compete with highly subsidised Chinese industries undercutting is to have our own. Getting rid of state aid rules was a deal breaker in the EU negotiations for this reason. The EU rules are going to be a huge problem for European countries in the next two decades as the US, Japan, Korea and maybe even the UK climb aboard the state aid train.
China has shown that a planned/command economy can be made to work. The rest of the world has realised that some of that can be transposed to their own countries as well. I expect the UK will have very large state subsidies for science and technology research/development in the next decade that wouldn't have been possible within the EU.
I have to admit, I don't feel comfortable with this train of though.
The idea of the government picking winners I find to be very disturbing.
Maybe there's a better more competitive way to do it, where aid is possible without picking (or guaranteeing) winners. But I am uncomfortable with the entire notion even though I think you have a point.
Yes. I think the correct approach is for government to subsidise corporate investment in capital and R&D in general, rather than trying to be specific and pick winners.
The likes of Intel know that governments are waking up to the effects of the chip shortage, and seeking to play them off against each other in a subsidy war.
Most Conservatives see more to their philosophy than simply reducing barriers to the free movement of people, capital, and goods, which is why most Conservatives support Brexit.
Nobody who supports Brexit is a Conservative
Lower case c, Scott. Conservatives can be anything they want, including very un-conservative, as parties the world over do not match their name. Plenty of Liberal parties who are conservative.
But is an area where I get confused by the arguments. Some say Brexit was a very unconservative thing to do, others claim it was driven by conservative yearning for a 1950s heydey so was a very conservative thing.
Sometimes they claim both.
It's a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy. The only reliable indicator of a Conservative is whether they usually vote Conservative.
You can certainly make a case that leaving the EU was an un-Conservative thing to do, on the basis it was radical, risky and disruptive; however, you can also make a case that joining it in the first place and allowing integration to steadily ratchet up unchecked over decades was also an un-Conservative thing to do.
On state subsidies it's probably one area where Dom Cummings was right in a sense that he saw where the world was going. The only way the west can compete with highly subsidised Chinese industries undercutting is to have our own. Getting rid of state aid rules was a deal breaker in the EU negotiations for this reason. The EU rules are going to be a huge problem for European countries in the next two decades as the US, Japan, Korea and maybe even the UK climb aboard the state aid train.
China has shown that a planned/command economy can be made to work. The rest of the world has realised that some of that can be transposed to their own countries as well. I expect the UK will have very large state subsidies for science and technology research/development in the next decade that wouldn't have been possible within the EU.
There are about half a dozen fallacies in that post. For a start, selection bias. China has had plenty of failures in subsidising its industries. In the West, we are only conscious of the successful ones, because those are the ones that compete with our industries. Second, Chinese societies like Hong Kong and Singapore have done just as well, or even better, without subsidising and protecting industries to anything like the same extent. Thirdly, subsidising industries often misallocates resources heavily penalises captive or successful parts of the economy. Fourth, we've always been even worse than China at subsidising successful industries, which generally turn into boondoggles for favoured interest groups. Fifth, the part of China's economy that has worked the best is the least planned and distorted part - its state owned industries are generally a heavy drain on the economy. And finally, you're mistaking the natural growth of an economy when it stops shooting itself in the foot with Maoist communism with a triumphant success of state planning.
I am old enough to remember people making similar points about Japanese long-term government led planning in the 1980s. And you can also find people saying similar things about superior Soviet performance in the 1930s, 1950s and 1960s. Neither of those models are admired at all these days, though China's strategies seem to have been influenced heavily by Japan's and South Korea's.
But I'm afraid that the idea that the government can pick winners is highly seductive, so we'll keep on trying with half-hearted campaigns every few years, and never learn from our repeated failures.
That is some going. My aim each year is to read at least 100 books. It is my one ongoing resolution each January and most of the time I manage it. My record is 122 books in one year.
370 *buffs nails*.
Not many were long or 'serious', but some were. Started just because then became a mid year resolution to see if I could average 1 a day. Needed a few brief ones to manage.
Much closer to average this year around 60.
When I was about 15 our English master (Grammar school for teacher) told us to write a brief report on all the books we'd read in the last couple of of months. I was a bit of a bookworm, and I'd been ill so I'd read quite a lot, but dutifully did as I was bid. I can still recall his note on my homework...... I can't possibly read all this..... you've written far too much. And my handwriting was fine.
Love it. I recall us being told to write a report on the most recent book we'd read/were reading, and the teacher told me it was not an appropriate book to write a school report on because of some of the content.
God knows what they felt was inappropriate about it, it was the Ben Elton book Stark. I think I learned teachers could be irrational that day.
And I should have written the record was 372. If I'm going to brag about reading the entire Sharpe series etc I had best get it right.
Falkirk Party 2021 votes 2021 share since 2017 SNP 1,691 39.2% +3.5% Conservative 1,676 38.9% +6.8% Labour 679 15.7% -11.4% Green 267 6.2% +1.1% Total votes 4,313
Labour 1,004 56.2% -0.4% +13.0% +2.1% -3.8% Conservative 423 23.7% -1.9% +15.6% +8.2% +16.0% Leigh West Independent ^^ 257 14.4% Liberal Democrat 103 5.8% +2.0%
Surrey Heath Frimley Green CON GAIN from LD Con 896 LD 877 Lab 76
Great results for the Blues - and look at Labour in Falkirk down from 1st to a poor 3rd. Even in Wigan their vote is down!
That Falkirk vote is truly remarkable. Clearly there was tactical voting going on by Unionists but it is astonishing that in a place like Falkirk that tactical voting has centred on the Tories instead of Labour. Labour are in an even worse place in Scotland than they are in the rest of the UK and it is going to make their aspirations to be the largest party, let alone have a majority, extremely difficult.
I’m old enough (tho tbf I wouldn’t have to be very old) to remember when SLab could save the Union
c) Try this out. It is very very crude as stuff isn't linear which I am assuming it is but it will do for the explanation as otherwise it would be very complex
According to the internet the output from humans of CO2 through just breathing is about 1kg per day
Let us say the average profligate factor for a country is 'x' That is how many more times per head CO2 is produced in that economy
Let us say the population is 'y'
Let us say the birth rate is 'w'
Let us say a generation is replaced every 'z' years.
Let us say that the year you want to predict the CO2 output for is 'v' years away
The CO2 output for that country is then 1xywv/2z
[snip]
Now waiting for this absolute drivel of maths to be massacred as I know there are lot more able people on PB than me. Sorry!
In general you are right but there is a factorial change that you need to take into account. We're supposed to be getting to "net zero" where everyone is net responsible for zero emissions.
On your formula you can drop the 1 it isn't doing anything or necessary so xywv/2z is the formula.
Now swap out x for 0 since we've moved to net zero.
The formula then becomes 0ywv/2z = 0
w (and y) cease to matter once they're multiplied by 0. They only matter if we're not at zero.
So the technology to get us to zero is what matters. Once you've done that, then the quantity of people is irrelevant.
The 1 was there to show the 1 kg had been taken into account when multiplied by the profligation factor. It was in response to @HYUFD 's statement yesterday hence why I showed all of that, but other than the whopper of assumptions I made re being linear and not taking into account exponential growth that applies to births there is also a whopper of an error. Hint see what happens if you put in a prediction for 1 year away!
I don't want to embarrass myself any further.
Just trying to prove to HYUFD that population is a factor in CO2 production, which to be honest shouldn't need stating after all zero people produce none, some people produce some, lots of people produce more. For most people that is a given, but this is HYUFD we are dealing with.
Indeed but its only a factor if we've failed to reach net zero.
The issue is we're supposed to be using our technology to get to net zero. If we can get to net zero then it doesn't matter what our population is. 1 million, ten million, 7 billion or 50 billion - whatever figure you times by zero the answer is always zero.
I hate to say this but HYUFD is right on this one. For the wrong logic, but he's right. Technology is the key. If our technology makes us reach net zero then having double or half the population times by zero won't make any difference at all.
I don't disagree with that. Never did disagree with the issue (if you see the posts I agreed with HYUFD on that). It is the bloody logic that gets me.
Sadly I think if we are going to get out of the mess it may be that we do have to rely on technology like carbon capture (I don't see us doing it any other way) before it is too late as I don't see other technical advancements coming in time. I'm not sure how that works in a capitalist world though.
Of course if we overcome the carbon issue, population growth will bring the next lot of issues with it (water, food, etc). I am very pro population control as a solution (not in the Hitler type of way) as that can be very rapid (within a generation). It does mean though we can't have constant growth and there are a multitude of other problems like the age issue to deal with also with this approach, which means many don't like it. I suspect you may be in that camp.
Re HYUFD: As always with him it is the logic and only the logic. I mean he made the point that the West is more polluting than Africa, particularly per head with which I agree (I mean how can you disagree?). I have now had 4 arguments with him recently and out of those 4 I have actually agreed with him on the point he was making on 3 of them. I know, why the hell am I arguing with him if I agree with him? But he comes out with these 'mad as a frog in a box' deductions, which he did yesterday that was completely unfounded in any logic whatsoever. And although umpteen people tell him he just can't get it. I am baffled as to how someone can't see this stuff. To me he is unique. It seems to be an extreme case of the Kruger Dunning effect when it comes to deduction.
It is like having a family argument and suddenly you find your mad uncle is supporting you. Anyone sensible would ignore it, but me, I stupidly go and have an argument with my mad uncle instead because I am embarrassed to have my opinion supported by irrational arguments.
I agree with you on the issues with a certain other poster's logic (in general).
However on the issue with the environment the only thing that matters is technology. Realistically if we get to net zero by 2050 then we've achieved what we need to achieve - and if we haven't we've failed. But that only leaves us 28 years and two months until we reach 2050. Knock off nine months for pregnancies and you're talking 27 years and five months.
Being completely realistic the overwhelming majority of those who will be alive in 2050 are those who are alive or conceived already today.
There simply isn't the time or the possibility to affect population figures meaningfully in the next 27 years. Whether in that time you increase population by 2% or drop it by 2% is pretty irrelevant.
The only tool in our arsenal is technology, not population.
But 2050 is an utterly artificial date with no relevance in the real world. It is a target set up to try and force Governments to meet their commitments and although that is perfectly sensible, it should not be considered as anything more than that.
If the wider issue over and above climate change is population size (as I and many others believe it to be) then saying we can't do anything about it in the next 27 years as if that means we should not bother is a completely straw man argument. Yes technology will help us with net zero. It will not necessarily help us with the many other issues affecting the world some of which are even more serious. And it definitely won't help us if we don't recognise the problems in the first place. Technology only helps when it is properly directed to address the problems.
Now actually it appears that the best way to reduce global populations is to make everyone middle class - or some such equivalent. First world countries have reducing birth rates and the richer the country the more stable the natural population (excluding, for a moment, migration). What we should be aiming to do is massively improve living conditions and wealth in Africa, India and other Third World countries. In the long run that will do far more for our environment than any short term technological stop gaps.
I've liked, but I wanted to do more than just that. I wanted to say I liked, because I liked it so much. I waste so many words and say so much less.
Most Conservatives see more to their philosophy than simply reducing barriers to the free movement of people, capital, and goods, which is why most Conservatives support Brexit.
Nobody who supports Brexit is a Conservative
Lower case c, Scott. Conservatives can be anything they want, including very un-conservative, as parties the world over do not match their name. Plenty of Liberal parties who are conservative.
But is an area where I get confused by the arguments. Some say Brexit was a very unconservative thing to do, others claim it was driven by conservative yearning for a 1950s heydey so was a very conservative thing.
Sometimes they claim both.
It's a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy. The only reliable indicator of a Conservative is whether they usually vote Conservative.
Mr. kle4, the most annoying thing is that Justinian had the strength to destroy the nascent Ostrogothic kingdom but not sufficient to replace it. So he just destabilised Italy for a small enclave (that proved less useful than the Exarchate of Carthage the following century). Worse still, King Odoacer[sp] was very amenable to good relations with the Empire. *sighs*
Regarding Brexit, I think it is possible that it will end up getting cancelled. A few people will be fuming; but most will just shrug their shoulders and get on with life.
Not a chance in hell.
It can't be cancelled, it's happened. And it won't be reversed either.
Neither politicians nor the public are going to want to go through that again, and even if we did have a collective reversal the French would say non.
England will never again be a part of the EU.
It can. All it takes is for a government consumed by woke thinking to declare the whole thing as racist and proscribe any opposition to rejoining the EU on the same grounds. And then they can just sign us back up again on whatever terms the EU demand. You think that this is mad but that is how a lot of woke remainers think.
Or perhaps more accurately, how you think 'a lot of woke remainers' think. You have at least given us some insight into how you think...
I had my company leaving drinks last night. I was sitting in the corner with an ex-colleague (alumni of the firm) who's a very dark skinned female Egyptian in her mid-40s who - totally unprompted - spent 3 minutes ranting to me about how Woke the firm had become and how it was totally OTT. We were both slightly worse for wear but she was fed up being categorised and its divisiveness.
An ever bigger smile crept across my face as I listened and I eventually had to politely interrupt her to say I agreed with her 100%. 110%. 500%.
Sometimes people surprise you.
Your company sounds like an awful place to work.
That's why I left.
And why I've always been fairly relaxed about "political correctness/woke gone mad" in the private sector*. Companies that persistently do stupid things and enact stupid policies will lose good people and, consequently, do less well (even beyond losing good people if they waste their employees time). The market will sort it out, most likely. Equally, companies with a sexist/racist/homophobic culture will like fail too. The ones that prosper will be those with a good atmosphere based on sensible policies, open debate and compromise.
*And, indeed, most of the public sector - people there will also leave jobs if it gets too painful, the exceptions perhaps being health care and teaching where there are fewer opportunities to change job without also changing career, the private sector roles being fewer in number.
I've got little time for this 'meh, it will sort itself out' argument, which is rather dismissive and lazy. You might well be "relaxed" about it - I can assure you the last two years have been anything but relaxing for me.
If (and it's a big "if") what you describe happens it will take years and years - there will be a lot of dislocated careers and upset people along the way, people who didn't necessarily want to leave or move in the first place.
It's far better for open conversations to take place across government, the civil service, the major corporates, the third sector and media *now* about what common sense looks like - and exert a bit of leadership on best practice and guidance.
Otherwise, radical activists will fill the void under cloak of inclusion and be misguidedly followed by far too many.
Aye, there's something in that. I'm not really sure how we get there though, good luck to anyone writing guidance. Unfortunately we probably need a few stupid employer decisions getting slapped down at tribunals/in the courts to help those that need it work out what is sane.
Mostly, I guess I'm relaxed because I don't see these problems day to day and neither do my colleagues, friends, family (at least, none have mentioned it). That makes me think the stupidity is far more limited than media reports would have us believe. I do accept there may be whole industries infected with stupidity, beyond my experience.
We have had unconscious bias training (mandatory only for those involved in hiring, although open to all, not sure if/when it has to be renewed) and - actually - it was good and well done, it gave me some things to think about. It went beyond the usual things into ageism etc. There's equalities monitoring, but transparency about how that is used (I mentioned the other day the example of finding that women apply for promotion later). That's about it. I don't have to put my pronouns on my emails. I'm allowed to talk about sex rather than gender in papers. And this is in a university, so - we'd be led to believe - it should be awful. It's not, not here.
I would be interested in some examples of the problems at your old employer, if you can provide suitably anonymous examples. As it's something I haven't really experienced, I do accept it's hard for me to judge.
On state subsidies it's probably one area where Dom Cummings was right in a sense that he saw where the world was going. The only way the west can compete with highly subsidised Chinese industries undercutting is to have our own. Getting rid of state aid rules was a deal breaker in the EU negotiations for this reason. The EU rules are going to be a huge problem for European countries in the next two decades as the US, Japan, Korea and maybe even the UK climb aboard the state aid train.
China has shown that a planned/command economy can be made to work. The rest of the world has realised that some of that can be transposed to their own countries as well. I expect the UK will have very large state subsidies for science and technology research/development in the next decade that wouldn't have been possible within the EU.
I have to admit, I don't feel comfortable with this train of thought.
The idea of the government picking winners I find to be very disturbing.
Maybe there's a better more competitive way to do it, where aid is possible without picking (or guaranteeing) winners. But I am uncomfortable with the entire notion even though I think you have a point.
The way to avoid picking winners, to a certain extent, is to subside/tax the real issue.
For example, a carbon tax/credits is a sensible way to reduce carbon usage, since the government isn't picking a specific winner.
Agreed. And if you want investment then tax breaks on investment.
Tax externalities, don't tax what you wish to encourage.
I'm much more comfortable with that. If that means we miss out on winners we could have chosen, I think I'm ok with that.
Most Conservatives see more to their philosophy than simply reducing barriers to the free movement of people, capital, and goods, which is why most Conservatives support Brexit.
Nobody who supports Brexit is a Conservative
Lower case c, Scott. Conservatives can be anything they want, including very un-conservative, as parties the world over do not match their name. Plenty of Liberal parties who are conservative.
But is an area where I get confused by the arguments. Some say Brexit was a very unconservative thing to do, others claim it was driven by conservative yearning for a 1950s heydey so was a very conservative thing.
Sometimes they claim both.
It's a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy. The only reliable indicator of a Conservative is whether they usually vote Conservative.
Except in Scottish council by elections.
I understand the local elections are suspended in Scotland now due to the May 2022 local elections
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
What evidence do you have that it's much exaggerated?
If anything, from anecdotal evidence from friends in academia, I think the study I cited above understates it. But I'm happy if you have evidence.
Personal experience, from studying for a PhD and working as a researcher. I've encountered academics from across the political spectrum. On average they skewed liberal/left for sure, but the idea that they represented some kind of monolith is laughable. Academics disagree with each other about everything.
I don't think anyone says they are a monolith. And yes of course they debate every point all the time. But all the evidence is that they skew far to the left of the general population, just as in parts of business they skew to the right.
On state subsidies it's probably one area where Dom Cummings was right in a sense that he saw where the world was going. The only way the west can compete with highly subsidised Chinese industries undercutting is to have our own. Getting rid of state aid rules was a deal breaker in the EU negotiations for this reason. The EU rules are going to be a huge problem for European countries in the next two decades as the US, Japan, Korea and maybe even the UK climb aboard the state aid train.
China has shown that a planned/command economy can be made to work. The rest of the world has realised that some of that can be transposed to their own countries as well. I expect the UK will have very large state subsidies for science and technology research/development in the next decade that wouldn't have been possible within the EU.
To a point. Another view is that China shows capitalism can flourish in the absence of democracy.
China is no longer Maoist but it is not capitalist and certainly not free market, it has more nationalised industries than any other nation in the world.
Businessmen and financiers also only operate in the market as long as they do what the Communist government tells them to do
c) Try this out. It is very very crude as stuff isn't linear which I am assuming it is but it will do for the explanation as otherwise it would be very complex
According to the internet the output from humans of CO2 through just breathing is about 1kg per day
Let us say the average profligate factor for a country is 'x' That is how many more times per head CO2 is produced in that economy
Let us say the population is 'y'
Let us say the birth rate is 'w'
Let us say a generation is replaced every 'z' years.
Let us say that the year you want to predict the CO2 output for is 'v' years away
The CO2 output for that country is then 1xywv/2z
[snip]
Now waiting for this absolute drivel of maths to be massacred as I know there are lot more able people on PB than me. Sorry!
In general you are right but there is a factorial change that you need to take into account. We're supposed to be getting to "net zero" where everyone is net responsible for zero emissions.
On your formula you can drop the 1 it isn't doing anything or necessary so xywv/2z is the formula.
Now swap out x for 0 since we've moved to net zero.
The formula then becomes 0ywv/2z = 0
w (and y) cease to matter once they're multiplied by 0. They only matter if we're not at zero.
So the technology to get us to zero is what matters. Once you've done that, then the quantity of people is irrelevant.
The 1 was there to show the 1 kg had been taken into account when multiplied by the profligation factor. It was in response to @HYUFD 's statement yesterday hence why I showed all of that, but other than the whopper of assumptions I made re being linear and not taking into account exponential growth that applies to births there is also a whopper of an error. Hint see what happens if you put in a prediction for 1 year away!
I don't want to embarrass myself any further.
Just trying to prove to HYUFD that population is a factor in CO2 production, which to be honest shouldn't need stating after all zero people produce none, some people produce some, lots of people produce more. For most people that is a given, but this is HYUFD we are dealing with.
Indeed but its only a factor if we've failed to reach net zero.
The issue is we're supposed to be using our technology to get to net zero. If we can get to net zero then it doesn't matter what our population is. 1 million, ten million, 7 billion or 50 billion - whatever figure you times by zero the answer is always zero.
I hate to say this but HYUFD is right on this one. For the wrong logic, but he's right. Technology is the key. If our technology makes us reach net zero then having double or half the population times by zero won't make any difference at all.
I don't disagree with that. Never did disagree with the issue (if you see the posts I agreed with HYUFD on that). It is the bloody logic that gets me.
Sadly I think if we are going to get out of the mess it may be that we do have to rely on technology like carbon capture (I don't see us doing it any other way) before it is too late as I don't see other technical advancements coming in time. I'm not sure how that works in a capitalist world though.
Of course if we overcome the carbon issue, population growth will bring the next lot of issues with it (water, food, etc). I am very pro population control as a solution (not in the Hitler type of way) as that can be very rapid (within a generation). It does mean though we can't have constant growth and there are a multitude of other problems like the age issue to deal with also with this approach, which means many don't like it. I suspect you may be in that camp.
Re HYUFD: As always with him it is the logic and only the logic. I mean he made the point that the West is more polluting than Africa, particularly per head with which I agree (I mean how can you disagree?). I have now had 4 arguments with him recently and out of those 4 I have actually agreed with him on the point he was making on 3 of them. I know, why the hell am I arguing with him if I agree with him? But he comes out with these 'mad as a frog in a box' deductions, which he did yesterday that was completely unfounded in any logic whatsoever. And although umpteen people tell him he just can't get it. I am baffled as to how someone can't see this stuff. To me he is unique. It seems to be an extreme case of the Kruger Dunning effect when it comes to deduction.
It is like having a family argument and suddenly you find your mad uncle is supporting you. Anyone sensible would ignore it, but me, I stupidly go and have an argument with my mad uncle instead because I am embarrassed to have my opinion supported by irrational arguments.
I agree with you on the issues with a certain other poster's logic (in general).
However on the issue with the environment the only thing that matters is technology. Realistically if we get to net zero by 2050 then we've achieved what we need to achieve - and if we haven't we've failed. But that only leaves us 28 years and two months until we reach 2050. Knock off nine months for pregnancies and you're talking 27 years and five months.
Being completely realistic the overwhelming majority of those who will be alive in 2050 are those who are alive or conceived already today.
There simply isn't the time or the possibility to affect population figures meaningfully in the next 27 years. Whether in that time you increase population by 2% or drop it by 2% is pretty irrelevant.
The only tool in our arsenal is technology, not population.
But 2050 is an utterly artificial date with no relevance in the real world. It is a target set up to try and force Governments to meet their commitments and although that is perfectly sensible, it should not be considered as anything more than that.
If the wider issue over and above climate change is population size (as I and many others believe it to be) then saying we can't do anything about it in the next 27 years as if that means we should not bother is a completely straw man argument. Yes technology will help us with net zero. It will not necessarily help us with the many other issues affecting the world some of which are even more serious. And it definitely won't help us if we don't recognise the problems in the first place. Technology only helps when it is properly directed to address the problems.
Now actually it appears that the best way to reduce global populations is to make everyone middle class - or some such equivalent. First world countries have reducing birth rates and the richer the country the more stable the natural population (excluding, for a moment, migration). What we should be aiming to do is massively improve living conditions and wealth in Africa, India and other Third World countries. In the long run that will do far more for our environment than any short term technological stop gaps.
Though of course the only way to do that without completely busting the CO2 targets is huge deployment of renewable and/or nuclear generation.
The corollary of large amounts of new solar generation is large amounts of surplus power at very low marginal costs - which makes storage and/or synthetic fuels from CO2 very attractive areas for commercial development.
The market can deliver if given a strong enough signal from government (carbon taxes are an example).
That is some going. My aim each year is to read at least 100 books. It is my one ongoing resolution each January and most of the time I manage it. My record is 122 books in one year.
But he didn't have PB did he? Other internet distractions are also available of course.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
The left wing bias in academia has got stronger and stronger but I think it’s because, at some stage, the right wing gave up on facts.
Right wing academics do still exist, quite vocally, but they are definitely a minority. As usual though I think social media and noise exaggerate the size of the full-on left wing contingent in academia. I know a few people working in research, and most are soft centre-left or liberal types. But they just get on with their work and don't make a noise. The ones who shout loudest are those with more of a hard-left axe to grind. So the decibel meter distorts the reality as usual.
My experience too. The characteristics that push people into academia - an open and enquiring mind, pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake, a desire to impart knowledge to the next generation, an empirical and sceptical bent, tolerance for relatively low pay - tend to be found at higher frequency among those of a liberal frame of mind. A similar kind of self selection bias explains why professions like the police and financial services attract more right wing people. The desire by some on the Right to demonise those with higher levels of education, basically because we can see through their bullshit, is one of the less pleasant developments of recent years.
Sometimes, I feel you're making progress - and then you post something utterly retarded like this.
You're the pb equivalent of Drew Barrymore in 50 First Dates: @OnlyLivingBoy stars in 50 First Posts - tediously rehearsing the same arguments on the same subjects each and every day, before clearing the cache overnight and going right back to square one the next.
I'm honoured to be compared to Drew Barrymore. Don't use words like "retarded" though, please. Not only does it cross the line in terms of personal abuse (a recurring problem for you, sadly) but it is also an unacceptable word to use.
Words and phrases you've used today: "the right wing gave up on facts", "(right wing) bullshit" and implying that right-wing people are idiots. No doubt you'll play dumb and cry foul now but you know precisely what you're doing.
I will take absolutely no lectures from you.
I'm not asking you to take any lectures. I'm simply asking you not to call me "retarded", both because it is a needlessly personal attack and because it is an unacceptable slur against people with learning disabilities. I also reject your characterisation of my contributions as implying that right of centre people are idiots, as nowhere did I say that and nor do I think it. I reiterate that you should withdraw your use of this unacceptable slur and try to contribute to the debate rationally and calmly if you can.
Stalin was remarkably well-read too, he managed about 15,000.
Tractor stats ?
Probably not. Like Gladstone, he annotated his books.
I read in a comedy piece many years ago that people had analysed Stalin's annotations, and considered that they showed he was probably a lonely figure based on them, with the comment by the piece being 'That's what happens when you kill everyone you know!'
That is some going. My aim each year is to read at least 100 books. It is my one ongoing resolution each January and most of the time I manage it. My record is 122 books in one year.
But he didn't have PB did he? Other internet distractions are also available of course.
Indeed, Gladstone lived in a time when there was no TV and no internet and not even radio.
Reading was the main pastime for the educated at home
c) Try this out. It is very very crude as stuff isn't linear which I am assuming it is but it will do for the explanation as otherwise it would be very complex
According to the internet the output from humans of CO2 through just breathing is about 1kg per day
Let us say the average profligate factor for a country is 'x' That is how many more times per head CO2 is produced in that economy
Let us say the population is 'y'
Let us say the birth rate is 'w'
Let us say a generation is replaced every 'z' years.
Let us say that the year you want to predict the CO2 output for is 'v' years away
The CO2 output for that country is then 1xywv/2z
[snip]
Now waiting for this absolute drivel of maths to be massacred as I know there are lot more able people on PB than me. Sorry!
In general you are right but there is a factorial change that you need to take into account. We're supposed to be getting to "net zero" where everyone is net responsible for zero emissions.
On your formula you can drop the 1 it isn't doing anything or necessary so xywv/2z is the formula.
Now swap out x for 0 since we've moved to net zero.
The formula then becomes 0ywv/2z = 0
w (and y) cease to matter once they're multiplied by 0. They only matter if we're not at zero.
So the technology to get us to zero is what matters. Once you've done that, then the quantity of people is irrelevant.
The 1 was there to show the 1 kg had been taken into account when multiplied by the profligation factor. It was in response to @HYUFD 's statement yesterday hence why I showed all of that, but other than the whopper of assumptions I made re being linear and not taking into account exponential growth that applies to births there is also a whopper of an error. Hint see what happens if you put in a prediction for 1 year away!
I don't want to embarrass myself any further.
Just trying to prove to HYUFD that population is a factor in CO2 production, which to be honest shouldn't need stating after all zero people produce none, some people produce some, lots of people produce more. For most people that is a given, but this is HYUFD we are dealing with.
Indeed but its only a factor if we've failed to reach net zero.
The issue is we're supposed to be using our technology to get to net zero. If we can get to net zero then it doesn't matter what our population is. 1 million, ten million, 7 billion or 50 billion - whatever figure you times by zero the answer is always zero.
I hate to say this but HYUFD is right on this one. For the wrong logic, but he's right. Technology is the key. If our technology makes us reach net zero then having double or half the population times by zero won't make any difference at all.
I don't disagree with that. Never did disagree with the issue (if you see the posts I agreed with HYUFD on that). It is the bloody logic that gets me.
Sadly I think if we are going to get out of the mess it may be that we do have to rely on technology like carbon capture (I don't see us doing it any other way) before it is too late as I don't see other technical advancements coming in time. I'm not sure how that works in a capitalist world though.
Of course if we overcome the carbon issue, population growth will bring the next lot of issues with it (water, food, etc). I am very pro population control as a solution (not in the Hitler type of way) as that can be very rapid (within a generation). It does mean though we can't have constant growth and there are a multitude of other problems like the age issue to deal with also with this approach, which means many don't like it. I suspect you may be in that camp.
Re HYUFD: As always with him it is the logic and only the logic. I mean he made the point that the West is more polluting than Africa, particularly per head with which I agree (I mean how can you disagree?). I have now had 4 arguments with him recently and out of those 4 I have actually agreed with him on the point he was making on 3 of them. I know, why the hell am I arguing with him if I agree with him? But he comes out with these 'mad as a frog in a box' deductions, which he did yesterday that was completely unfounded in any logic whatsoever. And although umpteen people tell him he just can't get it. I am baffled as to how someone can't see this stuff. To me he is unique. It seems to be an extreme case of the Kruger Dunning effect when it comes to deduction.
It is like having a family argument and suddenly you find your mad uncle is supporting you. Anyone sensible would ignore it, but me, I stupidly go and have an argument with my mad uncle instead because I am embarrassed to have my opinion supported by irrational arguments.
I agree with you on the issues with a certain other poster's logic (in general).
However on the issue with the environment the only thing that matters is technology. Realistically if we get to net zero by 2050 then we've achieved what we need to achieve - and if we haven't we've failed. But that only leaves us 28 years and two months until we reach 2050. Knock off nine months for pregnancies and you're talking 27 years and five months.
Being completely realistic the overwhelming majority of those who will be alive in 2050 are those who are alive or conceived already today.
There simply isn't the time or the possibility to affect population figures meaningfully in the next 27 years. Whether in that time you increase population by 2% or drop it by 2% is pretty irrelevant.
The only tool in our arsenal is technology, not population.
But 2050 is an utterly artificial date with no relevance in the real world. It is a target set up to try and force Governments to meet their commitments and although that is perfectly sensible, it should not be considered as anything more than that.
If the wider issue over and above climate change is population size (as I and many others believe it to be) then saying we can't do anything about it in the next 27 years as if that means we should not bother is a completely straw man argument. Yes technology will help us with net zero. It will not necessarily help us with the many other issues affecting the world some of which are even more serious. And it definitely won't help us if we don't recognise the problems in the first place. Technology only helps when it is properly directed to address the problems.
Now actually it appears that the best way to reduce global populations is to make everyone middle class - or some such equivalent. First world countries have reducing birth rates and the richer the country the more stable the natural population (excluding, for a moment, migration). What we should be aiming to do is massively improve living conditions and wealth in Africa, India and other Third World countries. In the long run that will do far more for our environment than any short term technological stop gaps.
I agree with almost all of that, but the discussion was originally on carbon emissions. Quite simply there is no chance of population changes making any real impact on carbon and climate change due to carbon emissions, before its made redundant.
Now you may believe that population levels are a concern for other reasons (I don't) but those other reasons remain the issue not carbon - trying to tack on population concerns for other reasons onto the carbon issue isn't going to get very far realistically.
I also completely agree with your conclusion. I think we should ensure is able to go 'middle class' because its the right thing to do in its own right, plus as you say it will bring down birth rates. So even if you're not bothered by population levels as I'm not, we still reach the same conclusion on that one even from differing starting points.
Good reply.
I think the fundamental difference is you don't think population growth is an issue and we do and it really just boils down to that. I am assuming that your view is that each of the issues that population growth brings are an opportunity for technology to solve.
Although I disagree it may not be unfounded. I grew up in the era where we were panicking we were going to run out of fossil fuel and also how we were going to prevent the upcoming ice age. See how they turned out.
So the latest ONS survey shows 1 in 12 secondary school children (between years 7 and 11, so 11-15 year olds) have Covid, with no sign of the trend abating.
In ways that is impressively high. It will run out of targets before we get round to vaccinating that age group at this rate.
Mr. kle4, the most annoying thing is that Justinian had the strength to destroy the nascent Ostrogothic kingdom but not sufficient to replace it. So he just destabilised Italy for a small enclave (that proved less useful than the Exarchate of Carthage the following century). Worse still, King Odoacer[sp] was very amenable to good relations with the Empire. *sighs*
Justinian would almost certainly have been entirely happy with Amalasuntha as Queen. The problem is the Goths had a succession of coups and usurpers.
An easy victory in North Africa persuaded him that the same was possible in Italy.
c) Try this out. It is very very crude as stuff isn't linear which I am assuming it is but it will do for the explanation as otherwise it would be very complex
According to the internet the output from humans of CO2 through just breathing is about 1kg per day
Let us say the average profligate factor for a country is 'x' That is how many more times per head CO2 is produced in that economy
Let us say the population is 'y'
Let us say the birth rate is 'w'
Let us say a generation is replaced every 'z' years.
Let us say that the year you want to predict the CO2 output for is 'v' years away
The CO2 output for that country is then 1xywv/2z
[snip]
Now waiting for this absolute drivel of maths to be massacred as I know there are lot more able people on PB than me. Sorry!
In general you are right but there is a factorial change that you need to take into account. We're supposed to be getting to "net zero" where everyone is net responsible for zero emissions.
On your formula you can drop the 1 it isn't doing anything or necessary so xywv/2z is the formula.
Now swap out x for 0 since we've moved to net zero.
The formula then becomes 0ywv/2z = 0
w (and y) cease to matter once they're multiplied by 0. They only matter if we're not at zero.
So the technology to get us to zero is what matters. Once you've done that, then the quantity of people is irrelevant.
The 1 was there to show the 1 kg had been taken into account when multiplied by the profligation factor. It was in response to @HYUFD 's statement yesterday hence why I showed all of that, but other than the whopper of assumptions I made re being linear and not taking into account exponential growth that applies to births there is also a whopper of an error. Hint see what happens if you put in a prediction for 1 year away!
I don't want to embarrass myself any further.
Just trying to prove to HYUFD that population is a factor in CO2 production, which to be honest shouldn't need stating after all zero people produce none, some people produce some, lots of people produce more. For most people that is a given, but this is HYUFD we are dealing with.
Indeed but its only a factor if we've failed to reach net zero.
The issue is we're supposed to be using our technology to get to net zero. If we can get to net zero then it doesn't matter what our population is. 1 million, ten million, 7 billion or 50 billion - whatever figure you times by zero the answer is always zero.
I hate to say this but HYUFD is right on this one. For the wrong logic, but he's right. Technology is the key. If our technology makes us reach net zero then having double or half the population times by zero won't make any difference at all.
I don't disagree with that. Never did disagree with the issue (if you see the posts I agreed with HYUFD on that). It is the bloody logic that gets me.
Sadly I think if we are going to get out of the mess it may be that we do have to rely on technology like carbon capture (I don't see us doing it any other way) before it is too late as I don't see other technical advancements coming in time. I'm not sure how that works in a capitalist world though.
Of course if we overcome the carbon issue, population growth will bring the next lot of issues with it (water, food, etc). I am very pro population control as a solution (not in the Hitler type of way) as that can be very rapid (within a generation). It does mean though we can't have constant growth and there are a multitude of other problems like the age issue to deal with also with this approach, which means many don't like it. I suspect you may be in that camp.
Re HYUFD: As always with him it is the logic and only the logic. I mean he made the point that the West is more polluting than Africa, particularly per head with which I agree (I mean how can you disagree?). I have now had 4 arguments with him recently and out of those 4 I have actually agreed with him on the point he was making on 3 of them. I know, why the hell am I arguing with him if I agree with him? But he comes out with these 'mad as a frog in a box' deductions, which he did yesterday that was completely unfounded in any logic whatsoever. And although umpteen people tell him he just can't get it. I am baffled as to how someone can't see this stuff. To me he is unique. It seems to be an extreme case of the Kruger Dunning effect when it comes to deduction.
It is like having a family argument and suddenly you find your mad uncle is supporting you. Anyone sensible would ignore it, but me, I stupidly go and have an argument with my mad uncle instead because I am embarrassed to have my opinion supported by irrational arguments.
I agree with you on the issues with a certain other poster's logic (in general).
However on the issue with the environment the only thing that matters is technology. Realistically if we get to net zero by 2050 then we've achieved what we need to achieve - and if we haven't we've failed. But that only leaves us 28 years and two months until we reach 2050. Knock off nine months for pregnancies and you're talking 27 years and five months.
Being completely realistic the overwhelming majority of those who will be alive in 2050 are those who are alive or conceived already today.
There simply isn't the time or the possibility to affect population figures meaningfully in the next 27 years. Whether in that time you increase population by 2% or drop it by 2% is pretty irrelevant.
The only tool in our arsenal is technology, not population.
But 2050 is an utterly artificial date with no relevance in the real world. It is a target set up to try and force Governments to meet their commitments and although that is perfectly sensible, it should not be considered as anything more than that.
If the wider issue over and above climate change is population size (as I and many others believe it to be) then saying we can't do anything about it in the next 27 years as if that means we should not bother is a completely straw man argument. Yes technology will help us with net zero. It will not necessarily help us with the many other issues affecting the world some of which are even more serious. And it definitely won't help us if we don't recognise the problems in the first place. Technology only helps when it is properly directed to address the problems.
Now actually it appears that the best way to reduce global populations is to make everyone middle class - or some such equivalent. First world countries have reducing birth rates and the richer the country the more stable the natural population (excluding, for a moment, migration). What we should be aiming to do is massively improve living conditions and wealth in Africa, India and other Third World countries. In the long run that will do far more for our environment than any short term technological stop gaps.
I've liked, but I wanted to do more than just that. I wanted to say I liked, because I liked it so much. I waste so many words and say so much less.
Yes, and it is the answer to those doomsters who say well if everyone had western standards of living the planet would enormously overheat. I think what we will find is that as poverty is alleviated there are fewer of us even if we all produce more carbon per capita.
On state subsidies it's probably one area where Dom Cummings was right in a sense that he saw where the world was going. The only way the west can compete with highly subsidised Chinese industries undercutting is to have our own. Getting rid of state aid rules was a deal breaker in the EU negotiations for this reason. The EU rules are going to be a huge problem for European countries in the next two decades as the US, Japan, Korea and maybe even the UK climb aboard the state aid train.
China has shown that a planned/command economy can be made to work. The rest of the world has realised that some of that can be transposed to their own countries as well. I expect the UK will have very large state subsidies for science and technology research/development in the next decade that wouldn't have been possible within the EU.
I have to admit, I don't feel comfortable with this train of thought.
The idea of the government picking winners I find to be very disturbing.
Maybe there's a better more competitive way to do it, where aid is possible without picking (or guaranteeing) winners. But I am uncomfortable with the entire notion even though I think you have a point.
I think you can do something with market mechanisms where it doesn't involve a committee approving bids from companies. Think of things like the prize for an accurate clock, or providing capacity payments for back-up electricity supply.
That then provides greater rewards for success, without HMG having to judge who will be successful.
Then the other thing to do would be to make it easier to take a risk, cheaper financing, perhaps, or other changes that lower barriers to entry.
That is some going. My aim each year is to read at least 100 books. It is my one ongoing resolution each January and most of the time I manage it. My record is 122 books in one year.
But he didn't have PB did he? Other internet distractions are also available of course.
Indeed, Gladstone lived in a time when there was no TV and no internet and not even radio.
Reading was the main pastime for the educated at home
I think this is a really interesting point. My wife reads hugely, and does so with the TV in the background. She will happily plough throw multiple books a week, as does her mother. Sadly, Mills and Boon for the MiL, and fantasy for my wife, so no great improving reads there...
c) Try this out. It is very very crude as stuff isn't linear which I am assuming it is but it will do for the explanation as otherwise it would be very complex
According to the internet the output from humans of CO2 through just breathing is about 1kg per day
Let us say the average profligate factor for a country is 'x' That is how many more times per head CO2 is produced in that economy
Let us say the population is 'y'
Let us say the birth rate is 'w'
Let us say a generation is replaced every 'z' years.
Let us say that the year you want to predict the CO2 output for is 'v' years away
The CO2 output for that country is then 1xywv/2z
[snip]
Now waiting for this absolute drivel of maths to be massacred as I know there are lot more able people on PB than me. Sorry!
In general you are right but there is a factorial change that you need to take into account. We're supposed to be getting to "net zero" where everyone is net responsible for zero emissions.
On your formula you can drop the 1 it isn't doing anything or necessary so xywv/2z is the formula.
Now swap out x for 0 since we've moved to net zero.
The formula then becomes 0ywv/2z = 0
w (and y) cease to matter once they're multiplied by 0. They only matter if we're not at zero.
So the technology to get us to zero is what matters. Once you've done that, then the quantity of people is irrelevant.
The 1 was there to show the 1 kg had been taken into account when multiplied by the profligation factor. It was in response to @HYUFD 's statement yesterday hence why I showed all of that, but other than the whopper of assumptions I made re being linear and not taking into account exponential growth that applies to births there is also a whopper of an error. Hint see what happens if you put in a prediction for 1 year away!
I don't want to embarrass myself any further.
Just trying to prove to HYUFD that population is a factor in CO2 production, which to be honest shouldn't need stating after all zero people produce none, some people produce some, lots of people produce more. For most people that is a given, but this is HYUFD we are dealing with.
Indeed but its only a factor if we've failed to reach net zero.
The issue is we're supposed to be using our technology to get to net zero. If we can get to net zero then it doesn't matter what our population is. 1 million, ten million, 7 billion or 50 billion - whatever figure you times by zero the answer is always zero.
I hate to say this but HYUFD is right on this one. For the wrong logic, but he's right. Technology is the key. If our technology makes us reach net zero then having double or half the population times by zero won't make any difference at all.
I don't disagree with that. Never did disagree with the issue (if you see the posts I agreed with HYUFD on that). It is the bloody logic that gets me.
Sadly I think if we are going to get out of the mess it may be that we do have to rely on technology like carbon capture (I don't see us doing it any other way) before it is too late as I don't see other technical advancements coming in time. I'm not sure how that works in a capitalist world though.
Of course if we overcome the carbon issue, population growth will bring the next lot of issues with it (water, food, etc). I am very pro population control as a solution (not in the Hitler type of way) as that can be very rapid (within a generation). It does mean though we can't have constant growth and there are a multitude of other problems like the age issue to deal with also with this approach, which means many don't like it. I suspect you may be in that camp.
Re HYUFD: As always with him it is the logic and only the logic. I mean he made the point that the West is more polluting than Africa, particularly per head with which I agree (I mean how can you disagree?). I have now had 4 arguments with him recently and out of those 4 I have actually agreed with him on the point he was making on 3 of them. I know, why the hell am I arguing with him if I agree with him? But he comes out with these 'mad as a frog in a box' deductions, which he did yesterday that was completely unfounded in any logic whatsoever. And although umpteen people tell him he just can't get it. I am baffled as to how someone can't see this stuff. To me he is unique. It seems to be an extreme case of the Kruger Dunning effect when it comes to deduction.
It is like having a family argument and suddenly you find your mad uncle is supporting you. Anyone sensible would ignore it, but me, I stupidly go and have an argument with my mad uncle instead because I am embarrassed to have my opinion supported by irrational arguments.
I agree with you on the issues with a certain other poster's logic (in general).
However on the issue with the environment the only thing that matters is technology. Realistically if we get to net zero by 2050 then we've achieved what we need to achieve - and if we haven't we've failed. But that only leaves us 28 years and two months until we reach 2050. Knock off nine months for pregnancies and you're talking 27 years and five months.
Being completely realistic the overwhelming majority of those who will be alive in 2050 are those who are alive or conceived already today.
There simply isn't the time or the possibility to affect population figures meaningfully in the next 27 years. Whether in that time you increase population by 2% or drop it by 2% is pretty irrelevant.
The only tool in our arsenal is technology, not population.
But 2050 is an utterly artificial date with no relevance in the real world. It is a target set up to try and force Governments to meet their commitments and although that is perfectly sensible, it should not be considered as anything more than that.
If the wider issue over and above climate change is population size (as I and many others believe it to be) then saying we can't do anything about it in the next 27 years as if that means we should not bother is a completely straw man argument. Yes technology will help us with net zero. It will not necessarily help us with the many other issues affecting the world some of which are even more serious. And it definitely won't help us if we don't recognise the problems in the first place. Technology only helps when it is properly directed to address the problems.
Now actually it appears that the best way to reduce global populations is to make everyone middle class - or some such equivalent. First world countries have reducing birth rates and the richer the country the more stable the natural population (excluding, for a moment, migration). What we should be aiming to do is massively improve living conditions and wealth in Africa, India and other Third World countries. In the long run that will do far more for our environment than any short term technological stop gaps.
Yes, agree completely - not quite sure about the middle class bit though. Just a bit to add.
There are three things, interrelated to a significant extent, that reduce birth rates:
1. Economic development/progress. 2. Reduced infant mortality rates through better health care/education etc. 3. The education of women and girls.
Any country that makes significant progress on all three will see, as if by magic, their birth rate decline.
That is some going. My aim each year is to read at least 100 books. It is my one ongoing resolution each January and most of the time I manage it. My record is 122 books in one year.
But he didn't have PB did he? Other internet distractions are also available of course.
Indeed, Gladstone lived in a time when there was no TV and no internet and not even radio.
Reading was the main pastime for the educated at home
Gladstone had other pastimes though; quite time-consuming ones, AIUI.
Stalin was remarkably well-read too, he managed about 15,000.
Tractor stats ?
Probably not. Like Gladstone, he annotated his books.
I read in a comedy piece many years ago that people had analysed Stalin's annotations, and considered that they showed he was probably a lonely figure based on them, with the comment by the piece being 'That's what happens when you kill everyone you know!'
Yeh, I think that being Stalin's friend was as dangerous as being his enemy,.
Regarding Brexit, I think it is possible that it will end up getting cancelled. A few people will be fuming; but most will just shrug their shoulders and get on with life.
Not a chance in hell.
It can't be cancelled, it's happened. And it won't be reversed either.
Neither politicians nor the public are going to want to go through that again, and even if we did have a collective reversal the French would say non.
England will never again be a part of the EU.
It can. All it takes is for a government consumed by woke thinking to declare the whole thing as racist and proscribe any opposition to rejoining the EU on the same grounds. And then they can just sign us back up again on whatever terms the EU demand. You think that this is mad but that is how a lot of woke remainers think.
Or perhaps more accurately, how you think 'a lot of woke remainers' think. You have at least given us some insight into how you think...
I had my company leaving drinks last night. I was sitting in the corner with an ex-colleague (alumni of the firm) who's a very dark skinned female Egyptian in her mid-40s who - totally unprompted - spent 3 minutes ranting to me about how Woke the firm had become and how it was totally OTT. We were both slightly worse for wear but she was fed up being categorised and its divisiveness.
An ever bigger smile crept across my face as I listened and I eventually had to politely interrupt her to say I agreed with her 100%. 110%. 500%.
Sometimes people surprise you.
Your company sounds like an awful place to work.
That's why I left.
And why I've always been fairly relaxed about "political correctness/woke gone mad" in the private sector*. Companies that persistently do stupid things and enact stupid policies will lose good people and, consequently, do less well (even beyond losing good people if they waste their employees time). The market will sort it out, most likely. Equally, companies with a sexist/racist/homophobic culture will like fail too. The ones that prosper will be those with a good atmosphere based on sensible policies, open debate and compromise.
*And, indeed, most of the public sector - people there will also leave jobs if it gets too painful, the exceptions perhaps being health care and teaching where there are fewer opportunities to change job without also changing career, the private sector roles being fewer in number.
I've got little time for this 'meh, it will sort itself out' argument, which is rather dismissive and lazy. You might well be "relaxed" about it - I can assure you the last two years have been anything but relaxing for me.
If (and it's a big "if") what you describe happens it will take years and years - there will be a lot of dislocated careers and upset people along the way, people who didn't necessarily want to leave or move in the first place.
It's far better for open conversations to take place across government, the civil service, the major corporates, the third sector and media *now* about what common sense looks like - and exert a bit of leadership on best practice and guidance.
Otherwise, radical activists will fill the void under cloak of inclusion and be misguidedly followed by far too many.
Aye, there's something in that. I'm not really sure how we get there though, good luck to anyone writing guidance. Unfortunately we probably need a few stupid employer decisions getting slapped down at tribunals/in the courts to help those that need it work out what is sane.
Mostly, I guess I'm relaxed because I don't see these problems day to day and neither do my colleagues, friends, family (at least, none have mentioned it). That makes me think the stupidity is far more limited than media reports would have us believe. I do accept there may be whole industries infected with stupidity, beyond my experience.
We have had unconscious bias training (mandatory only for those involved in hiring, although open to all, not sure if/when it has to be renewed) and - actually - it was good and well done, it gave me some things to think about. It went beyond the usual things into ageism etc. There's equalities monitoring, but transparency about how that is used (I mentioned the other day the example of finding that women apply for promotion later). That's about it. I don't have to put my pronouns on my emails. I'm allowed to talk about sex rather than gender in papers. And this is in a university, so - we'd be led to believe - it should be awful. It's not, not here.
I would be interested in some examples of the problems at your old employer, if you can provide suitably anonymous examples. As it's something I haven't really experienced, I do accept it's hard for me to judge.
Pretty much the same with me, both on the hospital side and the Medical School side. I haven't either run across it or people getting hot under the collar about it.
We did have an interesting discussion the other day on the hospital trans-gender policy. The issue is that we have to correctly identify a patient for medication, blood transfusions, procedures requiring consent etc. As such we have to use the official registered name to do so, against name band, hospital notes, etc etc. This does to an extent clash with transgender policy on preferred name. It was more a discussion on sorting out procedures than anything contentious though.
On state subsidies it's probably one area where Dom Cummings was right in a sense that he saw where the world was going. The only way the west can compete with highly subsidised Chinese industries undercutting is to have our own. Getting rid of state aid rules was a deal breaker in the EU negotiations for this reason. The EU rules are going to be a huge problem for European countries in the next two decades as the US, Japan, Korea and maybe even the UK climb aboard the state aid train.
China has shown that a planned/command economy can be made to work. The rest of the world has realised that some of that can be transposed to their own countries as well. I expect the UK will have very large state subsidies for science and technology research/development in the next decade that wouldn't have been possible within the EU.
I have to admit, I don't feel comfortable with this train of thought.
The idea of the government picking winners I find to be very disturbing.
Maybe there's a better more competitive way to do it, where aid is possible without picking (or guaranteeing) winners. But I am uncomfortable with the entire notion even though I think you have a point.
I think you can do something with market mechanisms where it doesn't involve a committee approving bids from companies. Think of things like the prize for an accurate clock, or providing capacity payments for back-up electricity supply.
That then provides greater rewards for success, without HMG having to judge who will be successful.
Then the other thing to do would be to make it easier to take a risk, cheaper financing, perhaps, or other changes that lower barriers to entry.
So years ago I used to advocate a DARPA style organisation for the UK
I realised how dangerous an idea that was when I realised that politicians liked the concept, apart from the not-picking-winners thing.
Which is the whole point - you fund a range of research projects in an area, cheaply and see what happens.
On state subsidies it's probably one area where Dom Cummings was right in a sense that he saw where the world was going. The only way the west can compete with highly subsidised Chinese industries undercutting is to have our own. Getting rid of state aid rules was a deal breaker in the EU negotiations for this reason. The EU rules are going to be a huge problem for European countries in the next two decades as the US, Japan, Korea and maybe even the UK climb aboard the state aid train.
China has shown that a planned/command economy can be made to work. The rest of the world has realised that some of that can be transposed to their own countries as well. I expect the UK will have very large state subsidies for science and technology research/development in the next decade that wouldn't have been possible within the EU.
I have to admit, I don't feel comfortable with this train of though.
The idea of the government picking winners I find to be very disturbing.
Maybe there's a better more competitive way to do it, where aid is possible without picking (or guaranteeing) winners. But I am uncomfortable with the entire notion even though I think you have a point.
Yes. I think the correct approach is for government to subsidise corporate investment in capital and R&D in general, rather than trying to be specific and pick winners.
The likes of Intel know that governments are waking up to the effects of the chip shortage, and seeking to play them off against each other in a subsidy war.
I don't think this has very much to do with picking winners - who those are is already pretty clear in the semiconductor sector. It's about encouraging the sector to have a larger presence in the EU. As I said, we have no choice in the matter, as the option is no longer open to us.
c) Try this out. It is very very crude as stuff isn't linear which I am assuming it is but it will do for the explanation as otherwise it would be very complex
According to the internet the output from humans of CO2 through just breathing is about 1kg per day
Let us say the average profligate factor for a country is 'x' That is how many more times per head CO2 is produced in that economy
Let us say the population is 'y'
Let us say the birth rate is 'w'
Let us say a generation is replaced every 'z' years.
Let us say that the year you want to predict the CO2 output for is 'v' years away
The CO2 output for that country is then 1xywv/2z
[snip]
Now waiting for this absolute drivel of maths to be massacred as I know there are lot more able people on PB than me. Sorry!
In general you are right but there is a factorial change that you need to take into account. We're supposed to be getting to "net zero" where everyone is net responsible for zero emissions.
On your formula you can drop the 1 it isn't doing anything or necessary so xywv/2z is the formula.
Now swap out x for 0 since we've moved to net zero.
The formula then becomes 0ywv/2z = 0
w (and y) cease to matter once they're multiplied by 0. They only matter if we're not at zero.
So the technology to get us to zero is what matters. Once you've done that, then the quantity of people is irrelevant.
The 1 was there to show the 1 kg had been taken into account when multiplied by the profligation factor. It was in response to @HYUFD 's statement yesterday hence why I showed all of that, but other than the whopper of assumptions I made re being linear and not taking into account exponential growth that applies to births there is also a whopper of an error. Hint see what happens if you put in a prediction for 1 year away!
I don't want to embarrass myself any further.
Just trying to prove to HYUFD that population is a factor in CO2 production, which to be honest shouldn't need stating after all zero people produce none, some people produce some, lots of people produce more. For most people that is a given, but this is HYUFD we are dealing with.
Indeed but its only a factor if we've failed to reach net zero.
The issue is we're supposed to be using our technology to get to net zero. If we can get to net zero then it doesn't matter what our population is. 1 million, ten million, 7 billion or 50 billion - whatever figure you times by zero the answer is always zero.
I hate to say this but HYUFD is right on this one. For the wrong logic, but he's right. Technology is the key. If our technology makes us reach net zero then having double or half the population times by zero won't make any difference at all.
I don't disagree with that. Never did disagree with the issue (if you see the posts I agreed with HYUFD on that). It is the bloody logic that gets me.
Sadly I think if we are going to get out of the mess it may be that we do have to rely on technology like carbon capture (I don't see us doing it any other way) before it is too late as I don't see other technical advancements coming in time. I'm not sure how that works in a capitalist world though.
Of course if we overcome the carbon issue, population growth will bring the next lot of issues with it (water, food, etc). I am very pro population control as a solution (not in the Hitler type of way) as that can be very rapid (within a generation). It does mean though we can't have constant growth and there are a multitude of other problems like the age issue to deal with also with this approach, which means many don't like it. I suspect you may be in that camp.
Re HYUFD: As always with him it is the logic and only the logic. I mean he made the point that the West is more polluting than Africa, particularly per head with which I agree (I mean how can you disagree?). I have now had 4 arguments with him recently and out of those 4 I have actually agreed with him on the point he was making on 3 of them. I know, why the hell am I arguing with him if I agree with him? But he comes out with these 'mad as a frog in a box' deductions, which he did yesterday that was completely unfounded in any logic whatsoever. And although umpteen people tell him he just can't get it. I am baffled as to how someone can't see this stuff. To me he is unique. It seems to be an extreme case of the Kruger Dunning effect when it comes to deduction.
It is like having a family argument and suddenly you find your mad uncle is supporting you. Anyone sensible would ignore it, but me, I stupidly go and have an argument with my mad uncle instead because I am embarrassed to have my opinion supported by irrational arguments.
I agree with you on the issues with a certain other poster's logic (in general).
However on the issue with the environment the only thing that matters is technology. Realistically if we get to net zero by 2050 then we've achieved what we need to achieve - and if we haven't we've failed. But that only leaves us 28 years and two months until we reach 2050. Knock off nine months for pregnancies and you're talking 27 years and five months.
Being completely realistic the overwhelming majority of those who will be alive in 2050 are those who are alive or conceived already today.
There simply isn't the time or the possibility to affect population figures meaningfully in the next 27 years. Whether in that time you increase population by 2% or drop it by 2% is pretty irrelevant.
The only tool in our arsenal is technology, not population.
But 2050 is an utterly artificial date with no relevance in the real world. It is a target set up to try and force Governments to meet their commitments and although that is perfectly sensible, it should not be considered as anything more than that.
If the wider issue over and above climate change is population size (as I and many others believe it to be) then saying we can't do anything about it in the next 27 years as if that means we should not bother is a completely straw man argument. Yes technology will help us with net zero. It will not necessarily help us with the many other issues affecting the world some of which are even more serious. And it definitely won't help us if we don't recognise the problems in the first place. Technology only helps when it is properly directed to address the problems.
Now actually it appears that the best way to reduce global populations is to make everyone middle class - or some such equivalent. First world countries have reducing birth rates and the richer the country the more stable the natural population (excluding, for a moment, migration). What we should be aiming to do is massively improve living conditions and wealth in Africa, India and other Third World countries. In the long run that will do far more for our environment than any short term technological stop gaps.
Yes, agree completely - not quite sure about the middle class bit though. Just a bit to add.
There are three things, interrelated to a significant extent, that reduce birth rates:
1. Economic development/progress. 2. Reduced infant mortality rates through better health care/education etc. 3. The education of women and girls.
Any country that makes significant progress on all three will see, as if by magic, their birth rate decline.
I would also add (but not sure how to word it) Independence for the elderly so they are not so dependent upon their off spring.
On state subsidies it's probably one area where Dom Cummings was right in a sense that he saw where the world was going. The only way the west can compete with highly subsidised Chinese industries undercutting is to have our own. Getting rid of state aid rules was a deal breaker in the EU negotiations for this reason. The EU rules are going to be a huge problem for European countries in the next two decades as the US, Japan, Korea and maybe even the UK climb aboard the state aid train.
China has shown that a planned/command economy can be made to work. The rest of the world has realised that some of that can be transposed to their own countries as well. I expect the UK will have very large state subsidies for science and technology research/development in the next decade that wouldn't have been possible within the EU.
There are about half a dozen fallacies in that post. For a start, selection bias. China has had plenty of failures in subsidising its industries. In the West, we are only conscious of the successful ones, because those are the ones that compete with our industries. Second, Chinese societies like Hong Kong and Singapore have done just as well, or even better, without subsidising and protecting industries to anything like the same extent. Thirdly, subsidising industries often misallocates resources heavily penalises captive or successful parts of the economy. Fourth, we've always been even worse than China at subsidising successful industries, which generally turn into boondoggles for favoured interest groups. Fifth, the part of China's economy that has worked the best is the least planned and distorted part - its state owned industries are generally a heavy drain on the economy. And finally, you're mistaking the natural growth of an economy when it stops shooting itself in the foot with Maoist communism with a triumphant success of state planning.
I am old enough to remember people making similar points about Japanese long-term government led planning in the 1980s. And you can also find people saying similar things about superior Soviet performance in the 1930s, 1950s and 1960s. Neither of those models are admired at all these days, though China's strategies seem to have been influenced heavily by Japan's and South Korea's.
But I'm afraid that the idea that the government can pick winners is highly seductive, so we'll keep on trying with half-hearted campaigns every few years, and never learn from our repeated failures.
I didn't say I agree with state subsidies, just that in the next 20 years they will become a feature of most advanced economies and Dom Cummings was correct that we'd probably need to have a less restrictive framework than what the EU allows for.
Regarding Brexit, I think it is possible that it will end up getting cancelled. A few people will be fuming; but most will just shrug their shoulders and get on with life.
Not a chance in hell.
It can't be cancelled, it's happened. And it won't be reversed either.
Neither politicians nor the public are going to want to go through that again, and even if we did have a collective reversal the French would say non.
England will never again be a part of the EU.
It can. All it takes is for a government consumed by woke thinking to declare the whole thing as racist and proscribe any opposition to rejoining the EU on the same grounds. And then they can just sign us back up again on whatever terms the EU demand. You think that this is mad but that is how a lot of woke remainers think.
Or perhaps more accurately, how you think 'a lot of woke remainers' think. You have at least given us some insight into how you think...
I had my company leaving drinks last night. I was sitting in the corner with an ex-colleague (alumni of the firm) who's a very dark skinned female Egyptian in her mid-40s who - totally unprompted - spent 3 minutes ranting to me about how Woke the firm had become and how it was totally OTT. We were both slightly worse for wear but she was fed up being categorised and its divisiveness.
An ever bigger smile crept across my face as I listened and I eventually had to politely interrupt her to say I agreed with her 100%. 110%. 500%.
Sometimes people surprise you.
Your company sounds like an awful place to work.
That's why I left.
And why I've always been fairly relaxed about "political correctness/woke gone mad" in the private sector*. Companies that persistently do stupid things and enact stupid policies will lose good people and, consequently, do less well (even beyond losing good people if they waste their employees time). The market will sort it out, most likely. Equally, companies with a sexist/racist/homophobic culture will like fail too. The ones that prosper will be those with a good atmosphere based on sensible policies, open debate and compromise.
*And, indeed, most of the public sector - people there will also leave jobs if it gets too painful, the exceptions perhaps being health care and teaching where there are fewer opportunities to change job without also changing career, the private sector roles being fewer in number.
I've got little time for this 'meh, it will sort itself out' argument, which is rather dismissive and lazy. You might well be "relaxed" about it - I can assure you the last two years have been anything but relaxing for me.
If (and it's a big "if") what you describe happens it will take years and years - there will be a lot of dislocated careers and upset people along the way, people who didn't necessarily want to leave or move in the first place.
It's far better for open conversations to take place across government, the civil service, the major corporates, the third sector and media *now* about what common sense looks like - and exert a bit of leadership on best practice and guidance.
Otherwise, radical activists will fill the void under cloak of inclusion and be misguidedly followed by far too many.
Aye, there's something in that. I'm not really sure how we get there though, good luck to anyone writing guidance. Unfortunately we probably need a few stupid employer decisions getting slapped down at tribunals/in the courts to help those that need it work out what is sane.
Mostly, I guess I'm relaxed because I don't see these problems day to day and neither do my colleagues, friends, family (at least, none have mentioned it). That makes me think the stupidity is far more limited than media reports would have us believe. I do accept there may be whole industries infected with stupidity, beyond my experience.
We have had unconscious bias training (mandatory only for those involved in hiring, although open to all, not sure if/when it has to be renewed) and - actually - it was good and well done, it gave me some things to think about. It went beyond the usual things into ageism etc. There's equalities monitoring, but transparency about how that is used (I mentioned the other day the example of finding that women apply for promotion later). That's about it. I don't have to put my pronouns on my emails. I'm allowed to talk about sex rather than gender in papers. And this is in a university, so - we'd be led to believe - it should be awful. It's not, not here.
I would be interested in some examples of the problems at your old employer, if you can provide suitably anonymous examples. As it's something I haven't really experienced, I do accept it's hard for me to judge.
Pretty much the same with me, both on the hospital side and the Medical School side. I haven't either run across it or people getting hot under the collar about it.
We did have an interesting discussion the other day on the hospital trans-gender policy. The issue is that we have to correctly identify a patient for medication, blood transfusions, procedures requiring consent etc. As such we have to use the official registered name to do so, against name band, hospital notes, etc etc. This does to an extent clash with transgender policy on preferred name. It was more a discussion on sorting out procedures than anything contentious though.
My given name looks like a surname and vice versa. It has caused head shaking discussions, and once even a dangerous situation, in hospital. My wife uses her second given name, not her first. That too causes problems.
Regarding Brexit, I think it is possible that it will end up getting cancelled. A few people will be fuming; but most will just shrug their shoulders and get on with life.
Not a chance in hell.
It can't be cancelled, it's happened. And it won't be reversed either.
Neither politicians nor the public are going to want to go through that again, and even if we did have a collective reversal the French would say non.
England will never again be a part of the EU.
It can. All it takes is for a government consumed by woke thinking to declare the whole thing as racist and proscribe any opposition to rejoining the EU on the same grounds. And then they can just sign us back up again on whatever terms the EU demand. You think that this is mad but that is how a lot of woke remainers think.
Or perhaps more accurately, how you think 'a lot of woke remainers' think. You have at least given us some insight into how you think...
I had my company leaving drinks last night. I was sitting in the corner with an ex-colleague (alumni of the firm) who's a very dark skinned female Egyptian in her mid-40s who - totally unprompted - spent 3 minutes ranting to me about how Woke the firm had become and how it was totally OTT. We were both slightly worse for wear but she was fed up being categorised and its divisiveness.
An ever bigger smile crept across my face as I listened and I eventually had to politely interrupt her to say I agreed with her 100%. 110%. 500%.
Sometimes people surprise you.
Your company sounds like an awful place to work.
That's why I left.
And why I've always been fairly relaxed about "political correctness/woke gone mad" in the private sector*. Companies that persistently do stupid things and enact stupid policies will lose good people and, consequently, do less well (even beyond losing good people if they waste their employees time). The market will sort it out, most likely. Equally, companies with a sexist/racist/homophobic culture will like fail too. The ones that prosper will be those with a good atmosphere based on sensible policies, open debate and compromise.
*And, indeed, most of the public sector - people there will also leave jobs if it gets too painful, the exceptions perhaps being health care and teaching where there are fewer opportunities to change job without also changing career, the private sector roles being fewer in number.
I've got little time for this 'meh, it will sort itself out' argument, which is rather dismissive and lazy. You might well be "relaxed" about it - I can assure you the last two years have been anything but relaxing for me.
If (and it's a big "if") what you describe happens it will take years and years - there will be a lot of dislocated careers and upset people along the way, people who didn't necessarily want to leave or move in the first place.
It's far better for open conversations to take place across government, the civil service, the major corporates, the third sector and media *now* about what common sense looks like - and exert a bit of leadership on best practice and guidance.
Otherwise, radical activists will fill the void under cloak of inclusion and be misguidedly followed by far too many.
Aye, there's something in that. I'm not really sure how we get there though, good luck to anyone writing guidance. Unfortunately we probably need a few stupid employer decisions getting slapped down at tribunals/in the courts to help those that need it work out what is sane.
Mostly, I guess I'm relaxed because I don't see these problems day to day and neither do my colleagues, friends, family (at least, none have mentioned it). That makes me think the stupidity is far more limited than media reports would have us believe. I do accept there may be whole industries infected with stupidity, beyond my experience.
We have had unconscious bias training (mandatory only for those involved in hiring, although open to all, not sure if/when it has to be renewed) and - actually - it was good and well done, it gave me some things to think about. It went beyond the usual things into ageism etc. There's equalities monitoring, but transparency about how that is used (I mentioned the other day the example of finding that women apply for promotion later). That's about it. I don't have to put my pronouns on my emails. I'm allowed to talk about sex rather than gender in papers. And this is in a university, so - we'd be led to believe - it should be awful. It's not, not here.
I would be interested in some examples of the problems at your old employer, if you can provide suitably anonymous examples. As it's something I haven't really experienced, I do accept it's hard for me to judge.
Pretty much the same with me, both on the hospital side and the Medical School side. I haven't either run across it or people getting hot under the collar about it.
We did have an interesting discussion the other day on the hospital trans-gender policy. The issue is that we have to correctly identify a patient for medication, blood transfusions, procedures requiring consent etc. As such we have to use the official registered name to do so, against name band, hospital notes, etc etc. This does to an extent clash with transgender policy on preferred name. It was more a discussion on sorting out procedures than anything contentious though.
Do you ever come across procedures where, for example, you might give a man and a woman different amounts of a drug, or is weight a more obvious factor in things like anesthesia dosing?
c) Try this out. It is very very crude as stuff isn't linear which I am assuming it is but it will do for the explanation as otherwise it would be very complex
According to the internet the output from humans of CO2 through just breathing is about 1kg per day
Let us say the average profligate factor for a country is 'x' That is how many more times per head CO2 is produced in that economy
Let us say the population is 'y'
Let us say the birth rate is 'w'
Let us say a generation is replaced every 'z' years.
Let us say that the year you want to predict the CO2 output for is 'v' years away
The CO2 output for that country is then 1xywv/2z
[snip]
Now waiting for this absolute drivel of maths to be massacred as I know there are lot more able people on PB than me. Sorry!
In general you are right but there is a factorial change that you need to take into account. We're supposed to be getting to "net zero" where everyone is net responsible for zero emissions.
On your formula you can drop the 1 it isn't doing anything or necessary so xywv/2z is the formula.
Now swap out x for 0 since we've moved to net zero.
The formula then becomes 0ywv/2z = 0
w (and y) cease to matter once they're multiplied by 0. They only matter if we're not at zero.
So the technology to get us to zero is what matters. Once you've done that, then the quantity of people is irrelevant.
The 1 was there to show the 1 kg had been taken into account when multiplied by the profligation factor. It was in response to @HYUFD 's statement yesterday hence why I showed all of that, but other than the whopper of assumptions I made re being linear and not taking into account exponential growth that applies to births there is also a whopper of an error. Hint see what happens if you put in a prediction for 1 year away!
I don't want to embarrass myself any further.
Just trying to prove to HYUFD that population is a factor in CO2 production, which to be honest shouldn't need stating after all zero people produce none, some people produce some, lots of people produce more. For most people that is a given, but this is HYUFD we are dealing with.
Indeed but its only a factor if we've failed to reach net zero.
The issue is we're supposed to be using our technology to get to net zero. If we can get to net zero then it doesn't matter what our population is. 1 million, ten million, 7 billion or 50 billion - whatever figure you times by zero the answer is always zero.
I hate to say this but HYUFD is right on this one. For the wrong logic, but he's right. Technology is the key. If our technology makes us reach net zero then having double or half the population times by zero won't make any difference at all.
I don't disagree with that. Never did disagree with the issue (if you see the posts I agreed with HYUFD on that). It is the bloody logic that gets me.
Sadly I think if we are going to get out of the mess it may be that we do have to rely on technology like carbon capture (I don't see us doing it any other way) before it is too late as I don't see other technical advancements coming in time. I'm not sure how that works in a capitalist world though.
Of course if we overcome the carbon issue, population growth will bring the next lot of issues with it (water, food, etc). I am very pro population control as a solution (not in the Hitler type of way) as that can be very rapid (within a generation). It does mean though we can't have constant growth and there are a multitude of other problems like the age issue to deal with also with this approach, which means many don't like it. I suspect you may be in that camp.
Re HYUFD: As always with him it is the logic and only the logic. I mean he made the point that the West is more polluting than Africa, particularly per head with which I agree (I mean how can you disagree?). I have now had 4 arguments with him recently and out of those 4 I have actually agreed with him on the point he was making on 3 of them. I know, why the hell am I arguing with him if I agree with him? But he comes out with these 'mad as a frog in a box' deductions, which he did yesterday that was completely unfounded in any logic whatsoever. And although umpteen people tell him he just can't get it. I am baffled as to how someone can't see this stuff. To me he is unique. It seems to be an extreme case of the Kruger Dunning effect when it comes to deduction.
It is like having a family argument and suddenly you find your mad uncle is supporting you. Anyone sensible would ignore it, but me, I stupidly go and have an argument with my mad uncle instead because I am embarrassed to have my opinion supported by irrational arguments.
I agree with you on the issues with a certain other poster's logic (in general).
However on the issue with the environment the only thing that matters is technology. Realistically if we get to net zero by 2050 then we've achieved what we need to achieve - and if we haven't we've failed. But that only leaves us 28 years and two months until we reach 2050. Knock off nine months for pregnancies and you're talking 27 years and five months.
Being completely realistic the overwhelming majority of those who will be alive in 2050 are those who are alive or conceived already today.
There simply isn't the time or the possibility to affect population figures meaningfully in the next 27 years. Whether in that time you increase population by 2% or drop it by 2% is pretty irrelevant.
The only tool in our arsenal is technology, not population.
But 2050 is an utterly artificial date with no relevance in the real world. It is a target set up to try and force Governments to meet their commitments and although that is perfectly sensible, it should not be considered as anything more than that.
If the wider issue over and above climate change is population size (as I and many others believe it to be) then saying we can't do anything about it in the next 27 years as if that means we should not bother is a completely straw man argument. Yes technology will help us with net zero. It will not necessarily help us with the many other issues affecting the world some of which are even more serious. And it definitely won't help us if we don't recognise the problems in the first place. Technology only helps when it is properly directed to address the problems.
Now actually it appears that the best way to reduce global populations is to make everyone middle class - or some such equivalent. First world countries have reducing birth rates and the richer the country the more stable the natural population (excluding, for a moment, migration). What we should be aiming to do is massively improve living conditions and wealth in Africa, India and other Third World countries. In the long run that will do far more for our environment than any short term technological stop gaps.
Yes, agree completely - not quite sure about the middle class bit though. Just a bit to add.
There are three things, interrelated to a significant extent, that reduce birth rates:
1. Economic development/progress. 2. Reduced infant mortality rates through better health care/education etc. 3. The education of women and girls.
Any country that makes significant progress on all three will see, as if by magic, their birth rate decline.
Yep that is a good summary. I was just using 'middle class' as a clumsy shorthand.
On state subsidies it's probably one area where Dom Cummings was right in a sense that he saw where the world was going. The only way the west can compete with highly subsidised Chinese industries undercutting is to have our own. Getting rid of state aid rules was a deal breaker in the EU negotiations for this reason. The EU rules are going to be a huge problem for European countries in the next two decades as the US, Japan, Korea and maybe even the UK climb aboard the state aid train.
China has shown that a planned/command economy can be made to work. The rest of the world has realised that some of that can be transposed to their own countries as well. I expect the UK will have very large state subsidies for science and technology research/development in the next decade that wouldn't have been possible within the EU.
I have to admit, I don't feel comfortable with this train of though.
The idea of the government picking winners I find to be very disturbing.
Maybe there's a better more competitive way to do it, where aid is possible without picking (or guaranteeing) winners. But I am uncomfortable with the entire notion even though I think you have a point.
Yes. I think the correct approach is for government to subsidise corporate investment in capital and R&D in general, rather than trying to be specific and pick winners.
The likes of Intel know that governments are waking up to the effects of the chip shortage, and seeking to play them off against each other in a subsidy war.
Yes and that's entirely logical for Intel to do, but its not necessarily logical for us to join such a war.
Setting up an economic environment where investment in capital and R&D is encouraged rather than discouraged is probably much better for the long-term.
I've always thought that in the sprawling mess of Rattle and Hum one of the all time great albums was struggling to get out. Angel of Harlem is another classic.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
The left wing bias in academia has got stronger and stronger but I think it’s because, at some stage, the right wing gave up on facts.
Right wing academics do still exist, quite vocally, but they are definitely a minority. As usual though I think social media and noise exaggerate the size of the full-on left wing contingent in academia. I know a few people working in research, and most are soft centre-left or liberal types. But they just get on with their work and don't make a noise. The ones who shout loudest are those with more of a hard-left axe to grind. So the decibel meter distorts the reality as usual.
My experience too. The characteristics that push people into academia - an open and enquiring mind, pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake, a desire to impart knowledge to the next generation, an empirical and sceptical bent, tolerance for relatively low pay - tend to be found at higher frequency among those of a liberal frame of mind. A similar kind of self selection bias explains why professions like the police and financial services attract more right wing people. The desire by some on the Right to demonise those with higher levels of education, basically because we can see through their bullshit, is one of the less pleasant developments of recent years.
Sometimes, I feel you're making progress - and then you post something utterly retarded like this.
You're the pb equivalent of Drew Barrymore in 50 First Dates: @OnlyLivingBoy stars in 50 First Posts - tediously rehearsing the same arguments on the same subjects each and every day, before clearing the cache overnight and going right back to square one the next.
I'm honoured to be compared to Drew Barrymore. Don't use words like "retarded" though, please. Not only does it cross the line in terms of personal abuse (a recurring problem for you, sadly) but it is also an unacceptable word to use.
Words and phrases you've used today: "the right wing gave up on facts", "(right wing) bullshit" and implying that right-wing people are idiots. No doubt you'll play dumb and cry foul now but you know precisely what you're doing.
I will take absolutely no lectures from you.
I'm not asking you to take any lectures. I'm simply asking you not to call me "retarded", both because it is a needlessly personal attack and because it is an unacceptable slur against people with learning disabilities. I also reject your characterisation of my contributions as implying that right of centre people are idiots, as nowhere did I say that and nor do I think it. I reiterate that you should withdraw your use of this unacceptable slur and try to contribute to the debate rationally and calmly if you can.
Bore off. You're happy to dish it out, but just attempt to get on your high horse if you get it in return.
I've got no time for it or your pomposity.
I won't be engaging with you anymore on this forum until you change your behaviour, starting with your total lack of self-awareness.
Until then, I'm done with you. Trust that's clear.
On state subsidies it's probably one area where Dom Cummings was right in a sense that he saw where the world was going. The only way the west can compete with highly subsidised Chinese industries undercutting is to have our own. Getting rid of state aid rules was a deal breaker in the EU negotiations for this reason. The EU rules are going to be a huge problem for European countries in the next two decades as the US, Japan, Korea and maybe even the UK climb aboard the state aid train.
China has shown that a planned/command economy can be made to work. The rest of the world has realised that some of that can be transposed to their own countries as well. I expect the UK will have very large state subsidies for science and technology research/development in the next decade that wouldn't have been possible within the EU.
There are about half a dozen fallacies in that post. For a start, selection bias. China has had plenty of failures in subsidising its industries. In the West, we are only conscious of the successful ones, because those are the ones that compete with our industries. Second, Chinese societies like Hong Kong and Singapore have done just as well, or even better, without subsidising and protecting industries to anything like the same extent. Thirdly, subsidising industries often misallocates resources heavily penalises captive or successful parts of the economy. Fourth, we've always been even worse than China at subsidising successful industries, which generally turn into boondoggles for favoured interest groups. Fifth, the part of China's economy that has worked the best is the least planned and distorted part - its state owned industries are generally a heavy drain on the economy. And finally, you're mistaking the natural growth of an economy when it stops shooting itself in the foot with Maoist communism with a triumphant success of state planning.
I am old enough to remember people making similar points about Japanese long-term government led planning in the 1980s. And you can also find people saying similar things about superior Soviet performance in the 1930s, 1950s and 1960s. Neither of those models are admired at all these days, though China's strategies seem to have been influenced heavily by Japan's and South Korea's.
But I'm afraid that the idea that the government can pick winners is highly seductive, so we'll keep on trying with half-hearted campaigns every few years, and never learn from our repeated failures.
I didn't say I agree with state subsidies, just that in the next 20 years they will become a feature of most advanced economies and Dom Cummings was correct that we'd probably need to have a less restrictive framework than what the EU allows for.
Why? Just because other countries shoot themselves in the foot, why should we do so?
There doesn’t seem to be anything in the article that justifies the headline. There’s no inherent reason why windfarms should only be 50ft tall. Poor journalism. Unnecessarily introducing a “fear” angle into a good news story.
Regarding Brexit, I think it is possible that it will end up getting cancelled. A few people will be fuming; but most will just shrug their shoulders and get on with life.
Not a chance in hell.
It can't be cancelled, it's happened. And it won't be reversed either.
Neither politicians nor the public are going to want to go through that again, and even if we did have a collective reversal the French would say non.
England will never again be a part of the EU.
It can. All it takes is for a government consumed by woke thinking to declare the whole thing as racist and proscribe any opposition to rejoining the EU on the same grounds. And then they can just sign us back up again on whatever terms the EU demand. You think that this is mad but that is how a lot of woke remainers think.
Or perhaps more accurately, how you think 'a lot of woke remainers' think. You have at least given us some insight into how you think...
I had my company leaving drinks last night. I was sitting in the corner with an ex-colleague (alumni of the firm) who's a very dark skinned female Egyptian in her mid-40s who - totally unprompted - spent 3 minutes ranting to me about how Woke the firm had become and how it was totally OTT. We were both slightly worse for wear but she was fed up being categorised and its divisiveness.
An ever bigger smile crept across my face as I listened and I eventually had to politely interrupt her to say I agreed with her 100%. 110%. 500%.
Sometimes people surprise you.
Your company sounds like an awful place to work.
That's why I left.
And why I've always been fairly relaxed about "political correctness/woke gone mad" in the private sector*. Companies that persistently do stupid things and enact stupid policies will lose good people and, consequently, do less well (even beyond losing good people if they waste their employees time). The market will sort it out, most likely. Equally, companies with a sexist/racist/homophobic culture will like fail too. The ones that prosper will be those with a good atmosphere based on sensible policies, open debate and compromise.
*And, indeed, most of the public sector - people there will also leave jobs if it gets too painful, the exceptions perhaps being health care and teaching where there are fewer opportunities to change job without also changing career, the private sector roles being fewer in number.
I've got little time for this 'meh, it will sort itself out' argument, which is rather dismissive and lazy. You might well be "relaxed" about it - I can assure you the last two years have been anything but relaxing for me.
If (and it's a big "if") what you describe happens it will take years and years - there will be a lot of dislocated careers and upset people along the way, people who didn't necessarily want to leave or move in the first place.
It's far better for open conversations to take place across government, the civil service, the major corporates, the third sector and media *now* about what common sense looks like - and exert a bit of leadership on best practice and guidance.
Otherwise, radical activists will fill the void under cloak of inclusion and be misguidedly followed by far too many.
Aye, there's something in that. I'm not really sure how we get there though, good luck to anyone writing guidance. Unfortunately we probably need a few stupid employer decisions getting slapped down at tribunals/in the courts to help those that need it work out what is sane.
Mostly, I guess I'm relaxed because I don't see these problems day to day and neither do my colleagues, friends, family (at least, none have mentioned it). That makes me think the stupidity is far more limited than media reports would have us believe. I do accept there may be whole industries infected with stupidity, beyond my experience.
We have had unconscious bias training (mandatory only for those involved in hiring, although open to all, not sure if/when it has to be renewed) and - actually - it was good and well done, it gave me some things to think about. It went beyond the usual things into ageism etc. There's equalities monitoring, but transparency about how that is used (I mentioned the other day the example of finding that women apply for promotion later). That's about it. I don't have to put my pronouns on my emails. I'm allowed to talk about sex rather than gender in papers. And this is in a university, so - we'd be led to believe - it should be awful. It's not, not here.
I would be interested in some examples of the problems at your old employer, if you can provide suitably anonymous examples. As it's something I haven't really experienced, I do accept it's hard for me to judge.
Thanks @Selebian. Happy to discuss privately over VM if you'd like.
Regarding Brexit, I think it is possible that it will end up getting cancelled. A few people will be fuming; but most will just shrug their shoulders and get on with life.
Not a chance in hell.
It can't be cancelled, it's happened. And it won't be reversed either.
Neither politicians nor the public are going to want to go through that again, and even if we did have a collective reversal the French would say non.
England will never again be a part of the EU.
It can. All it takes is for a government consumed by woke thinking to declare the whole thing as racist and proscribe any opposition to rejoining the EU on the same grounds. And then they can just sign us back up again on whatever terms the EU demand. You think that this is mad but that is how a lot of woke remainers think.
Or perhaps more accurately, how you think 'a lot of woke remainers' think. You have at least given us some insight into how you think...
I had my company leaving drinks last night. I was sitting in the corner with an ex-colleague (alumni of the firm) who's a very dark skinned female Egyptian in her mid-40s who - totally unprompted - spent 3 minutes ranting to me about how Woke the firm had become and how it was totally OTT. We were both slightly worse for wear but she was fed up being categorised and its divisiveness.
An ever bigger smile crept across my face as I listened and I eventually had to politely interrupt her to say I agreed with her 100%. 110%. 500%.
Sometimes people surprise you.
Your company sounds like an awful place to work.
That's why I left.
And why I've always been fairly relaxed about "political correctness/woke gone mad" in the private sector*. Companies that persistently do stupid things and enact stupid policies will lose good people and, consequently, do less well (even beyond losing good people if they waste their employees time). The market will sort it out, most likely. Equally, companies with a sexist/racist/homophobic culture will like fail too. The ones that prosper will be those with a good atmosphere based on sensible policies, open debate and compromise.
*And, indeed, most of the public sector - people there will also leave jobs if it gets too painful, the exceptions perhaps being health care and teaching where there are fewer opportunities to change job without also changing career, the private sector roles being fewer in number.
I've got little time for this 'meh, it will sort itself out' argument, which is rather dismissive and lazy. You might well be "relaxed" about it - I can assure you the last two years have been anything but relaxing for me.
If (and it's a big "if") what you describe happens it will take years and years - there will be a lot of dislocated careers and upset people along the way, people who didn't necessarily want to leave or move in the first place.
It's far better for open conversations to take place across government, the civil service, the major corporates, the third sector and media *now* about what common sense looks like - and exert a bit of leadership on best practice and guidance.
Otherwise, radical activists will fill the void under cloak of inclusion and be misguidedly followed by far too many.
Aye, there's something in that. I'm not really sure how we get there though, good luck to anyone writing guidance. Unfortunately we probably need a few stupid employer decisions getting slapped down at tribunals/in the courts to help those that need it work out what is sane.
Mostly, I guess I'm relaxed because I don't see these problems day to day and neither do my colleagues, friends, family (at least, none have mentioned it). That makes me think the stupidity is far more limited than media reports would have us believe. I do accept there may be whole industries infected with stupidity, beyond my experience.
We have had unconscious bias training (mandatory only for those involved in hiring, although open to all, not sure if/when it has to be renewed) and - actually - it was good and well done, it gave me some things to think about. It went beyond the usual things into ageism etc. There's equalities monitoring, but transparency about how that is used (I mentioned the other day the example of finding that women apply for promotion later). That's about it. I don't have to put my pronouns on my emails. I'm allowed to talk about sex rather than gender in papers. And this is in a university, so - we'd be led to believe - it should be awful. It's not, not here.
I would be interested in some examples of the problems at your old employer, if you can provide suitably anonymous examples. As it's something I haven't really experienced, I do accept it's hard for me to judge.
Pretty much the same with me, both on the hospital side and the Medical School side. I haven't either run across it or people getting hot under the collar about it.
We did have an interesting discussion the other day on the hospital trans-gender policy. The issue is that we have to correctly identify a patient for medication, blood transfusions, procedures requiring consent etc. As such we have to use the official registered name to do so, against name band, hospital notes, etc etc. This does to an extent clash with transgender policy on preferred name. It was more a discussion on sorting out procedures than anything contentious though.
Do you ever come across procedures where, for example, you might give a man and a woman different amounts of a drug, or is weight a more obvious factor in things like anesthesia dosing?
Generally related to body mass, occasionally body surface area or some other factor.
The problem isn't dosage, so much as making sure that we have the correct patient etc.
There doesn’t seem to be anything in the article that justifies the headline.
It seems to be a bit of a whine in the middle from one of the companies involved:
"It's happening quicker than we would wish, in a sense," says Aurélie Nasse, head of offshore product market strategy at Vestas. The firm is one of a handful that have led the development of super-sized turbines - but headaches associated with building ever larger machines are beginning to emerge.
"We need to make sure it's a sustainable race for everyone in the industry," says Ms Nasse, as she points out the need for larger harbours, and the necessary equipment and installation vessels required to bring today's huge turbine components offshore.
Then there's the hefty investments required to get to that point. "If you look at the financial results of the [manufacturers], basically none of us make money anymore," explains Ms Nasse. "That's a big risk."
So in other words she wants to be able to invest to get ahead of her competitors but then no further development so that her business remains at the front and can cash in? 🤔
I've always thought that in the sprawling mess of Rattle and Hum one of the all time great albums was struggling to get out. Angel of Harlem is another classic.
Rattle and Hum is one of U2's best albums. Heartland, All I Want Is You, Hawkmoon, Love Rescue Me are all fantastic. Hard to see it's the same band that put out the dross of their last two albums.
Comments
If the wider issue over and above climate change is population size (as I and many others believe it to be) then saying we can't do anything about it in the next 27 years as if that means we should not bother is a completely straw man argument. Yes technology will help us with net zero. It will not necessarily help us with the many other issues affecting the world some of which are even more serious. And it definitely won't help us if we don't recognise the problems in the first place. Technology only helps when it is properly directed to address the problems.
Now actually it appears that the best way to reduce global populations is to make everyone middle class - or some such equivalent. First world countries have reducing birth rates and the richer the country the more stable the natural population (excluding, for a moment, migration). What we should be aiming to do is massively improve living conditions and wealth in Africa, India and other Third World countries. In the long run that will do far more for our environment than any short term technological stop gaps.
I voted remain, was disappointed at the time that leave won, but very strongly believe that the vote should have been delivered. Furthermore, I am 100% against those who tried to overturn the result, and as I believe that it is decades too early to think of rejoining, also see those who still see rejoining as an immediate possibility as actively working against the country's interests in trying to achieve the best outcome out of Brexit.
So it's perfectly possible to believe that leaving the EU was a mistake but also be committed to delivering Brexit in the best manner possible. And I'd wager that a very sizeable chunk of people would fall into that category. And that a plurality of that chunk would favour the tories as the only party that seems to be taking the priority of getting the best out of Brexit seriously.
Furthermore, the character of those interested in undertaking pioneering academic research will tend to be those interested in exploring something different to how society operates at present, and to do so largely in solitude, so whilst you will get some great ideas and breakthroughs here and there you'll also get some outlandish wackiness than doesn't translate into the real world.
Rome (depending on definition) took a century or so to die, did so with a whimper, yet ended up causing huge ructions.
Marc Morris' recent book on the Anglo-Saxons (well worth a read) says something along the lines of Britain falling back an Age due to trade and economic dislocation.
I do wonder how things would've gone had that megalomaniac Justinian not destroyed the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy.
Not many were long or 'serious', but some were. Started just because then became a mid year resolution to see if I could average 1 a day. Needed a few brief ones to manage.
Much closer to average this year around 60.
Understanding the importance that the people we elect are the ones determining the laws we face is a fact of life. As opposed to the dystopian Utopian "imagine there's no country" John Lennon nightmarish bullshit.
BoZo had to expel all the Conservatives from his cult to get it through Parliament.
If the Conservative and Unionist party returns, Brexit is over.
What we are now dealing with is a situation where a particular way of thinking has actually become the establishment, and people are expressing various forms of denial about it. However, its hold on the establishment is rather shaky as many people don't actually really subscribe to its belief system.
What is missing is a meaningful alternative. The idea of simply recreating the old liberal system of free speech and equality under the rule of law isn't enough. It doesn't satisfy the desire for immediate change.
"Imagine there's no money."
Sure, John. You wouldn't be playing a piano, in your mansion.
If anything, from anecdotal evidence from friends in academia, I think the study I cited above understates it. But I'm happy if you have evidence.
China has shown that a planned/command economy can be made to work. The rest of the world has realised that some of that can be transposed to their own countries as well. I expect the UK will have very large state subsidies for science and technology research/development in the next decade that wouldn't have been possible within the EU.
The UK does overall have a very good system of overseeing the democratic process - with the Electoral Commission, Boundary Commissions and police. Yes, they screw up occasionally - Darren Grimes waves hello - but democracy is usually seen to be done.
I will take absolutely no lectures from you.
We have left
Now you may believe that population levels are a concern for other reasons (I don't) but those other reasons remain the issue not carbon - trying to tack on population concerns for other reasons onto the carbon issue isn't going to get very far realistically.
I also completely agree with your conclusion. I think we should ensure is able to go 'middle class' because its the right thing to do in its own right, plus as you say it will bring down birth rates. So even if you're not bothered by population levels as I'm not, we still reach the same conclusion on that one even from differing starting points.
Actors on the other hand surely normally are self-employed and get their money from private tv/film production companies?
But is an area where I get confused by the arguments. Some say Brexit was a very unconservative thing to do, others claim it was driven by conservative yearning for a 1950s heydey so was a very conservative thing.
Sometimes they claim both.
I can still recall his note on my homework...... I can't possibly read all this..... you've written far too much.
And my handwriting was fine.
So the issue is not global population growth, the issue is getting technology and renewables to replace fossil fuels and other solutions to tackle other problems.
Indeed if global population growth falls further below the 2.1 replacement rate then the issue becomes we need more babies to produce more workers to pay for the ageing population, an issue currently confined mainly only to some parts of the West like Italy or Japan and to some extent here
The idea of the government picking winners I find to be very disturbing.
Maybe there's a better more competitive way to do it, where aid is possible without picking (or guaranteeing) winners. But I am uncomfortable with the entire notion even though I think you have a point.
Most actors earn peanuts and rely on Equity for a fair wage as they know there are thousands of others who'd otherwise do the work for next to nothing. The one we know who are in a position to do what you describe are the top 0.1%.
https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/15/europe-plans-a-chips-act-to-boost-semiconductor-sovereignty/
And Intel has plans (and is no longer looking at the UK since Brexit).
https://wccftech.com/intel-ceo-repeats-statements-on-plans-for-94-billion-chip-manufacturing-developments-located-in-europe/
For example, a carbon tax/credits is a sensible way to reduce carbon usage, since the government isn't picking a specific winner.
The likes of Intel know that governments are waking up to the effects of the chip shortage, and seeking to play them off against each other in a subsidy war.
I am just watching, and I see lots of evidence Brexit is a total shitshow.
Please entertain us by posting all of the alternative Brexit success stories that have somehow passed us by...
I am old enough to remember people making similar points about Japanese long-term government led planning in the 1980s. And you can also find people saying similar things about superior Soviet performance in the 1930s, 1950s and 1960s. Neither of those models are admired at all these days, though China's strategies seem to have been influenced heavily by Japan's and South Korea's.
But I'm afraid that the idea that the government can pick winners is highly seductive, so we'll keep on trying with half-hearted campaigns every few years, and never learn from our repeated failures.
God knows what they felt was inappropriate about it, it was the Ben Elton book Stark. I think I learned teachers could be irrational that day.
And I should have written the record was 372. If I'm going to brag about reading the entire Sharpe series etc I had best get it right.
Mostly, I guess I'm relaxed because I don't see these problems day to day and neither do my colleagues, friends, family (at least, none have mentioned it). That makes me think the stupidity is far more limited than media reports would have us believe. I do accept there may be whole industries infected with stupidity, beyond my experience.
We have had unconscious bias training (mandatory only for those involved in hiring, although open to all, not sure if/when it has to be renewed) and - actually - it was good and well done, it gave me some things to think about. It went beyond the usual things into ageism etc. There's equalities monitoring, but transparency about how that is used (I mentioned the other day the example of finding that women apply for promotion later). That's about it. I don't have to put my pronouns on my emails. I'm allowed to talk about sex rather than gender in papers. And this is in a university, so - we'd be led to believe - it should be awful. It's not, not here.
I would be interested in some examples of the problems at your old employer, if you can provide suitably anonymous examples. As it's something I haven't really experienced, I do accept it's hard for me to judge.
Tax externalities, don't tax what you wish to encourage.
I'm much more comfortable with that. If that means we miss out on winners we could have chosen, I think I'm ok with that.
Businessmen and financiers also only operate in the market as long as they do what the Communist government tells them to do
The corollary of large amounts of new solar generation is large amounts of surplus power at very low marginal costs - which makes storage and/or synthetic fuels from CO2 very attractive areas for commercial development.
The market can deliver if given a strong enough signal from government (carbon taxes are an example).
Yeah, the meaning transfers nicely, though.
Reading was the main pastime for the educated at home
I think the fundamental difference is you don't think population growth is an issue and we do and it really just boils down to that. I am assuming that your view is that each of the issues that population growth brings are an opportunity for technology to solve.
Although I disagree it may not be unfounded. I grew up in the era where we were panicking we were going to run out of fossil fuel and also how we were going to prevent the upcoming ice age. See how they turned out.
You may have point, but I still disagree.
In ways that is impressively high. It will run out of targets before we get round to vaccinating that age group at this rate.
An easy victory in North Africa persuaded him that the same was possible in Italy.
That then provides greater rewards for success, without HMG having to judge who will be successful.
Then the other thing to do would be to make it easier to take a risk, cheaper financing, perhaps, or other changes that lower barriers to entry.
There are three things, interrelated to a significant extent, that reduce birth rates:
1. Economic development/progress.
2. Reduced infant mortality rates through better health care/education etc.
3. The education of women and girls.
Any country that makes significant progress on all three will see, as if by magic, their birth rate decline.
I shall not interrupt you again
We did have an interesting discussion the other day on the hospital trans-gender policy. The issue is that we have to correctly identify a patient for medication, blood transfusions, procedures requiring consent etc. As such we have to use the official registered name to do so, against name band, hospital notes, etc etc. This does to an extent clash with transgender policy on preferred name. It was more a discussion on sorting out procedures than anything contentious though.
I realised how dangerous an idea that was when I realised that politicians liked the concept, apart from the not-picking-winners thing.
Which is the whole point - you fund a range of research projects in an area, cheaply and see what happens.
It's about encouraging the sector to have a larger presence in the EU. As I said, we have no choice in the matter, as the option is no longer open to us.
My wife uses her second given name, not her first. That too causes problems.
Setting up an economic environment where investment in capital and R&D is encouraged rather than discouraged is probably much better for the long-term.
I've always thought that in the sprawling mess of Rattle and Hum one of the all time great albums was struggling to get out. Angel of Harlem is another classic.
I've got no time for it or your pomposity.
I won't be engaging with you anymore on this forum until you change your behaviour, starting with your total lack of self-awareness.
Until then, I'm done with you. Trust that's clear.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58704792
Odd story.
There doesn’t seem to be anything in the article that justifies the headline. There’s no inherent reason why windfarms should only be 50ft tall. Poor journalism. Unnecessarily introducing a “fear” angle into a good news story.
The problem isn't dosage, so much as making sure that we have the correct patient etc.
"It's happening quicker than we would wish, in a sense," says Aurélie Nasse, head of offshore product market strategy at Vestas. The firm is one of a handful that have led the development of super-sized turbines - but headaches associated with building ever larger machines are beginning to emerge.
"We need to make sure it's a sustainable race for everyone in the industry," says Ms Nasse, as she points out the need for larger harbours, and the necessary equipment and installation vessels required to bring today's huge turbine components offshore.
Then there's the hefty investments required to get to that point. "If you look at the financial results of the [manufacturers], basically none of us make money anymore," explains Ms Nasse. "That's a big risk."
So in other words she wants to be able to invest to get ahead of her competitors but then no further development so that her business remains at the front and can cash in? 🤔