Buy buy buy Olive oil

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed May 27, 2015 11:32 am

Spain and Italy hit by devastating 'olive ebola' outbreak

I find these sort of epidemics extremely worrying, there was dutch elm disease, then the bees dieing and now olive blight.

And mankind is virtually helpless.

Antibiotics no longer being affective is probably the most worrying.

Puts man's position in this world into perspective.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 27, 2015 12:52 pm

Bruv;1479782 wrote: And mankind is virtually helpless.I think it far more likely we're the cause and not the victim. Olive trees in nature aren't so densely associated, bees were never so stressed and Dutch Elm Disease was brought across the otherwise impenetrable barrier of the English Channel by human agency. Man's position in this world is entirely abhorrent, I'd have thought, at least as far as all your examples are concerned.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed May 27, 2015 2:06 pm

Just wait til we get off this planet, and into the galaxy.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed May 27, 2015 2:10 pm

LarsMac;1479793 wrote: Just wait til we get off this planet, and into the galaxy.

WE? You must mean humankind. WE ain't leaving.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed May 27, 2015 2:10 pm

spot;1479788 wrote: I think it far more likely we're the cause and not the victim. Olive trees in nature aren't so densely associated, bees were never so stressed and Dutch Elm Disease was brought across the otherwise impenetrable barrier of the English Channel by human agency. Man's position in this world is entirely abhorrent, I'd have thought, at least as far as all your examples are concerned.

Thanks.......thats cheered me up no end.

Hold up !!!!!

Why not off set these blemishes on mankind's record with some of the good things...let me think...asprin....transplants....art...music.....horticulture......electricity....there are lots you know.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed May 27, 2015 2:11 pm

LarsMac;1479793 wrote: Just wait til we get off this planet, and into the galaxy.

Don't set him off again.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed May 27, 2015 2:11 pm

AnneBoleyn;1479794 wrote: WE? You must mean humankind. WE ain't leaving.

Well.........know we ain't

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed May 27, 2015 2:13 pm

Bruv;1479797 wrote: Well.........know we ain't

Tell it to Lars! :yh_rotfl

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Thu May 28, 2015 4:39 am

AnneBoleyn;1479798 wrote: Tell it to Lars! :yh_rotfl

We need to live more carefully and harmoniously with nature. We take many blind, clumsy, greedy decisions with our environment. One day, nature may well "call time" for many of us. It's nature's way with overpopulated species....and may God have mercy on the galaxy if we arrive in our present state of enlightenment!!

Post by **spot** » Thu May 28, 2015 5:02 am

Smaug;1479806 wrote: We need to live more carefully and harmoniously with nature.There are tested ways of making rational decisions in these areas. If a bunch of diplomats go into a negotiation not knowing which side each represents, for example, the agreed result stands a better chance of being fair and balanced because nobody wants to do down one side in case it happens to represent their own party.

We could look at the list of species and include homo sapiens on it. What wild land-based warm-blooded species aren't endangered by low numbers, we could ask. Zebras, wildebeest, crocodiles, hyenas, giraffes, I've no idea what gets listed. How many of them are there, we could then ask. Oh, well over a half million, huge numbers. Maybe even two million unless there's a decade-long drought.

There you have it - the target population of each species of domesticated animals and their owners. You too can be unendangered if we bring the number of dogs, cats, cows, sheep and people down to a couple of million each. Seven thousand million people is greedy, two million people is at least potentially sustainable. So would be two hundred thousand people be but I'm trying to avoid an extreme position here.

As for when we should aim to reach that number, I'd suggest we look to the end of this decade.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu May 28, 2015 5:21 am

spot;1479809 wrote: There are tested ways of making rational decisions in these areas. If a bunch of diplomats go into a negotiation not knowing which side each represents, for example, the agreed result stands a better chance of being fair and balanced because nobody wants to do down one side in case it happens to represent their own party.

We could look at the list of species and include homo sapiens on it. What wild land-based warm-blooded species aren't endangered by low numbers, we could ask. Zebras, wildebeest, crocodiles, hyenas, giraffes, I've no idea what gets listed. How many of them are there, we could then ask. Oh, well over a half million, huge numbers. Maybe even two million unless there's a decade-long drought.

There you have it - the target population of each species of domesticated animals and their owners. You too can be unendangered if we bring the number of dogs, cats, cows, sheep and people down to a couple of million each. Seven thousand million people is greedy, two million people is at least potentially sustainable. So would be two hundred thousand people be but I'm trying to avoid an extreme position here.

As for when we should aim to reach that number, I'd suggest we look to the end of this decade.

I have read and I think I understand.........I especially liked the "but I'm trying to avoid an extreme position here" part.

Would a cull be the answer ?

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Thu May 28, 2015 5:34 am

spot;1479809 wrote: There are tested ways of making rational decisions in these areas. If a bunch of diplomats go into a negotiation not knowing which side each represents, for example, the agreed result stands a better chance of being fair and balanced because nobody wants to do down one side in case it happens to represent their own party.

We could look at the list of species and include homo sapiens on it. What wild land-based warm-blooded species aren't endangered by low numbers, we could ask. Zebras, wildebeest, crocodiles, hyenas, giraffes, I've no idea what gets listed. How many of them are there, we could then ask. Oh, well over a half million, huge numbers. Maybe even two million unless there's a decade-long drought.

There you have it - the target population of each species of domesticated animals and their owners. You too can be unendangered if we bring the number of dogs, cats, cows, sheep and people down to a couple of million each. Seven thousand million people is greedy, two million people is at least potentially sustainable. So would be two hundred thousand people be but I'm trying to avoid an extreme position here.

As for when we should aim to reach that number, I'd suggest we look to the end of this decade.

War used to thin us down, but has become increasingly risky, due to the risk of Nuclear or Chemical/germ warfare escalations, hence not so many large-scale conventional wars are now waged. Maybe plague/disease/starvation will be the "agents" used by nature/Man, to redress the imbalance?

Like yourself, without wishing to sound too extreme, we do have to CAREFULLY consider sustainability, and quickly!

Post by **spot** » Thu May 28, 2015 5:46 am

Bruv;1479811 wrote: Would a cull be the answer ?Hell no, I'm calling for volunteers.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Thu May 28, 2015 5:53 am

spot;1479815 wrote: Hell no, I'm calling for volunteers.

Rigorous and careful birth control MAY be one answer, though it's a bit close to Nazi ideas for comfort. We can't do nothing, though.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu May 28, 2015 6:04 am

spot;1479815 wrote: Hell no, I'm calling for volunteers.

You might have to raise your voice.

The problem with antibiotics might be the answer to your plea.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Thu May 28, 2015 6:11 am

Bruv;1479818 wrote: You might have to raise your voice.

The problem with antibiotics might be the answer to your plea.

It may indeed be our eventual downfall, although we are currently experimenting with synthetic vaccines and crocodile immune system extracts.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu May 28, 2015 6:14 am

Smaug;1479816 wrote: Rigorous and careful birth control MAY be one answer, though it's a bit close to Nazi ideas for comfort. We can't do nothing, though.

There is an argument that as we become more affluent the birthrate drops, note the differences between first and third world countries birthrates.

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Thu May 28, 2015 7:59 am

So....buy gallon jugs or 55 gallon barrels? EVO or regular?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu May 28, 2015 12:23 pm

While the idea of using renewable resouces, such as vegetable oils to make fuels is rather laudible, it is still not facing the primary problem of pollution. Nearly every form of combustive fuel is pollutive (with the exception of Hydrogen, where the only waste product is water). The future lies in Solar Power. Even in the last 10 years, the technology of Solar Panels has increased dramatically. If more resources were put into it, just think where it could lead. The need for any form of oil would become obsolete (except, perhaps, for lubrication).

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu May 28, 2015 12:26 pm

FourPart;1479855 wrote: The need for any form of oil would become obsolete (except, perhaps, for lubrication).

Olive Oil is a food ?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu May 28, 2015 12:27 pm

Bruv;1479856 wrote: Olive Oil is a food ?

Nah - Popeye's girlfriend.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu May 28, 2015 12:46 pm

Goilfriend.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Thu May 28, 2015 4:54 pm

Bruv;1479820 wrote: There is an argument that as we become more affluent the birthrate drops, note the differences between first and third world countries birthrates.

It does seem to be reflected somewhat in the demographics. "Developed" nations, so-to-speak, do seem to have lower birth-rates. Maybe it's financial "affordability" that restricts this somewhat. Kids 'aint cheap to raise.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu May 28, 2015 5:06 pm

Smaug;1479870 wrote: It does seem to be reflected somewhat in the demographics. "Developed" nations, so-to-speak, do seem to have lower birth-rates. Maybe it's financial "affordability" that restricts this somewhat. Kids 'aint cheap to raise.
I think the reason for the higher birth rate in the lesser countries is the culture of expecting the children to look after their parents in their old age, plus the insecurity of whether or not they're going to survive long enough to do so, so they hedge their bets by churning out more & more believing there to be safety in numbers. However, with better eduaction it becomes apparent that fewer children result in their being better fed & cared for, thus greatly improving their chances of survival. The real question, however, is whether or not the children accept the responsibilities expected of them, which is usually not the case.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Thu May 28, 2015 5:15 pm

FourPart;1479873 wrote: I think the reason for the higher birth rate in the lesser countries is the culture of expecting the children to look after their parents in their old age, plus the insecurity of whether or not they're going to survive long enough to do so, so they hedge their bets by churning out more & more believing there to be safety in numbers. However, with better eduaction it becomes apparent that fewer children result in their being better fed & cared for, thus greatly improving their chances of survival. The real question, however, is whether or not the children accept the responsibilities expected of them, which is usually not the case.

That used to be the "ethos" in this country not so long ago. Large families to counter higher infant mortality, and to provide, somewhat, for the parents in old age. With the general absence of pensions yesteryear, this was viewed as the "norm". Nearly impossible today, unless you're a lottery winner, or receiving substantial state benefits!