BF2S Forums Pandemic thread

Cybargs wrote:

Apparnetly all those independent voters are racist and hate the gays.

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/i- … 522-p5anhx

“I’m hoping they’re happy with their work,” Mr Joyce told The Australian Financial Review on Sunday. “They’ve managed to get rid of three gay guys, one Aboriginal and one Asian. Was that their game plan?”

At least they got rid of the two jews.

Well it is, we could solve most problems with population reduction, not technical fixes which will be negated by more population.

Just the Indians, they bring their air polluting ways to pristine Australia. /s

the chinese population is shrinking and will be drastically different in 100-150 years time, if they don't do something dramatic to reverse the trend. in their urban-elite centres, and particularly after the pandemic and economic downturn, fertility rates in places like shanghai are approaching a staggering 0.5.

(you can thank a generation and a half of one-child-policy, coupled to their society's emphasis on males carrying the family legacy, for the CCP's hesitancy to deploy mass ground armies and suffer immense attritional losses à la russia. productive-age males are an increasingly valuable asset in CCP land.)

australia is expanding its carbon-emitting fossil fuel programmes and has a growing population. to say nothing of the fact that the average australian has a carbon footprint about 2.5x the average chinese person.

i think we need to start talking about euthanizing australians.

Last edited by uziq (2022-05-31 04:28:06)

well therein is the problem, isn't it? australia's last government, at least, were determined to press ahead with suicidal fossil-fuels-based expansion. all but full-out with climate change denialism.

at least china is notionally onboard with major green investments.

korea has a rapidly declining population too. for all your fears of population explosions, you seem irrationally concerned with a bunch of east asian countries with negative birthrates.

uziq wrote:

korea has a rapidly declining population too. for all your fears of population explosions, you seem irrationally concerned with a bunch of east asian countries with negative birthrates.

Great, so we're agreed, population reduction is a good thing.

Now go tell the Indians.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Erm no the last govt was determined to press ahead with the status quo, no significant expansion.

lmao wtf? at the last IPCC it was explicitly commented upon how australia, in particular, was raising massive eyebrows with their plans for expansion.

Australia considering more than 100 fossil fuel projects that could produce 5% of global industrial emissions
The coal and gas works, if approved, would result in a nearly 30% increase in emissions within Australia.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment … -emissions

'press ahead with the status quo, no significant expansion'? a 30% increase in emissions is the status quo to you? LMAO.

https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/ … -stations/
Australia’s fossil fuel expansion plans equivalent to over 200 new coal power stations

we get it, you've become inured to the automatic feeling of superiority, as if your shit doesn't stink. shame that reality and its troublesome facts get in the way of your white-saviour posturing.

Last edited by uziq (2022-05-31 06:49:18)

i think we’ve already established many times over that my lifestyle, even in terms of personal consumption, is far below yours. i don’t own a subaru or drive to an office. i eat local food, walk mostly everywhere, and work in public spaces. how am i consuming vast amounts of coal, again?

try harder.

never took dilbert for a greens voter

Dilbert_X wrote:

All those places you live in and walk around were likely made of concrete, all the heat, light, cooked food etc thanks to coal.

Unless you take cold showers in the dark in the open and eat grass I suppose.

right. so a temporary visitor to a place is responsible for the carbon-sink cost of their construction.

you best not ever *fly* to an urban centre ever again, dilbert. don't you know that all tourists to new york are factually accountable for all the pours in manhattan?

you truly are a fucking derpsoid idiot.

lol yea no shit the cost of a building is amortised.

but how am i responsible for the cost of the concrete pour and carbon emission? if i visit a café with 20,000 visitors per week, in a building that’s been there for 25 years. what’s my carbon contribution? hahaha.

i assume you truly never leave your parents compound. i’m sure all those big supermarkets with their umpteen hectare car parks that you drive to in order to get your food were carbon-neutral construction projects.

of course there is a cost to my use of travel infrastructure and city infrastructure. but whose contribution is bigger? you, in a personal vehicle, or me getting on a subway line with six or seven figure daily users? hahah, why do you even try and indict my lifestyle in this way? your contributions are categorically higher: you live in a low-density suburb in a large home and drive your own car. LMAO ffs.

if city lifestyles and relying on high-density, high-traffic public services and spaces is a ‘wasteful’ lifestyle, what does that make your nuclear atomised suburban sprawl? we’ve been here before when you tried to claim ‘cities are the problem’, and were swiftly corrected by macbeth/newbie/myself. suburbia is an order of magnitude more wasteful and ‘luxurious’.

honestly get some better fucking arguments lmao.

Last edited by uziq (2022-06-02 04:57:22)