www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18422619

Why bother to mention Rwanda when it's only twice the size of yorkshire!?
The only obvious answer is to try and exaggerate a 'problem' that doesn't exist for many people in the world.

If you live in places like Rwanda or London or Tokyo then you're much more easily persuaded by the language used designed to condition people into accepting harsh measures that at the end of the day are merely there to maintain an economic paradigm.

Where do most people live? Cities.
Why do they live in cities? Jobs.
Why do they have jobs? To get tokens that allow them to get food from their slave masters.

www.bbc.com/future/story/20120618-global-resources-stock-check

How much do you wanna bet we don't run out of antimony or indium in the next decade or so?
Any takers?

Andy, that second link is not available to people in what they call the UK.
Any chance you could C+P it?

The BBC continually do this sort of cherrypicking. Another type of example is the Have Your Say (comments) section. I am a regular contributor to that part of the BBC, I'm gratified to see that there are also many others presenting their views on things which are often in direct conflict with what the BBC propagandises.

However the HYS function is a token gesture. It is not available on every topic. Far from it. Only topics which the BBC deems safe are granted an HYS. For instance, not once, not once, not once has there been a HYS on any subject related to Syria. This is despite the BBC propagandising every single day on the topic........... HYS is there to give the illusion that the BBC is open and impartial. It's cherry picking of which topics have the function and which don't proves this. When you complain formally about this, what do you think happens? Yes, weeks later you get a load of flannel.

dubmeup wrote:


Pin It
Share
Facebook
Twitter



If we fail to correct current consumption trends, then when will our most valuable natural resources run out?

Related


Welcome to the age of modern man
IN BBC NEWS:

Rio moves urged on consumption
More than 100 science academies around the world have called on world leaders to take action on population and consumption at the Rio+20 summit.
As the world’s population soars, so does its consumption, and as a result we are stretching many of our natural resources to their limits.

Of course, the assumption is that human ingenuity and market forces will prevent supplies from running out: we could create better or cheaper extraction methods, recycle materials, find alternatives to non-renewable sources, or reduce consumption.

The hope is that talks at the Rio+20 Earth summit will help to steer the world economy on a more sustainable path. But the clock is already ticking, and if the unthinkable happens and we fail to correct current trends, then when can we expect our most valuable resources to run out?

If you want to see the data we used to construct this infographic, you can find it here [PDF]. (Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader, download the reader here)

pdf link -https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbc.com/future/BBCF_infoData_stock_check.pdf

Interesting that page is not available in the UK.

Fuck me, we're all doomed

I won't be posting here anymore cos I'm gonna catch a heavily inefficient leer jet over to Al Gore's place and stand shoulder to shoulder with him. Hopefully that'll mean I can get a place on a starship off this strip mined rock.

Good luck suckers

andyh wrote:
I'll bet you all the antimony and indium left in the world.

*Runs after dubs and his jet with a bag full of precious sequins and sparkly things*

Ab Origine wrote:
lmao

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon–Ehrlich_wager

^^^

Ehrlich needs no introduction on here as he's a well known shill for the 'cull'.
A malthusian who knows no peer, except perhaps Ted Turner lol...

Simon ofc won the bet...easily....but then again he knew what he was talking about.

' For some reason he could never comprehend, people were inclined to believe the very worst about anything and everything; they were immune to contrary evidence just as if they'd been medically vaccinated against the force of fact. Furthermore, there seemed to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days "experts" spoke awful falsehoods, and they were believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker.'

/nods head violently.