PDA

View Full Version : Good work Jamie...


Funko
30-03-2005, 16:21:09
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4391695.stm

:beer: Er... :juice:

paiktis22
30-03-2005, 16:22:32
he never stops.

Gramercy Riffs
30-03-2005, 16:26:48
Lucky, lucky kids.

protein
30-03-2005, 16:31:02
I hope they don't get rid of the treacle sponge with a choice of brown, pink or yellow custard.

Tizzy
30-03-2005, 16:32:13
For years "school custard" was a swear word in our house.
Maybe still is, I should try it and see.......

Provost Harrison
30-03-2005, 17:50:30
Wasn't the school just down the road from us Tizzy?

Gary
30-03-2005, 18:01:25
The kids presently get tasty junk, now look, their destined for roots & leaves and like it.

I bet the kids are over the moon.

sleeping_satsuma
30-03-2005, 18:23:21
Its ok for Jamie the dribbling goon, he's rich and sprogged up. I don't have kids, nor do I want any, so I'd be quite happy for thm all to get rickets if only I could claw back some tax to spend on more shoes. :D

Immortal Wombat
30-03-2005, 18:24:50
More rickets means more NHS taxes. The only real solution is strychnine.

protein
30-03-2005, 18:26:21
Originally posted by sleeping_satsuma
Its ok for Jamie the dribbling goon, he's rich and sprogged up. I don't have kids, nor do I want any, so I'd be quite happy for thm all to get rickets if only I could claw back some tax to spend on more shoes. :D
Is that an ironic dig at the selfish tory viewpoint or are you being serious?

protein
30-03-2005, 18:26:47
Thatcher stole our strychnine.

sleeping_satsuma
30-03-2005, 18:34:36
Originally posted by protein
Is that an ironic dig at the selfish tory viewpoint or are you being serious?

DEADLY SERIOUS

I'm well fucked off with parents and kids getting all the tax breaks and pre-election goodies, while single working adults are penalised at every turn- crippling student loans, no tax benefits at all and bugger all being done about cheap housing. 'Partners' don't even get the same status under law as married boring couples do. Its toss. SIngle people drive the economy, we should get more holidays or lower tax or something. My spawn isnt sucking the state dry with its craving for nutritious school meals. Little fuckers. I hope Jamie Oliver chokes on a sunblush tomato. Fat tongued cunt.

Immortal Wombat
30-03-2005, 18:34:41
Maggie Thatcher, strychnine snatcher?

MDA
30-03-2005, 18:38:29
I can understand where S_S is coming from.

I hate how some people at work are always expecting single or childless people to cover holidays because "we have families". I have a fucking family, thank you very much. There are even children I like to spend time with in my "extended" family. You'd think there was a worldwide shortage of children the way people behave. To be fair, most of them don't realize they're doing it, and are apolegetic if you're in a bad enough temper to point it out.

S_S may be wrong about single people driving the economy. Children are great consumers.

MDA
30-03-2005, 18:39:17
How the hell did my post get clear up there?

Provost Harrison
30-03-2005, 18:39:32
Don't hold back s_s, let it out!

MDA
30-03-2005, 18:39:39
Again! Shit!

MDA
30-03-2005, 18:40:04
All of these should appear below Provost's Wanker photo

sleeping_satsuma
30-03-2005, 18:40:59
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Don't hold back s_s, let it out!

;)

Provost Harrison
30-03-2005, 18:41:06
Oh yeah, a little something for you too ;)

MDA
30-03-2005, 18:43:44
How about now?

EDIT- Well, I'll be damned.

Oerdin
30-03-2005, 18:49:59
They really should feed the little beggers decent meals other wise they'll grow up to be even bigger fucktards then they already are.

alsieboo
30-03-2005, 22:14:51
Yes, well done Jamie, have a knighthood

sleeping_satsuma
30-03-2005, 22:24:37
Originally posted by MDA
I can understand where S_S is coming from.

I hate how some people at work are always expecting single or childless people to cover holidays because "we have families". I have a fucking family, thank you very much. There are even children I like to spend time with in my "extended" family. You'd think there was a worldwide shortage of children the way people behave. To be fair, most of them don't realize they're doing it, and are apolegetic if you're in a bad enough temper to point it out.

S_S may be wrong about single people driving the economy. Children are great consumers.

see- I'm not the only embittered single out there! We should form a support group. :D

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
30-03-2005, 22:26:53
Originally posted by MDA
How about now?

EDIT- Well, I'll be damned.

Again?

sleeping_satsuma
30-03-2005, 22:30:57
Originally posted by Oerdin
They really should feed the little beggers decent meals other wise they'll grow up to be even bigger fucktards then they already are.

I'll tell you what will happen- they'll eat sugary cereal in the morning, go to school and eat gourmet meals, then top up on vending machine crisps and chocs, then go home and eat processed crap, then go out with their mates and hang out at McDonalds. Those who are over 12 will proceed to the alcohol course directly afterwards.

Its POINTLESS!!

Let them eat cake, etc....

Christoph
30-03-2005, 22:32:09
They've already gotten rid of the fizzy drinks, and have replaced them with 'Oasis', which contains less and costs more. A fucking pound for a drink that tastes like water.

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
30-03-2005, 22:32:40
So would now be a bad time to point out the thousands of dollars of other people's tax money the US Federal govt. gives me each year just for having spawned offspring?

sleeping_satsuma
30-03-2005, 22:40:22
Originally posted by Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
So would now be a bad time to point out the thousands of dollars of other people's tax money the US Federal govt. gives me each year just for having spawned offspring?

*add qtflw to parental hit list*

:D

Koshko
30-03-2005, 23:12:18
So why is he called the Naked Chef?

protein
30-03-2005, 23:21:50
AH, what do you think about All You Can Eat's Gillian McKeith?

Wouldn't you agree that educating children about healthy eating is good for their future?

Greg W
31-03-2005, 00:42:22
See, SS, unfortunately the issue is not one of taxing whom, it's one of whom the taxes should go to. And the answer to that is the kids. Unfortunately, you can't give it directly to the kids, you have to give it to the 'rents. Otherwise the kids would spend it on playstations, chocolates and the like.

So, what are you gonna do? I can't possibly see how anyone can honestly complain about children (that need it, not the rich ones) getting money.

What annoys me is that down under, my generation is pretty much the first that is going to live entirely on their superannuation. So, we're paying lots of taxes to help keep the old people in their pensions (which I have no problem with really), but when we get old, we'll get nothing back. There'll be no old aged pension for us, so we end up supporting both the aged, and ourselves in retirement.

Now there's something to be annoyed about. :beer:

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
31-03-2005, 02:23:08
Originally posted by Greg W
See, SS, unfortunately the issue is not one of taxing whom, it's one of whom the taxes should go to. And the answer to that is the kids. Unfortunately, you can't give it directly to the kids, you have to give it to the 'rents. Otherwise the kids would spend it on playstations, chocolates and the like.

I spent ours on XBoxes, chocolates and flat screen monitors!

Am I on another hit list now?

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
31-03-2005, 02:23:35
Originally posted by Koshko
So why is he called the Naked Chef?

I'm not called the Naked Chef...

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
31-03-2005, 02:26:42
And anyhow, single childless people are bad for the economy. They're one-off dead-end skilled people who will die and leave nothing but their finite works as a legacy.

Breeding parents who breed more kids not only contribute their finite skills to the economy, but they also supply an infinitely renewable resource - more humans (until their offspring decide to be single people and die off).

So, the economy is better with baby makers, so they need to be rewarded with extra money and tax breaks etc.

Now I KNOW I just made another hit list :)

Greg W
31-03-2005, 02:29:04
So many hitlists. So few body parts that will survive a bullet...

chagarra
31-03-2005, 04:35:12
Hey leave off the gerries....
I'm quite happy with my pension paycheque every fortnight...

God bless little johnie.... :D:

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
31-03-2005, 06:06:11
You're hysterical, chagarra. Real funny. LD

Gary
31-03-2005, 07:35:12
As a resource, there is a glut of people on the market. Folk should show restraint in trying to dominate society with their genes. It's the selfless course of action for society, unless one is hoping for natural disaster like global starvation, or global outbreak of plague to keep the numbers down.

Childess folk should be exempt taxes as a reward.

Darkstar
31-03-2005, 07:45:26
Wrongo, Gary!

With the high population level, people should be breeding as often as economically possible! Not only does it allow for more citizens to spread tax burdens around, but it helps keep up the number of future warm bodies to help fight off the masses wanting our stuff, or to provide for more warm bodies to allow our societies to secure all the resources we need to provided for ourselves and our posterity!

Gary
31-03-2005, 08:03:21
Righto, Gary!

The intelligent avoidance of overpopulation problems has to take priority over any short term, "I'm bigger than you so I'm grabbing all the spoils" philosophy.

Funko
31-03-2005, 08:09:59
Feeding the kids better at school means they behave better, and concentrate better.

In one school after a week of Jamies new meals the teachers went from giving dozens of asthma inhalers in the afternoon to none, and behaviour was massively improved immediately. One of the kids was refusing to try the new healthy food so Jamie went to their parents and got them to change the home diet as well. The parents noticed the change in behaviour after a few hours! And they stayed better behaved as long as they were not eating crap.

So if we change the kids'll learn more, be less antisocial be healthier. We'll save money in the NHS from Obesity treatment which is currently predicted to cost us billions if the trends continue.

So blatantly spending a measley 200 million a year on this is a really sensible idea.

I don't have kids either this is clearly a very, very good thing though. I can't believe S_S is really so selfish.

Darkstar
31-03-2005, 08:11:08
Wrongo. If you really felt that way, Gary, you'd off yourself now, for the good of everyone. You are still alive, and plan on staying that way. Therefore, you place yourself and your group over everyone else. In other words, you don't believe your own bullshit.

So what is it you are doing? What you are doing is telling all the other groups to stop breeding (for their own good). That results in you getting more for yourself and others in your little society. You might want to come over here to the States, and shoot people crossing the border illegally as well. That's currently 0.5 Mill a year of people upgrading from abject poverty to the basic American lifestyle. You know, that of one of the top consumers of everything.

Remember... if you really believed your bullshit Gary, it would be your duty to your fellow humans to kill as many as you can. You should at least kill yourself, and stop adding to the future misery of all living humans on the planet.

Funko
31-03-2005, 08:14:48
Childless couples should be taxed MORE because they aren't contributing people to the economy who're going to pay taxes when they are retired.

miester gandertak
31-03-2005, 08:14:59
If it wasn't for the jammie food at school you britts were bigger nutcases now?

wooooooooooooooooow

miester gandertak
31-03-2005, 08:31:29
Originally posted by Funko
Childless couples should be taxed MORE because they aren't contributing people to the economy who're going to pay taxes when they are retired.
you had a little chat with damn drekkus, no way Jose.

Funko
31-03-2005, 08:36:45
:lol:

miester gandertak
31-03-2005, 08:41:35
He really tried to brainwash me with that evil thoughts.

Gary
31-03-2005, 10:14:11
In other words, you don't believe your own bullshit.

I've seen you troll much better nonsense than that. When I leave by natural causes I will have reduced the world population by 1. Big time breeders will have left enough to increase the population and hasten the problems you can not deny, but in fact encourage in your posts.

You must realise that allowing a natural decrease is a different matter to forcing an immediate reduction :rolleyes:

Besides how do you know what my mental state is right now, and you want to encourage me to kill myself ? Very naughty of you.

Funko
31-03-2005, 10:15:58
The UK population is declining, which is a problem. And people always complain when we import people from countries that have too many people.

Gary
31-03-2005, 10:17:58
Increasing the number of tax payers is a short term sticking plaster "solution" to a much greater longer term problem. Society has to work out how to generate enough wealth to cover without making the problem worse in the future (by increasing the numbers).

Folk who point this out should have a "tax" income, not a bill, for having and sharing such great foresight.

Gary
31-03-2005, 10:19:32
And people always complain when we import people from countries that have too many people.

Of course they do, because it ruins all the good selfless action of limiting our existing population's breeding. (Amongst other objections that is.)

Funko
31-03-2005, 10:21:15
If people don't have kids the population will just get older and older... What kind of solution is that to anything?

Funko
31-03-2005, 10:23:08
Originally posted by Gary
And people always complain when we import people from countries that have too many people.

Of course they do, because it ruins all the good selfless action of limiting our existing population's breeding. (Amongst other objections that is.)

You are nuts.

miester gandertak
31-03-2005, 10:24:32
a diperless world.

And a fine solution in social pub talk.
all that nagging and bragging about kids

Gary
31-03-2005, 10:26:05
It's not a total stop that's needed, it's a reduction to a lower level. Or at worst a maintenance of the existing level (but I think that's an error too - check out the additional "green belt" being built on year by year, and the reducing size of rooms, the increase in living quarters per square whatever.).

An aging population need not be a problem if tackled gradually. It will eventually just be a blip on the graph longer term. You just need to generate enough wealth to cover the period while you stabilise at a sensible manageable level.

Funko
31-03-2005, 10:26:19
People without kids still manage to talk about unbelievably tedious stuff like what they are doing to their houses* or mortgages or something.


*like painting the hall, not spending 1000000 on a new shed.

Gary
31-03-2005, 10:27:06
You are nuts.

And that's a summation of your position on the matter ?

Funko
31-03-2005, 10:28:28
Yes.

miester gandertak
31-03-2005, 10:31:14
I like the stories about housedecoration better than the ones about birth.

"And all get well and all, yes yes i was a bit ripped in but all and all a fine delivery."

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARCHHHHHHHH

Funko
31-03-2005, 10:32:26
Maybe I'm too young to really get the birth ones yet.

miester gandertak
31-03-2005, 10:34:13
and told with no embarrassment
at allllll, you are the lucky one if they forgot the pictures.

Funko
31-03-2005, 10:35:32
Newborn babies are all ugly and all look the same.

miester gandertak
31-03-2005, 10:36:16
and look like a melted ET.

Funko
31-03-2005, 10:36:21
Although apparently women can tell the difference... they did some research.

Oerdin
31-03-2005, 10:58:25
Originally posted by miester gandertak
and told with no embarrassment
at allllll, you are the lucky one if they forgot the pictures.

Gah! A friend of my ex-girlfirend and her husband wanted to us their birth video. No thank you but the last thing I want to see is her minge getting stretch like a goatce.cx video.

miester gandertak
31-03-2005, 11:04:36
unbelievable......total loss of common sense and ethics after the birth of the first baby.

drekkus are you listening.

Funko
31-03-2005, 11:08:26
He hasn't got any common sense or ethics to lose luckily.

miester gandertak
31-03-2005, 11:10:59
so true, he probably makes a picture thread

zmama
31-03-2005, 13:27:31
Originally posted by Funko
Although apparently women can tell the difference... they did some research.

Yes, I can tell the difference... but they are still ugly.

Drekkus
31-03-2005, 13:58:57
Originally posted by miester gandertak
unbelievable......total loss of common sense and ethics after the birth of the first baby.

drekkus are you listening.
doooo
di
doooo

And thinking that a society can do without future people is a bit silly.

MDA
31-03-2005, 15:02:01
The C-section kids look much better.

Immortal Wombat
31-03-2005, 18:08:37
Originally posted by Funko
If people don't have kids the population will just get older and older... What kind of solution is that to anything?
It's not so much a solution, as an extinction of the problem.

Darkstar
31-03-2005, 22:00:34
Gary, you should swing by the White Supremists or the Black Supremists sites. The exact line you are arguing is what they've always put forward. Stop the breeding, there's too damn many of you lesser beings. They've gone through all the philosophies and logics and debates. Well, at least the more intellectually oriented ones have.

You'll never stop the poor of the world from breeding. The poorer you are, the more it is that is all you can afford for fun. Plus, you need to have more children just to get a few up to adult age, to carry you and your society into the future. Additionally, econimics itself encourages it. At certain thresholds of wealth, it just doesn't cost people anything significant to have another child. So there's no incentive to try and avoid doing so, other then personal beliefs. And most poor societies see their children as a source of wealth and status.

Because of the nature of wealth, there is only 2 solutions.
#1) The total elimination of all money and material ownership. Everyone is now equally poor. Only, these always fail, and for so many human reasons.
#2) Kill off the excess that isn't "valuable". The "Haves" should kill about 3 billion humans right now. Possibly 4. That will leave enough Have Nots (extreme poor) to exploit for the needs of the Haves.

Of the 2 options, only #2 has a chance of sustainbility and success.

Honestly, you don't have to worry about the exploding human population. If the UN reports are actually correct, the global human civilization will collapse within 2 generations, as our eco-systems will no longer provide enough food to sustain us. That means most humans will die of starvation, disease, and war. You know, the traditional killers. It's a self correcting problem. Just hope you are not living at the time it starts to correct itself.

Provost Harrison
31-03-2005, 22:02:11
Econimics encourages it?

Darkstar
31-03-2005, 22:11:58
At a certain point, the economic cost to the parents to have another child is such a minimal increase, that it becomes insignificant. Especially in places where you don't get $50K worth of hospital bills, because all you got was a couple of free checkups from the passing medical staff.

Agarian societies really need the extra workers. The more children you have, the more help you end up working the land, which results in more food for all. So its an investment that pays off in the long term, if the children survive. And once you've acquired the goods to raise a child, you've now got what you need for the second, third, etc etc etc. (handme downs, etc). Keep in mind that the time spent sitting and raising can be spread around with the older children.

Also, most socieities that need lots of children, spread around the caring and cost for all children in the society. It helps to see those children grow up, which strengthens that society.

Economically, you should either not breed... or breed lots. Unless you happen to be one of those lucky few individuals that live in the middle economic range of the modern Western World. Economics there favor never breeding. Which is exactly the results of our middle income classes, and has been since our society evolved those places. The middle classes need the poor to keep up their numbers via training and promotion.

Provost Harrison
31-03-2005, 22:22:30
Insignificant? How?

Darkstar
31-03-2005, 22:24:15
You should go hunting for the threads where the economicists argued about it here. Or go Google about the cost of child rearing in various societies/history. ;)

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
31-03-2005, 23:08:52
I hate to get in the way of a good flamefest, but UN studies show that world population increases are slowing, and by 2050 (I think) the population of the world will stabilize, and then sart to decline. This is due to the increase in living standards for the majority of the Western world, plus development of the 3rd world.

Counterintuitively, it turns out that societies which are well off tend to have fewer children, rather than more. One would think that, given the human propensity to spread genes around the place, that would be the opposite.


Declining world population makes for bad economics in the short term. Populations age rapidly, and fewer young people are around to support the young. It's happening in Japan right now, and it'll happen even more seriously in China soon.

The only solution is to cure death by aging (http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/AdGbio.htm) (check out the gnarly beard!) so people never retire, and generally would accumulate so much wealth they'd never have children.

sleeping_satsuma
31-03-2005, 23:09:35
Originally posted by Funko
Feeding the kids better at school means they behave better, and concentrate better.

In one school after a week of Jamies new meals the teachers went from giving dozens of asthma inhalers in the afternoon to none, and behaviour was massively improved immediately. One of the kids was refusing to try the new healthy food so Jamie went to their parents and got them to change the home diet as well. The parents noticed the change in behaviour after a few hours! And they stayed better behaved as long as they were not eating crap.

So if we change the kids'll learn more, be less antisocial be healthier. We'll save money in the NHS from Obesity treatment which is currently predicted to cost us billions if the trends continue.

So blatantly spending a measley 200 million a year on this is a really sensible idea.

I don't have kids either this is clearly a very, very good thing though. I can't believe S_S is really so selfish.

a) I can't believe you are this gullible and uncritical- of course kids are better behaved when there's tv cameras and a minor celebrity around!! Their parents and teachers have probably put the fear of god in them for a start. Its got bugger all to do with eating chicory instead of chips, or we'd all be reaching for the salads to cure our asthma. I will remember this conversation next time you have a go at me for believing something a well respected nutritionist says or that a herbal remedy for something may possibly work. Where's the scientific proof, and the ten thousand back up studies that are apparently needed to prove anything??? Jamie fat tongued Oliver has shown us the light, vegetables cure your child's asthma and ADD in a few hours or a week! Well it must be true then, and it was such a controlled study. As for parents changing their kids diets- pull the other one, they'll do it for a week because they're so embarassed and be back on the turkey twizzlers by the weekend.

b) Bleeding heart liberal you may be, but surely even you can see this is a cynical pre-election vote winner for Labour?? I was not entirely serious in what I said, as I'm sure you're well aware, but even so, I do object to tax money being tossed pointlessly around to save Tony Bliars arse. It galls me that the government seems to think that 'families' are the only worthwhile group in society when handing out the presents. Old people struggle to pay fuel bills and even to eat, and students leave University with 20,000 of debt and the prospect of renting for the next ten years, leaving them with massive pension issues in later life, our public transport infrastructure is fucked, our public libraries are on their knees, but oh yes, families with their tax credits and child support and child trusts etc are the ones who need financial support, and now apparently nutritional support too. The kiddie vote is an easy target, and this is a nice bit of PR.

c) Most of this money will go nowhere near better nutrition, nebulous goal that it is. That would require well trained staff who give a shit, decent conditions and equipment, good foodstuffs and some imagination and focus. If you think they can (or want) to do that for the sum of money they are talking about, you're crazy. What WILL happen is that the same shit contracting companies will bid for the same contracts, add in more costs, pay themselves more, (its for the traning guvnor!), buy more expensive foods and produce the same pig swill as before. They might experiment with a bit of Italian for a few weeks, but the kids will complain and they'll get their chicken nuggets back when the fuss has died down. Not all schools even have hot kitchen facilities now, so its even more farcical. They will still eat junk they buy at the corner shops and get fed bollocks at home.

d) I'm not selfish, I'm realistic. Its very easy (and lazy) to say someone is selfish just because they think the precious kiddies shouldnt get all the tax dollars. In principle I think kids should be offered reasonable school meals (although quite why they should be offered restaurant quality nosh is beyond me). But please consider that its a fucking long time since any normal child in this country has had rickets, scurvy or any other nutritional problem of note. They aren't eating in michelin starred canteens, true, but they are hardly eating gruel either (and what happened to PARENTS making lunches for them?? Imagine that- parents subsidising their own child's wellbeing?!!). I don't believe the most seriously nutritionally challenged children will either learn from this or receive better at home either because poor nutrition is linked to social conditions and expectations, and it takes more than a fancy lunch to change that. My reasoning basically is that I think there are bigger and better fish to fry in this country, especially since those poor starving kiddies are going to grow up to find the state doesnt support their dental care, education, housing, or retirement. They will support their spawning though :rolleyes:. For kids to really benefit they would have to de-privatise the kitchen contracting and bring cooks back in house so they actually have some pride and care in their work, and parents too would have to start giving a shit and changing their menus. That is not going to happen.

e) Jamie Oliver has only achieved another PR spectacle for Bliar (oh look, that nice Mr Blair- he does listen to the people after all! And he cares about our kiddies!), and another massive leap in allowing parents to abdicate any responsibility for anything that happens to their child because hey, the nanny state is there to worry for them.

Darkstar
31-03-2005, 23:17:44
But Qaj, UN studies show that long before 2050, there won't be enough food space or sustainable eco-system to support our current 6 billion, let alone the projected 9 billion. They are predicting a complete ecology crash. Billions of humans, starving to death (along with all the other living animals of the world). That's sure to bring about war, fighting over the little scraps of still usable land that will exist then. Heck, war to capture and eat the war captives will probably be popular in some parts of the world.

So our population is expected to crash catastrophically long before 2050. That's according to the latest reports of the UN. So live well now, because the UN says theres too damn many humans alive, and it's already to late to stop, unless the world kills off about 4 billion humans, and does so soonest. I wonder who the UN is going to pick to die?

sleeping_satsuma
31-03-2005, 23:21:42
ooh ooh! the brown people, the brown people!!

MDA
31-03-2005, 23:47:20
Can we get rid of all the Mexicans?

Darkstar
31-03-2005, 23:51:43
MDA, out of bounds! Mrs. Garrison that wants to get rid of all the Mexicans. Cartman wants to get rid of all the hippies. :)

Funko
01-04-2005, 00:22:29
50p per meal is restaurant quality nosh?

I'm so far away from agreeing from you on this I don't want to talk about it.

jsorense
01-04-2005, 00:29:32
Originally posted by sleeping_satsuma
ooh ooh! the brown people, the brown people!! :confused: Then who is going to make all the stuff we need?

protein
01-04-2005, 00:31:46
It's all about caring and AH clearly doesn't. I personally think it's awesome that kids will be eating a balanced meal instead of deep fried mechanically recovered animal solids for lunch. Even if they have pikey parents who don't like vegetables the kids have a chance of a healthy meal - at least during term time.

Japher
01-04-2005, 00:32:02
need less...

sleeping_satsuma
01-04-2005, 03:04:07
Originally posted by Funko
50p per meal is restaurant quality nosh?

I'm so far away from agreeing from you on this I don't want to talk about it.

thats what Oliver's involvement in this implies. Its totally cynical. Thats why I said that money is going to do bugger all. I applaud the sentiment however the practicality is dismal.

sleeping_satsuma
01-04-2005, 03:08:24
Originally posted by protein
It's all about caring and AH clearly doesn't. I personally think it's awesome that kids will be eating a balanced meal instead of deep fried mechanically recovered animal solids for lunch. Even if they have pikey parents who don't like vegetables the kids have a chance of a healthy meal - at least during term time.

You forget I work on Government contracts, specifically in schools, so I know full well as do my peers that this will do precisely fuck all for the children of Britain. Except the contractors children that is. The contracting system and the spread of schools and buying processes will ensure total failure. Look to the hospitals for further information.

And no I don't care deeply- maybe I would if I wasnt busy trying to pay off my student loans.

We have better things to spend 280 million on

DevilsH@lo
01-04-2005, 03:18:03
The 280,000,000 should be spent on a bombing campaign against MaCdonalds, Burger King, KFC et al.

The children want what they see on TV and ronald mcdonald has may more sway then jamie oliver, and all the michelan starred chefs in the world unfortunately.

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
01-04-2005, 05:34:41
Originally posted by sleeping_satsuma
ooh ooh! the brown people, the brown people!!

Delicious, Soylent Brown for everyone. Including the school kids.

Darkstar, you got a link to that report?

Darkstar
01-04-2005, 08:33:33
The UN one stating that the world is dead if we don't start killing people? I've seen it spun on 3 different sites. LiveScience, News.Com, and a place I'm not about to admit I even know exist. Haven't gone looking to hunt down the actual original report. It's the same as it has been for the past 15 years or so.

The basic findings are that we are using too much fuel, fertilizer, and land. The fertilizer is washing out to sea killing everything out there (via various mechanisms), and the UN estimates that 1/3 of the ocean is currently "dead" because of it (permanently or seasonally). If we keep *feeding* all the people we are currently *feeding*, then by the year 2015, 2/3 of the ocean will be "dead" permanently or at least seasonally. That is expected to cause world wide famines, because we won't be able to go to our traditional ocean larders to get fish to eat.

"Natural" land is vanishing at the fastest pace ever, and if it continues to grow, as it has every years since 1945, then there won't be a piece of natural land left within 25 years. This means a mess load of bad things. Everything from no wetlands (which means huge storm damage, worse pollution for all, and a loss of over 20% of all things we like to eat in the oceans), to no rain forests (this means no oxy for the world), to massive desertification of the entire world, etc etc etc. And that is expected to turn this world into a Venus, by itself, if projections and current green science is correct.

Then there's the burning more fuel, and not finding any new sources. They cut and pasted the last fuel reports for that, from what I've seen.

And all three are causing massive global warming, which is going to cause all the ice to melt, which will further rob us of usable land space (for living and growing), finish off all coastal ecologies (should they manage to survive all the fertilizer run off (and everything else that drains away) that's choking them to death now), and free up more water vapor into the atmosphere, further accelerating the earth into the hot hell of Venus.

I'd been more interested if it had something new in it. I suppose the original report might, but that seems like a lot of bother to hunt down for another "we are all the walking dead" report. If it had something significantly original, then the freaks I lurk around elsewhere would have keyed in on it. It did recommed we immediately retreat to half the population on the planet if we wanted to extend how long we could comfortably live, but it did it in a matter of stating what we should cut back our actual food production to half to one third of current world production values. Their projects show that would prevent the total dieing of the world ocean until somewhere between 2050 and 2075.

Again, I didn't hear anything original in the spun versions. The figures reported were from various earlier studies, and using the worst figures and projections of those reports. Land "humanized", ocean destroyed, projected fuel usage combined with projected effects based on the unproven or sometimes descredited theories. I could probably dig up a link to the actual source, but it sounded boring even to me as it had nothing new. Even the recommendations to bring down land usage and food production to 1/3 their current levels isn't new. That's a rather old recommendation as well.

Gary
01-04-2005, 09:05:33
Ah now I understand. :gotit: One should ignore obvious facts if some distasteful group(s) latch on to them and use them for their own agenda. :hmm:

In other areas of the world, poor folk may choose not to do that which benefits them long term if they feel that's best for them. They are not immune to consequences of actions, same as we are not. In our own country we should make the decisions we see to be right, not just for ourselves but as a good example to all. We can help out the poor folk elsewhere tackle their problems as much as we are able as well.

I've no idea what 50p represents regarding food when used as a bulk purchase with all the discounts that achieves. I think I'd be hard pushed to make something palatable with that, but then maybe I have expensive tastes :) Perhaps I should try it sometime, but I fear the answer would be lots of inedible rabbit food, and little else for sustenance.

Darkstar
01-04-2005, 09:28:27
You haven't gotten any facts, Gary. In a few years, once you've settled down and started on your own litter of anklebiters, you'll be singing a different tune. That's the normal progression of things. Of course, there are exceptions, and you may end up being such. Won't know until your life is lived.

I am blowing off your postition though, because the point of living is to make more life. That's life's purpose. Being big brained animals, we can define our own mental purposes, but your biology has its own purpose... breeding. And our very body structure is built around that... breeding, and supporting the breeding of our group. Everything else is just a support system for breeding. Hell, we are big brained, because it is the best support system for breeding and raising our young.

I've seen the greenies and various green leaning research groups state from the 70's onward that what we are doing is unsustainable, and that within 25 years, the earth would be dead. The oceans would be fished out, all the natural land would be gone, that the polar caps would all be melted, that all the fuel of the world would be used up and gone, and that we'd be baking to a hot Venus death. Back then, it really bothered me. But 30 years later, it's the same old song, singing "Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!". Hell, the oceans are in better shape now in many places then they were back in the 70s. Not all, certainly. I don't know if its even half. But most of these "the ocean is doomed! Its ecosystem here is dieing!" talk, when you go digging, you find out that they've finally got real data on the region, and that they are comparing that data to old guess work and old projections of what some oceanography or biologists or even statistician thought would be likely... in other words, the first real numbers versus their old "pulled out of someone's ass" numbers.

It's just been too much of "the world is doomed! You've drank your last chilled drink and danced your last dance with that attractive person! Run out and kill yourself to give your family another 5 minutes of living time!" Hell, there is now an industry on how to take whatever you've done, and alarmist it, to round up more money for whatever your little research project concerns. It's a known concern... when everything is a huge critical drama, then it all loses value, because everything is "about to become extinct" and the world is always about to "be destroyed". It's become a very bad TV show now.

Now, I do believe there are problems that we need to keep an eye on. That there are things we should try to fix or at least improve, but all the "World is doomed" talk, all the "there are too many humans alive now! Start killing the unworthy ones off now, for the future of all of mankind!", that crap, I do just shrug off. It's just basic genocidal talk... that's our biology, wanting to cut down on other gene machines from competing with our future gene machines. We've been predicting that humans cannot continue on, as is, since at least before the Greeks started contemplating things. In 10,000 years, a bunch of humans will be sitting around, stating there isn't enough PLANETS in the galaxy to continue to support human society at its currect state and projected rates. The more things change, the more they stay the same. The longer I live, the more examples I see that is true...

Gary
01-04-2005, 09:52:08
I am settled down, there is no way I shall start a litter at my age. And it is most unlikely that I'll sing any different tune in the future given that I'm stating the obvious.

Who says that the point of living is to make more life anyway ? Breeding is just one thing one can do. Avoiding excess breeding is another that is possible if one has a big enough brain. But even if it is the point of life, you get a better quality of life (and possibly, ultimately, greater quantity) by avoiding disasters then rushing headlong into them.

The oceans are in better shape ? Have you heard the problems with fish stocks and declining species ?

I know there are already too many people in this country, I can see the need for more new homes year on year on year creating urban sprawl, I can see the individual newly built living quarters shrink at the same time. But of most concern is the mantra that the answer to all problems is to keep growing the population, regardless as to whether the stats show population growth or stability. Folk can see no further than, more more more... until the future is reached and it either becomes clear that isn't an option as you have the same problems with bigger figures, or some disaster avoids the scenario as the species didn't prove smart enough to avoid it after all.

No pooh poohing of doomsday scenarios changes that problem that is already with us. If and when we colonise other planets then we can think of increasing population. Until then we should "cut our coat to suit our cloth".

Darkstar
01-04-2005, 10:19:38
All your ancestors say, "the point of living is to make life". That's at least 4.3 billion years of nature, on this planet, that you are arguing against. ;)

We cannot avoid disasters. Not as a species. We can only avoid the small er disasters as individuals and as sub-cultures. As individuals, we can marginalize certain dangers, but that is a small set. You'll never be able to marginalize the majority of things that are possible to us. We are basically at the whims of the quantum as to whether we will continue to live, or die, today.

Which areas of the ocean do you want to compare? Most of the areas that were in serious trouble in the 70s and 80s that I know of, are doing well now. Some of that is because, we've gotten smarter in handling those areas. Some of that is because, as that place got into such trouble, it wasn't economical to continue to going there to harvest what isn't there anymore. So those pressures moved elsewhere.

Are there too many people there, or just too many people for you to continue living as you had? ;)

Now, I don't believe that the answer to all things is to grow the pop. That's silly. The answer to government tax income issues is to grow the pop. More tax payers, more suckers to squeeze tax money out of. That is the nature of governments... people are a perrienal cash crop to be harvested for its needs. Remember, a government never, ever, has your interest at heart. You are meaningless to it. Its its own living organism, in its own meme space. It wants to grow. To do that, it needs more people, because it can only live through us... as its food source, and as its worker ants in the government hive.

We are "more more more" because the government prospers on that. The more we use, the more money we need. The more money we need, the more we try to make. The more money we have, the more money the government gets from us. In addition to the government, there are other organized entities that also live off you. They cannot just take our money, so they live off of providing us with a product, and getting our money. The more they can convince us to spend our money on their stuff, the better they do. Again, it's the structure that encourages that behavior. In the meme sense, governments and corporations are alive. And their purpose is to grow and reproduce... like all of life. That is what makes it life, rather then just a simple chemical reaction.

We can think of growing our numbers. If we used a more efficent distribution system, we could actually sustain over 16 billion people, food wise, just using the USA's current farmland. We have all the free power we want, if we will just go out, collect it, and beam it down. That alone would free us from the current power (fuel) stranglehold. And we can cut back on the pollution of the oceans, the over fishing of the oceans, and the harvesting of new land for marginal economical business ventures (new housing, new industry, etc etc etc).

We have the technology, now, to solve the big issues. But it won't happen, because it means that many of the big dogs would lose their power. Many corps and governments would also lose out, as we'd have to do away with them to up our efficency.

Logically, if you really feel there are too many humans, then the only way to protect the world, is to start killing humans. In this existance, we are just another big brained primate. When there's too much of a species that threatens the land or ocean , we know that the solution is to reduce their numbers. If you really believe there are too many humans, then your path should be the killing of humans. If you aren't that active, you should at least kill yourself, and do your part for your fellow humans. You talk the talk--- you talk about reducing the numbers of all humans--- but you are not walking the walk, Gary. As my great grandmother would say, "Either shit, or get off the pot." :)

miester gandertak
01-04-2005, 10:21:48
Originally posted by Drekkus
doooo
di
doooo

And thinking that a society can do without future people is a bit silly.
That was not what i was saying.

notyoueither
01-04-2005, 10:27:20
Originally posted by sleeping_satsuma
see- I'm not the only embittered single out there! We should form a support group. :D

I'm single, and I think you're full of yourself.

You want people to look after you when you've gone all knarly and need your drool spooned back into your gob, don't you?

Who the hell do you think is gonna do that? Some will-o-the-wisp, may have been child that you or I never had? Or some flesh and blood human being that someone else had to go through the pain of birthing and rearing?

Get your selfish head out of your ass.

notyoueither
01-04-2005, 10:29:27
Now, I'll read the rest of the thread...

Gary
01-04-2005, 10:41:43
Are there too many people there, or just too many people for you to continue living as you had?

What definition of "too many" would you use ? Or are we to let a situation get worse and worse simply because we don't want to be accused of a selfish desire not to drop our own quality of life ? Seems to me that one has to say, "Whoa" at some point while the quality hasn't deteriorated too far.

Logically, if you really feel there are too many humans, then the only way to protect the world, is to start killing humans.

As I thought I mentioned earlier, this is not so. If you reach the stage where you think you have to increase the output rather than put the brake on the input then you've already let it get too far by miles.

Darkstar
01-04-2005, 10:52:54
It's a loose definition, Gary. At what level do you think was appropriate? How far over that do you think you are?

You are just having a logic burp on that Gary. You've stated there are too many humans around now. That is much easier to fix. Start killing them. It's what we do for rats, pidgeons, dogs, cats, croppie, whales, seals, dolphins, baboons, chimpanzees, elephants, zebras, crocidiles, etc etc etc. If you are smart, you can kill a few thousand people and never get caught, Gary. Or, you could go into politics, and kill tens of thousands with no worries. Or go into the UN, and help oversee the genocide of whole cultures.

Be productive, Gary. Let out your inner Venom!

Gary
01-04-2005, 11:31:56
About 3 foot 7. I'm raising my hand and saying, "too many", waiting for the others to get with the programme too.

Darkstar
01-04-2005, 11:33:21
You can't wait on idiots, Gary. They'll leave you waiting until you die.

sleeping_satsuma
02-04-2005, 00:41:28
Originally posted by notyoueither
I'm single, and I think you're full of yourself.

You want people to look after you when you've gone all knarly and need your drool spooned back into your gob, don't you?

Who the hell do you think is gonna do that? Some will-o-the-wisp, may have been child that you or I never had? Or some flesh and blood human being that someone else had to go through the pain of birthing and rearing?

Get your selfish head out of your ass.

awwwww....the nasty lady doesnt like the kiddy widdies :cry:

Darkstar
05-04-2005, 20:55:53
Originally posted by Gary
The oceans are in better shape? Have you heard the problems with fish stocks and declining species?

Fishnet stocks? Well, Martini seems to be informing us of the possible problems in her "feet hurt" thread.

I bubbled this thread up because I recently read about the booming recover that the Altantic Right whales are currently experiencing. I could find a link posting the new births and death figures for the past couple of years, if you are really curious. Most of the monitored whale species are recovering, albiet slowly. Being the apex herbies or strong predators (killer and sperm whales, for instances) that they are, with such large feeding ranges, this suggests that the oceans are doing well overall. Or at least, that parts of the ocean are doing well. I know individual regions are really hurting, but other places are maintaining or booming.

So, I don't think the oceanic state is bleak. Some species are in decline (from over fishing, over polluting, natural change in their environments, etc), but other species are spreading.

MDA
06-04-2005, 13:38:13
Originally posted by sleeping_satsuma
I'll tell you what will happen- they'll eat sugary cereal in the morning, go to school and eat gourmet meals, then top up on vending machine crisps and chocs, then go home and eat processed crap, then go out with their mates and hang out at McDonalds. Those who are over 12 will proceed to the alcohol course directly afterwards.


They're becoming Americans!


...and I'm childless, not single, but that just makes the support group a little bigger. There are plenty of kids in our extended family already.

notyoueither
07-04-2005, 06:32:28
Originally posted by sleeping_satsuma
awwwww....the nasty lady doesnt like the kiddy widdies :cry:

I couldn't give a shit if you like children or not.

It's your self centred and short sighted view of public policy that is at issue.

Darkstar
07-04-2005, 22:23:40
All public policy is short sighted and self-centered. What should hers be important to you?




;)