Yesterday I was reading the National Geographic April 2010 edition, a special edition entitled "Water, our thirsty world".
Most of you probably think that I couldn't give a toss about the environment. Yep, I like fast cars, nice toys and try to enjoy some of the money I earn by seeing the world. You probably don't know that we try to grow our own veges, recycle as much as possible, only use energy saver light bulbs, try to limit the numbers of trips into town (well, petrol is pricey!), turn off electrical devices, only heat key areas in winter and try not to waste water. So there.
The NG issue focused on the global availability of water and how water is currently managed. The more I read, the more it seemed to be missing the key issue. Surely the reason we have these shortages and changes is due to humans - the impact of human expansion, growth, development and modern medicine keeping everyone alive. So if we're happy to ration all other resources - water, food, fuel - why is it so terrible to discuss rationing of humans?
Before all the mummsies and daddsies reach for the phone and call the police, I'm not talking eugenics. I'm talking practicality. The world's population currently sits at around 6,817,100,000. China and India both have well over 1 billion people each. At current birth/death rates, the world population is expected to reach about 9 billion between 2040 and 2050. That's a lot of people. If birth rates don't change and if resources continue to decline, how (on Earth) can this population be supported?
Politicians and the general public talk so blithely about global warming and climate change yet do not appear to have the capacity to consider ways apart from "protocols" or "taxes" as methods of change. Why not look at addressing the core issue? Why not discuss limits such as every person can only have 1 child each? That means two people together could have two children. Let those who choose not to have children be rewarded by being able to "sell" their allocation. Manage population growth! I don't care who breeds with whom, just how many they have.
Wait, I can hear the arguments already. Compulsory sterilisation - gasp! Only after you've had (or traded) your allocation. Maybe it would help people to use contraception - if you use your allocation up at age 16, maybe you'll regret it at 26. Surely it's an environmental argument that's worth having.
My sister-in-law made a "humourous" post on Facebook today over an "article" (no doubt sponsored by Nappy Brain United) allegedly recommending that people without children shouldn't receive a pension. Maybe the nappy brains out there should think about the population and the damage they are doing to the world before they make comments about those who choose not to have children.
The Rose
Monday, April 26, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
It is a truth universally acknowledged...
That when one part of your life is going badly, all the rest of it goes badly as well.
As a kid you wondered why parents got stressed - what is there to worry about? Now I understand worry lines and grey hairs.
Arrgghhh...acopic! And it's only Tuesday.
The Rose
As a kid you wondered why parents got stressed - what is there to worry about? Now I understand worry lines and grey hairs.
Arrgghhh...acopic! And it's only Tuesday.
The Rose
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
More movies
Hmmmmm. Just bought and watched Watchmen for a mighty $15.
I freely confess that in my opinion, despite all efforts from the media and some family members, books with pictures are either a) picture books for kiddies or b) comics. Graphic novels do not exist. So I haven't "read" the "book".
Gosh, this movie really tries hard doesn't it? Plot is tricky to describe - bunch of guys, some clever/super abilities, decided in the 40's to don spandex (if you're male) or vinyl (if you're a girlie) and masks as that means you can't be prosecuted for breaking the law "bringin' down them thar villains".
The film is loooonnnnggggg for such a thin plot - 2hrs 35mins. Lots of CGI to pad out the story, mostly by having a damaged physicist glow blue, although there is one character (Rorschach) whose face mask moves around as an ink blot which personally I like.
Can't even be too bothered going through the story - bunch of guys, fight other guys, some cool moments, many bad moments including a bloody awful sex scene, then resolution that tries to be tricky. With more spandex.
Once again, another doubtful rendition of a comic book story/villain/plot that misses the mark. I would have been disappointed to have watched this on the big screen.
Maybe I am just immune to the genre however this scores a yawning 4/10. I'm sure it would be much better with hallucinogenic influences.
The Rose
Addendum - ah, the mystery is solved. This film is directed by the same moron who did 300, one of the worst movies I have ever had to endure.TR
I freely confess that in my opinion, despite all efforts from the media and some family members, books with pictures are either a) picture books for kiddies or b) comics. Graphic novels do not exist. So I haven't "read" the "book".
Gosh, this movie really tries hard doesn't it? Plot is tricky to describe - bunch of guys, some clever/super abilities, decided in the 40's to don spandex (if you're male) or vinyl (if you're a girlie) and masks as that means you can't be prosecuted for breaking the law "bringin' down them thar villains".
The film is loooonnnnggggg for such a thin plot - 2hrs 35mins. Lots of CGI to pad out the story, mostly by having a damaged physicist glow blue, although there is one character (Rorschach) whose face mask moves around as an ink blot which personally I like.
Can't even be too bothered going through the story - bunch of guys, fight other guys, some cool moments, many bad moments including a bloody awful sex scene, then resolution that tries to be tricky. With more spandex.
Once again, another doubtful rendition of a comic book story/villain/plot that misses the mark. I would have been disappointed to have watched this on the big screen.
Maybe I am just immune to the genre however this scores a yawning 4/10. I'm sure it would be much better with hallucinogenic influences.
The Rose
Addendum - ah, the mystery is solved. This film is directed by the same moron who did 300, one of the worst movies I have ever had to endure.TR
Monday, April 5, 2010
Movies
Went to see Martin Scorsese's Shutter Island last night. I quite like Scorsese's work and was curious to see this film, especially due to the mixed reviews. I'm going to try to avoid spoilers!!
The film starts with a simple premise - US Marshall Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) is going to an island for the "criminally insane" to investigate the disappearance of a female patient. Initially the film seems very linear with jaded and stereotypical descriptions of mentally disorder offenders. As the movie progresses however, significant incongruities are displayed - odd lighting and weather, incomprehensible security e.g. manacled patients and unusual dialogue between DiCaprio and the lead psychiatrist played by Ben Kingsley. The movie becomes more disorganised and disjointed as the various plot twists and turns are played out. The acting is good and the film is beautifully shot, including some of Scorsese's trademark signs with very bright light and angelic-seeming blonde women who really aren't that perfect.
The film is a little too long and perhaps labours slightly at the end when explaining what is "really" happening. If you're looking for fluff or not in the mood to think then I wouldn't bother otherwise, great film for a dark, rainy night, 7-8/10.
The Rose
The film starts with a simple premise - US Marshall Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) is going to an island for the "criminally insane" to investigate the disappearance of a female patient. Initially the film seems very linear with jaded and stereotypical descriptions of mentally disorder offenders. As the movie progresses however, significant incongruities are displayed - odd lighting and weather, incomprehensible security e.g. manacled patients and unusual dialogue between DiCaprio and the lead psychiatrist played by Ben Kingsley. The movie becomes more disorganised and disjointed as the various plot twists and turns are played out. The acting is good and the film is beautifully shot, including some of Scorsese's trademark signs with very bright light and angelic-seeming blonde women who really aren't that perfect.
The film is a little too long and perhaps labours slightly at the end when explaining what is "really" happening. If you're looking for fluff or not in the mood to think then I wouldn't bother otherwise, great film for a dark, rainy night, 7-8/10.
The Rose
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Enlighten me?
It's Easter Sunday. The shops are closed. Why is this?
Why, in a secular society, should religious myths affect my ability to enjoy the weekend? Why, if we are truly secular and have a government and society that exists outside the realm of religious influence, does the city have to stop on a so-called religious holiday? Why are people fined for opening their doors to sell their products? They are simply trying to remain viable in business and contribute to the economy.
In my view, if you want to be open, be open. There's enough exemptions already that it's about time the whole damn thing was scrapped. Obviously the "public holiday" card and pressure could be waved here with people crying out "it's family time" and not feeling able to say "no" if the boss chooses to open. Yep, it's a risk. However for many people, long weekends are the only time practical to get jobs etc done around the house and home. Outdated and ridiculous religious sentiments ruin this situation for most.
I mean, come on, even if you believe in the religious crap you can't tell me that Jesus had the same shops as we have now, so why the boycott?
The Rose
Why, in a secular society, should religious myths affect my ability to enjoy the weekend? Why, if we are truly secular and have a government and society that exists outside the realm of religious influence, does the city have to stop on a so-called religious holiday? Why are people fined for opening their doors to sell their products? They are simply trying to remain viable in business and contribute to the economy.
In my view, if you want to be open, be open. There's enough exemptions already that it's about time the whole damn thing was scrapped. Obviously the "public holiday" card and pressure could be waved here with people crying out "it's family time" and not feeling able to say "no" if the boss chooses to open. Yep, it's a risk. However for many people, long weekends are the only time practical to get jobs etc done around the house and home. Outdated and ridiculous religious sentiments ruin this situation for most.
I mean, come on, even if you believe in the religious crap you can't tell me that Jesus had the same shops as we have now, so why the boycott?
The Rose
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)