[John Kavanaugh]

Of course Cavalier is a good guy but he would no longer be taking pictures if no one was looking than this girl would be hating on golf is no one was listening.

[Lou_Duran]

Golf certainly does have a bad rep and there are 7.8 billion folks on this finitely resourced planet most of whom don’t give a damn about the game including some, like this lady, who despise it.

Which brings up the big picture elephant in the room which is over population. If she is really so concerned about the environment than she should also be really upset by the population growth which is the biggest thing fuelling climate change and environmental pollution. But where do you start on that point? People having too many children or the medical profession for reducing the mortality rate or old people for living to long?


The person in question might think they are doing something good but in fact they are showing a lack of confidence in their own beliefs by choosing a perceived easy target.


Bullying is never nice to see.

For an alternative view on overpopulation:


Here is an excerpt from a recent the WSJ article:[/size]A new University of Washington study published in the Lancet argues that conventional population statistics don’t account for ongoing and projected future improvements in health care and education for women around the world. More literacy and better access to information about contraception are, along with urbanization, associated with declining fertility rates as women gain better control of their reproductive lives.[/size]Looking at the impact of these forces, the study predicts some startling changes over the course of the century. Instead of the global population reaching between 9.4 billion and 12.7 billion by 2100 (as [/color]estimated in the 2019 United Nations World Population Prospects report), the new study suggests it will peak at 9.7 billion in 2064 and then decrease to about 8.8 billion by 2100. If the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals for education and contraceptive use are met in full, the researchers estimate that population could be as low as 6.29 billion in 2100. That would be 33% lower than the lowest current U.N. projection, and around 1.5 billion fewer than the Earth’s population today.[/size]Even under the less aggressive scenario, the consequences would be far-reaching. China, where the University of Washington study expects population to decline by 48% to 732 million, would fall to third place, behind India and Nigeria, in the world population ranking. Population in 23 countries and territories, including Japan, South Korea, Italy, Portugal and Spain, would fall by 50% or more from their peaks. America, where continuing immigration is expected to offset declining fertility, would slip from third to fourth place with 336 million, barely more than today.[/color]https://www.wsj.com/articles/snooze-the-climate-alarms-11595889568[/font][/color]

[Jon Wiggett]

Lou,


I read a piece on that study last week and it makes very interesting reading. Lets hope that it proves to be true as it is pretty obvious the present population is not sustainable unless there is a radical change in life style for most people.

[JLahrman]

Lou,

I read a piece on that study last week and it makes very interesting reading. Lets hope that it proves to be true as it is pretty obvious the present population is not sustainable unless there is a radical change in life style for most people.

I was reading an article in National Geographic a few months ago about a national park in Africa. They had started training women to be the park rangers because they were much better at handling the confrontations with poachers. The article was also discussing how not only did women make better rangers, but that increased education, literacy, and health care for women were the key to the animals' long-term survival because it reduced the birth rate which in turn decreases human encroachment on natural habitats. Very interesting story. But we've got a long way to go.

[John Kavanaugh]

On my Dad's recent 90th birthday he told me my children would live to be 130. I reminded him that when he was 17 we dropped the first and last atomic bombs. To not plan on the inevitable war that will kill a large number of people seems overly optimistic if not foolish. Or maybe the 2000's will be the first peaceful century in the history of man. If pestilence doesn't get us first.


Too many humans is a first world problem. Let's play 36.

[Ulrich Mayring]

At least golf is relevant enough to make a living off hating it in public. Anything that stirs up emotions about the game can only help it. If "golf hate" really becomes a thing, then I expect to see a massive influx of self-proclaimed contrarians into our clubs.

The point about land consumption is true, though. Not much of an issue in the US, where a lot of undeveloped land is available. But in denseley populated countries like Germany or, even worse, Japan you will have to justify taking 150 acres to build a golf course, which will then be used by just 500 people. When instead you could build other recreational or sports facilities, which could accommodate many more.

The argument that "a golf course is always better than a supermarket" may be valid in the US. But if you have land that is zoned out for recreation (and densely populated countries will zone that out, otherwise they'd have no recreational areas at all), then supermarkets and other nastiness are out. It's then "golf course vs. public park" and that's hard to win for golf. Not impossible though, because the guy building a golf course makes money, whereas the park only costs taxpayer money. So if the builder can integrate enough public usage facilities (like a skate park or hiking trails), then he may well get the nod.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()