Want to Help the Planet? Just Die!

[random n00b]

And less people to manufacture and distribute it.

 

That's why we work on using automated systems. If we have the tech of having a robot to vaccuum my floor or mow my lawn, in the next decade or two we may see the rise of automated farms.

 

And Mars colonies, and flying cars that run on recycled trash fuel, and all of the contries of the world working together in peace and harmony.

Yes! And then...

 

... And there were no more terrorists, and no more arguments and disputes, and we all went to live in the gingerbread house at the end of lollipop lane in the land of chocolate ...

10/10

[astr0creep]

If we want to remove food shortages and not use up so much fossil fuels we need to lower our population. Currently we have around 6 billion people on this lil' mudball so if we drop our population by half it goes to reason that we would use up half as much resources, therefore not have any shortages.

 

Nah.

 

1/3 of the world's population(us, the "west") consumes 95% of the world's resources while the rest work and live to provide this 33% with its consuming needs.

 

If the "west" would consume what it needs instead of what it wants people would be much healthier and resources could be better distributed throughout the world and everyone, everything would benefit.

 

Instead, we are too concerned about making those payments on our big screen TVs and SUVs to care, making a very few extremely rich while the rest of the world is starving to death and/or getting horribly sick.

 

It's not a population control issue, it is a consumption control issue.

Edited May 18, 2008 by astr0creep

[Sand]

I think it is a bit of both, Astro, but you are right. A lot of western countries, like the US, use a lot of resources. More than we should. Personally, I would be happy if gas prices here jumped another two to three dollars a gallon.

[Atreides]

I think there's tones of Malthusian logic where productivity gains will increase the population and consumption per person will erode again as the population increases. However tech has managed to defy that so far.

 

I think efficiency and resource management and sustainable consumption is the way forward. By the way, make sure there's enough food etc producers to support the rest when cutting down the population...

[Guard Dog]

If we want to remove food shortages and not use up so much fossil fuels we need to lower our population. Currently we have around 6 billion people on this lil' mudball so if we drop our population by half it goes to reason that we would use up half as much resources, therefore not have any shortages.

 

Nah.

 

1/3 of the world's population(us, the "west") consumes 95% of the world's resources while the rest work and live to provide this 33% with its consuming needs.

 

If the "west" would consume what it needs instead of what it wants people would be much healthier and resources could be better distributed throughout the world and everyone, everything would benefit.

 

Instead, we are too concerned about making those payments on our big screen TVs and SUVs to care, making a very few extremely rich while the rest of the world is starving to death and/or getting horribly sick.

 

It's not a population control issue, it is a consumption control issue.

 

Looks like Obama agrees with you two:

Pitching his message to Oregon's environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to "lead by example" on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.

 

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

 

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

 

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs...2Zk5xnYygW1W67w

[Gorgon]

The US is now the world leader in new low emission technologies, unfortunately its ambitions do not stretch very far beyond energy self sufficiency. It is not interested in signing up to any kind of emmission quotas that will have a tangible cost, especially not in the middle of a recession. The US is still the world's greatest polluter per capita, although China and India may be set to take the crown in the not too distant future.

 

It's a positive development on the whole no doubt, but lets not mistake practicality for ideology. The focus on the technologies of the future started in the early days of the Bush administration, which should the the only proof needed that the motive here is one of national interest. Unless these clean technologies are going to be cheaper than the old ones, there isn't much hope that they are going to be embraced by the developing world though.

Edited May 20, 2008 by Gorgon

[Guard Dog]

The US is now the world leader in new low emission technologies, unfortunately its ambitions do not stretch very far beyond energy self sufficiency. It is not interested in signing up to any kind of emmission quotas that will have a tangible cost, especially not in the middle of a recession. The US is still the world's greatest polluter per capita, although China and India may be set to take the crown in the not too distant future.

 

It's a positive development on the whole no doubt, but lets not mistake practicality for ideology. The focus on the technologies of the future started in the early days of the Bush administration, which should the the only proof needed that the motive here is one of national interest. Unless these clean technologies are going to be cheaper than the old ones, there isn't much hope that they are going to be embraced by the developing world though.

 

No new technology is cheap or consumer friendly at first. Plus you are forgetting the US is completely market driven. Bush and Congress created a substantial tax credit for consumers who own hybrid/high efficiency cars to encourage people to buy them. However, at first only Toyota was making one and the they were terribly expensive. The savings in gas (then around $2 US a gallon) and the tax credit did not offset the high purchase price. So there was no demand for them. When demand is low supply usually will be too. Now gas has gone up to $4 US, demand is high for efficient/hybrid cars and all major car comapnies have at least one hybrid model so supply is way up and the price has dropped. A fair bit actually. I read in the Miami Herald a little while back that hybrids account for 42% of all new car sales in Florida.

 

As for the US mainly developing technologies to achieve energy independence I'm not sure whta the problem with that is. No nation or company pursues innovation for altruistic ends. If the end result betters all of humanity then thats great but it is never the intended goal I think. Besides, most new non-military technologoes in the US are developed by private companies (like clean coal for instance) and they are more than willing to sell that to anyone.

[Xard]

Plus you are forgetting the US is completely market driven.

 

I see what's the problem then

[Guard Dog]

Plus you are forgetting the US is completely market driven.

 

I see what's the problem then

 

Sorry Xard, but that is not going to change.... ever.

[Sand]

I like Obama and he will most certainly get my vote in November. There are a few things I disagree with him, but of the main two parties I am more of a Democrat than a Republican. Also, Guard Dog is right, and that is the downside of a near pure capitalistic society that the US is.

[Guard Dog]

and that is the downside of a near pure capitalistic society that the US is.

 

I don't think I would call the US a pure capitialisitc society, more like a heavily regulated one. But believe me, you don't want the government to get into the business of dictating what you may or may not buy like hybrid cars for instance. It's all fine and good to use the carrot to encourage behaviour but you don't want them to start wielding a stick by mandating hybrids or elevating cafe standards to a point where they can not be met.