U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Unread 11-29-2009, 04:46 PM
 
1,462 posts, read 473,084 times
Reputation: 790
Non of it matters until the demand on the earth's resources is abated. The green movement has dropped poplulation control as a central theme which makes it all a farce. I have not seen in years this being discussed although I guess it might be somewhere. Just try to tell people they can only have two children; try to pass legislation to end child tax credits after the second child. Try to tell second and third world nations to have small families; until population growth abates, I am not optimistic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 11-29-2009, 10:17 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,348 posts, read 2,929,045 times
Reputation: 1667
It turns out that the new theory says once you reach a certain level of prosperity, you stop having lots of kids.

So population control is taken care of by economic improvements.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 11-29-2009, 10:27 PM
 
Location: SW Missouri
14,461 posts, read 15,090,887 times
Reputation: 17968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pfhtex View Post
The notion that ignoring existing resources that would surely reduce domestic reliance on foreign oil is complete stupidity.

The earth is cooling. At least for the last few, tiny tiny tiny measurements of time.

Please review George Carlin's thoughts on Militant Environmentalism. All these years later, dead-on accurate and hilarious.

We're all going to look back on this era and think, "wow, what arrogance."

Sure new and exciting forms of energy are needed, but we don't have to stop everything that turns our existing wheel.

God. Grow up. Find your importance elsewhere.
Maybe it's cooling, maybe it's heating. Either way, to imply that the activities of the infinitesimal parasite known as "man" has even the slightest influence on it is an act of hubris in the first degree.

The Earth has---- and the Earth will---- and nothing that we say or do or think will change even a single drop of water falling into the sea. I laugh at people who think otherwise.

Anyway, the "Green" movement is just another opportunity for manufacturers and merchandisers and retailers and corporate sponsors etc., to hawk a line of goods that they tell you WILL make the world a better place. It's all malarkey designed to make money. How anybody could fall for it is beyond me.

20yrsinBranson
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 12-02-2009, 08:51 AM
 
Location: Nort Seid
5,174 posts, read 3,767,715 times
Reputation: 2292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
It turns out that the new theory says once you reach a certain level of prosperity, you stop having lots of kids.

So population control is taken care of by economic improvements.
That's actually a very old theory. Look at the average size of American Catholic families these days compared to 100 years ago.

Yes, overpopulation in SE Asia is definitely going to be a problem in terms of resources and pollution, but all we can really do is clean up our own backyard and lead by example.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 12-05-2009, 05:03 PM
 
2,844 posts, read 1,714,753 times
Reputation: 3453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
It turns out that the new theory says once you reach a certain level of prosperity, you stop having lots of kids.

So population control is taken care of by economic improvements.
Fine strategy, we just need 4 to 5 planets Earth to implement it. USA alone consumes 25% of worlds energy, per capita energy consumption = prosperity (McFood, McStuff, McLife at least).

If the per capita energy consumption in the developing world were to reach only 50% of that consumed by the citizens of industrialized nations, and if everyone in the prosperous industrialized nations were to conserve themselves down to that same level, energy production worldwide would have to double.

Note despite consuming 25% of world's energy population of USA is growing quite healthy to hit 500 millions circa 2040.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 12-05-2009, 05:09 PM
 
2,844 posts, read 1,714,753 times
Reputation: 3453
Quote:
Yes, overpopulation in SE Asia is definitely going to be a problem in terms of resources and pollution
As I see it population size alone means little, it should be combined with per capita energy/resources use. US per capita energy etc. consumption is about 8-9 times of that for China, India (note since China is also a workshop making many of the goods we use, part of their per capita use is actually ours).

(1.2 billions of Chinese)/9= 133 millions of Americans. So, in fact China is less "populous" as far as resource depletion (and pollution) goes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 12-08-2009, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
32,165 posts, read 24,946,699 times
Reputation: 14314
We do not have to do anything about population control. Nature will take care of it for us. After the die off the survivors will wonder why we didn't take steps to limit the number of children surviving to reproductive age without any knowledge of birth control. There will be a lot less survivors than the initial population. We are no different than any other exponentially growing creature in a resource limited environment. We just have a really big Petri dish to overpopulate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-05-2010, 12:34 AM
dgz
 
787 posts, read 1,557,031 times
Reputation: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by City_boi View Post
global warming or global cooling shouldn't be the major concern with the green issue. What is wrong with conserving our resources because WE SHOULD and its the RIGHT THING TO DO!? Saying there is no global warming has turned into a lame excuse for people not to lessen our impact on our planet.
Yes, some people are full of excuses. It continues to amaze me that some people go around criticizing others who want to conserve resources, have clean air and water, leave opportunities for their great-grandchildren to see tigers and polar bears, etc. And yet, when you ask them what they're doing in their lives for others, they're almost always doing absolutely nothing. They tend to be focused only on their immediate interests--and to them, someone doing something constructive beyond their immediate needs--must be strange. When does one of these critics suddenly change direction and join a clean air campaign? ...when they discover that one of their children has asthma. If they don't feel that something directly impacts them or their immediate family, who cares about everyone else? (And what kind of perspective is that to pass on to one's children?)

This obsession with conspiracy theory and 'global warming is a fraud' are diversions. It keeps these people from getting involved in anything significant and it benefits the lobbyists representing interests that do not want to make the needed changes if global warming is true. And it is the purpose of lobbyists not to prove that something is wrong... but only to cast doubt.

These people will say that they won't act on something unless they are 80-100% certain, and yet, watch them on other issues and they'll support those issues having far less certainty. Again, more excuses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-05-2010, 07:53 PM
 
13,074 posts, read 5,906,139 times
Reputation: 2583
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgz View Post
Yes, some people are full of excuses. It continues to amaze me that some people go around criticizing others who want to conserve resources, have clean air and water, leave opportunities for their great-grandchildren to see tigers and polar bears, etc. And yet, when you ask them what they're doing in their lives for others, they're almost always doing absolutely nothing. They tend to be focused only on their immediate interests--and to them, someone doing something constructive beyond their immediate needs--must be strange. When does one of these critics suddenly change direction and join a clean air campaign? ...when they discover that one of their children has asthma. If they don't feel that something directly impacts them or their immediate family, who cares about everyone else? (And what kind of perspective is that to pass on to one's children?)

This obsession with conspiracy theory and 'global warming is a fraud' are diversions. It keeps these people from getting involved in anything significant and it benefits the lobbyists representing interests that do not want to make the needed changes if global warming is true. And it is the purpose of lobbyists not to prove that something is wrong... but only to cast doubt.

These people will say that they won't act on something unless they are 80-100% certain, and yet, watch them on other issues and they'll support those issues having far less certainty. Again, more excuses.
People who wish to do such, by all means, do it. I never had a problem with people "choosing" to live a certain way or doing things a certain way to meet their ideology.

When I started to have a problem with them was when they started butting into my business and telling me how I should do things and then pushing legislation be it small level or high level to force me to conform to their ideology.


A long time ago, when I lived in California, I used to recycle everything. My wife and I had bins for plastic, glass, cans, etc...

We used to save up a bunch and take them all down to the recycling business where we turned them in, got some cash back for our time and effort. It was a great deal. I made some recreational money at the same time doing good.

Then... the county wanted a piece of the action. They forced everyone to have additional recycling cans with the normal trash system, they charged everyone per month for them (no opt out choice) and didn't give you anything for what you put in them so they could make all the profit on the collections. They told me they were doing a service to the community and the planet.


I stopped recycling that day.

The moral of the story is...

Provide incentive to do good and people will.

Force them to do such, and they will not cooperate.

Choice is a very important thing in a free society.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-05-2010, 09:30 PM
 
18,820 posts, read 7,267,765 times
Reputation: 5909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
People who wish to do such, by all means, do it. I never had a problem with people "choosing" to live a certain way or doing things a certain way to meet their ideology.

When I started to have a problem with them was when they started butting into my business and telling me how I should do things and then pushing legislation be it small level or high level to force me to conform to their ideology.


A long time ago, when I lived in California, I used to recycle everything. My wife and I had bins for plastic, glass, cans, etc...

We used to save up a bunch and take them all down to the recycling business where we turned them in, got some cash back for our time and effort. It was a great deal. I made some recreational money at the same time doing good.

Then... the county wanted a piece of the action. They forced everyone to have additional recycling cans with the normal trash system, they charged everyone per month for them (no opt out choice) and didn't give you anything for what you put in them so they could make all the profit on the collections. They told me they were doing a service to the community and the planet.


I stopped recycling that day.

The moral of the story is...

Provide incentive to do good and people will.

Force them to do such, and they will not cooperate.

Choice is a very important thing in a free society.
So in other words...as long as you get paid to recycle, it is okay. When it is mandated and laws are enforced due to the over consumption and mass production it is a nuisance. I'd say that you were recycling for the wrong reasons. I never received an incentive other than the satisfaction of knowing that all of the useless refuse which was being manufactured and polluting the environment was going to be reduced. To each his own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $74,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:20 AM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top