Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Run Away INFLATION. I was born in 1938 and had a good childhood and up bringing and when I think today what our young people are faced with.
Yep I'm so thankful I am not a child who was just born in the US today. I can't imagine what my nephew is going to face in his lifetime. It won't be the same great time growing up in the US as I enjoyed.
Water Rates
No you have not explained one single thing I've asked you to explain you simply keep dodging and evading my questions. Let's try again.
Do tell how 5 or 10 billion people going to access clean water?
Do tell how 5 or 10 billion people are going to go vegetarian?
Do tell how 5 or 10 billion people are going to find housing without deforesting?
Do tell how 5 or 10 billion people are going to stop driving cars or taking plane rides?
Do tell how 5 or 10 billion people are going to not need heat or AC?
Do tell how 5 or 10 billion people are going to stop farming and fishing?
Do tell how 5 or 10 billion people are going to stop using artificial light?
Do tell how 5 or 10 billion people are going to stop buying manufactured products?
Do tell how 5 or 10 billion people are going to stop using pesticides?
Do tell how 5 or 10 billion people are going to dispose of their trash?
Do tell how 5 or 10 billion people are going to not use one earth resource to exist?
Do tell how 5 or 10 billion people are going to not affect global warming?
Do tell how 5 or 10 billion people are going to curb overpopulation?
LOL tell that to yourself the next time you interact with technology, medicine or use and understand anything discovered by science. I get it...your an anti-science guy. It sounds like a personal problem to me.
That's one single nay-saying snippet.
Trust me that's a minority view. How about researching all of the published papers on earths carrying capacity.
Oh I see your disingenuous game here. I'm the one that told you to keep plants out of this discussion. We don't have a plant over population issue we have a Homo sapien overpopulation issue.
That's the big elephant in the room...not plants.
I see you can't connect the dots. The more humans on earth the more consumption will ensue. What evidence shows this to not be true?
Indeed it is because advanced countries are what every country is striving to become. Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the world's energy. In other words, the 5% of the world's population that lives in the U.S. has more environmental impact than the 51% that live in the other five largest countries.
It's not over consumption it's simply we have the means to access earths resources and use them to live our developed country ways vs. counties that don't have the access that advanced countries have. That is why they consume less. However if they could consume as we do they will.
Just imagine what it will be like when other counties reach the level of development of the US?
Human consumption is already causing the 6th Mass Extinction event...do you get it?
You have no clue how things work.
I can explain it over and over and you will never get it.
It's simple. Developed countries consume more because they have access to resources.
Underdeveloped countries consume less because they don't have access to resources.
So it really does not matter if we are discussing the West, or advanced vs. underdeveloped countries, the earth is reeling the effects of human consumption. It does not matter what country were talking about.
The earth is currently in it's 6th Mass Extinction event and this event was trigger by human consumption.
Price works everywhere, especially in a country that is all about money.
"No the gas price in CA is not cheap by US standards."
Huh?!? I don't get your reply. I had not said anything like that. I had said: "Gas may be more expensive in California than in other states, but it is still cheap compared to Europe. A major reason why we have so many small cars here. The cost of car insurance also plays a role, which increase with the size of the car."
Utility bills in the US are obviously not nearly high enough so far.
About $1.6 per 2.8 cubic meters (sorry, gallons and hcf don't mean anything to me). That's about .5 euros per cubic meter. That is super cheap by European standards. In Germany it is about 4 euros per cubic meter, i.e. 8 times as much. The problem is that they have to pay the monthly service charge of 30 bucks in LA, which however is independent of consumption, which doesn't encourage saving water. Plus, I am not sure there is no such fee in Germany in addition to the consumption cost as such.
Sorry, your pseudo-questions are silly. Nobody expects anyone to not use artificial light or heating or manufactured products etc. Your questions are mostly all or nothing. In reality it is about signficantly reducing our consumption. We will continue to be humans expecting a certain minimum quality of living. So, if you reduce your meat consumption to one day a week, you are not vegetarian, yet your impact has been reduced significantly.
No, I am not a luddite, but one should apply the right science to a given challenge. When people are faced with the question whether or not to have a kid, they could not care less about biology, chemistry or physics. Sociology couldn't care less about those disciplines.
The UN employes a lot of experts, so just because you don't like their view, doesn't mean it is wrong.
Exactly. I don't seen any contradiction between what you are saying and what I have said. That is why I am saying that we in the West have to become an example and downsize voluntarily, despite having access to all those resources. We have to limit ourselves because we realize our way of life is a problem.
Btw, when people stress how the world population has increased since 25k years ago, one should not forget that back then there was still a lot of megafauna around which was gradually reduced as humans spread. Millions of huge animals that emitted a lot of methane, like sauropods millions of years ago:
Yep I'm so thankful I am not a child who was just born in the US today. I can't imagine what my nephew is going to face in his lifetime. It won't be the same great time growing up in the US as I enjoyed.
My grandkid now has a 4 yr degree from UCLA and having issues with finding a "decent" job for all these years of hard "school" work. Her father is now saying, do you want to go for Masters...like that's going to change things a lot.
Back in my DAY, I came out of high school and working for good ole Westinghouse for 5 good years and lived at home at paid my folks too.....not today's world.
When it got to where a med priced car in this time costs more than my folks first house, I knew something STUNK.
Price works everywhere, especially in a country that is all about money.
Sure go right ahead and think Americans are going to allow their gas prices to go through the roof. I guess you've forgotten about all of the naysayer climate change deniers who scream up and down over the possibility of a carbon tax in an effort to reduce the carbon content of fossil fuels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Huh?!? I don't get your reply. I had not said anything like that. I had said: "Gas may be more expensive in California than in other states, but it is still cheap compared to Europe. A major reason why we have so many small cars here. The cost of car insurance also plays a role, which increase with the size of the car."
Well it does not matter to US citizens how much gas is in Europe. They will still buy their trucks and Hummers, SUV's and Vans...got to tote all those kids around in a nice cushy big vehicle that's safe for transporting the kiddos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Utility bills in the US are obviously not nearly high enough so far.
About $1.6 per 2.8 cubic meters (sorry, gallons and hcf don't mean anything to me). That's about .5 euros per cubic meter. That is super cheap by European standards. In Germany it is about 4 euros per cubic meter, i.e. 8 times as much.
I don't care if gallons and hcf don't mean anything to you...they mean something to those of us who pay per gallon.
I grew up in a state where we would never see the high prices Californians pay for water and sewer not to mention gas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Sorry, your pseudo-questions are silly. Nobody expects anyone to not use artificial light or heating or manufactured products etc. Your questions are mostly all or nothing.
I see you are still trying to dodge and evade answering strait up challenging questions about you thinking it makes no difference if the world population is 5 Billion or 15 Billion.
So you pick out a few select questions and attempt to downplay them with your pseudo-answers vs. providing a sound logical answer.
In fact it does matter how many consumers live on this earth. At our current 7 plus billion and climbing the earth is already being negatively affected. There is no fast solution in sight.
I guess you will be happy and satisfied when all other animal species and ecosystems are destroyed simply because you don't understand human consumption at our current level and you think that all it's going to take is for people to stop consuming more.
Sure that's about as probable as people all of a sudden waking up and realizing that humans are the cause of our current rapid climate change and scrapping their gas vehicles and anything else they do that adds more CO2 to the atmosphere. Do you see that happening? I don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
In reality it is about signficantly reducing our consumption. We will continue to be humans expecting a certain minimum quality of living. So, if you reduce your meat consumption to one day a week, you are not vegetarian, yet your impact has been reduced significantly.
Good luck with this out of touch with reality idealistic thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
No, I am not a luddite, but one should apply the right science to a given challenge. When people are faced with the question whether or not to have a kid, they could not care less about biology, chemistry or physics. Sociology couldn't care less about those disciplines.
Well I would expect that from anyone who is not privy to the understanding that Biology, Chemistry and Physics has provided us with respect to how large the carbon footprint of one human is during a lifetime.
People who pay no mind to what science has been telling us for decades about the unsustainability of human overpopulation are the main culprits to our current dilemma. I can only shake my head and all the folks popping babies. Just what kind of world do they think their child is going to grow up in with our current issues that human over population is causing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
The UN employes a lot of experts, so just because you don't like their view, doesn't mean it is wrong.
You are putting words in the UN's mouth that they did not make.
The Carrying Capacity Wiki page makes no mention of UN numbers.
The Human Overpopulation Wiki page only makes mention of this: Most contemporary estimates for the carrying capacity of the Earth under existing conditions are between 4 billion and 16 billion. Depending on which estimate is used, human overpopulation may have already occurred.
I think it's already occurred. Why? Because we are in the midst of the 6th Mass Extinction event. The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background rates. The trigger for this event is human overpopulation. It's really not difficult to look this information up.
Exactly. I don't seen any contradiction between what you are saying and what I have said. That is why I am saying that we in the West have to become an example and downsize voluntarily, despite having access to all those resources. We have to limit ourselves because we realize our way of life is a problem.
We are in direct contradiction. Your argument is illogical and here's why...According to you if people in the West would simply "voluntarily" consume less so the world can harbor more people who will consume what the Western folks "voluntarily" gave up.
Do you see how illogical this is? It results in the same human consumption mess we currently have but with more people. Where are all of those folks going to live? Yep lets tear down forests and cave up land to build house and grown more food for them. See how utter ridiculous and incomprehensible your argument is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
, when people stress how the world population has increased since 25k years ago, one should not forget that back then there was still a lot of megafauna around which was gradually reduced as humans spread. Millions of huge animals that emitted a lot of methane, like sauropods millions of years ago:
My grandkid now has a 4 yr degree from UCLA and having issues with finding a "decent" job for all these years of hard "school" work. Her father is now saying, do you want to go for Masters...like that's going to change things a lot.
What did your grandchild study in college?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaminhealth
Back in my DAY, I came out of high school and working for good ole Westinghouse for 5 good years and lived at home at paid my folks too.....not today's world.
Sure go right ahead and think Americans are going to allow their gas prices to go through the roof. I guess you've forgotten about all of the naysayer climate change deniers who scream up and down over the possibility of a carbon tax in an effort to reduce the carbon content of fossil fuels.
Well it does not matter to US citizens how much gas is in Europe. They will still buy their trucks and Hummers, SUV's and Vans...got to tote all those kids around in a nice cushy big vehicle that's safe for transporting the kiddos.
I don't care if gallons and hcf don't mean anything to you...they mean something to those of us who pay per gallon.
I grew up in a state where we would never see the high prices Californians pay for water and sewer not to mention gas.
I see you are still trying to dodge and evade answering strait up challenging questions about you thinking it makes no difference if the world population is 5 Billion or 15 Billion.
So you pick out a few select questions and attempt to downplay them with your pseudo-answers vs. providing a sound logical answer.
In fact it does matter how many consumers live on this earth. At our current 7 plus billion and climbing the earth is already being negatively affected. There is no fast solution in sight.
I guess you will be happy and satisfied when all other animal species and ecosystems are destroyed simply because you don't understand human consumption at our current level and you think that all it's going to take is for people to stop consuming more.
Sure that's about as probable as people all of a sudden waking up and realizing that humans are the cause of our current rapid climate change and scrapping their gas vehicles and anything else they do that adds more CO2 to the atmosphere. Do you see that happening? I don't.
Good luck with this out of touch with reality idealistic thinking.
Well I would expect that from anyone who is not privy to the understanding that Biology, Chemistry and Physics has provided us with respect to how large the carbon footprint of one human is during a lifetime.
People who pay no mind to what science has been telling us for decades about the unsustainability of human overpopulation are the main culprits to our current dilemma. I can only shake my head and all the folks popping babies. Just what kind of world do they think their child is going to grow up in with our current issues that human over population is causing?
You are putting words in the UN's mouth that they did not make.
The Carrying Capacity Wiki page makes no mention of UN numbers.
The Human Overpopulation Wiki page only makes mention of this: Most contemporary estimates for the carrying capacity of the Earth under existing conditions are between 4 billion and 16 billion. Depending on which estimate is used, human overpopulation may have already occurred.
I think it's already occurred. Why? Because we are in the midst of the 6th Mass Extinction event. The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background rates. The trigger for this event is human overpopulation. It's really not difficult to look this information up.
Now tell me again how Biology is meaningless in this discussion?
Extinction in the Anthropocene
We are in direct contradiction. Your argument is illogical and here's why...According to you if people in the West would simply "voluntarily" consume less so the world can harbor more people who will consume what the Western folks "voluntarily" gave up.
Do you see how illogical this is? It results in the same human consumption mess we currently have but with more people. Where are all of those folks going to live? Yep lets tear down forests and cave up land to build house and grown more food for them. See how utter ridiculous and incomprehensible your argument is?
This is a non sequitur that you keep repeating. What exactly is your point here?
That's the point, you were spoiled and now you complain about Californian water prices, which however are still way too low, for instance compared to Europe. Since gallons don't mean anything to me, I used one of those conversion tools to calculate the price in euros per cubic meter. And it is 1/8th of what Germans pay per cubic meter.
I do see people waking up, indeed. Especially in recent months.
And again, the biggest problem in terms of resources are industrialized countries, where there is no overpopulation. We have overconsumption/overproduction etc., whereas developing countries have overpopulation - and in the long run our problems unless we soon become a sustainable example for them to follow.
Yes, those exact sciences are fine for measuring pollution etc. But to most people the results don't mean much, all they need to know is for instance whether we have a pollution problem or not, whether they need to change or not. And when you wonder if you should have a baby, you usually don't care about the environment. I mean, sure, we have low birth rates in the West, but not because people here cared more about the environment or out planet. Often they simply can't afford to have kids, or they don't have time for them, or they are egoists regarding society.
It says: "A 2001 UN report said that two-thirds of the estimates fall in the range of 4 billion to 16 billion with unspecified standard errors, with a median of about 10 billion."
The UN has been studying those topics for decades. So have others.
With our current 7-8 billion we are closer to the lower than to the upper limit of those estimates.
But it is all just guesswork, models, simulations, theories, no exact, reliable numbers because of all the factors mentioned in the Wiki article. There might already be too many humans, or not, nobody can tell for sure. I am far from suggesting we should aim at the 16 billion, far from it. At 2 kids per woman we merely maintain the size of a society. That is what I suggest globally, especially in developing countries asap because once their life expectancy at birth reaches our levels, they will be faced with a massive wave of old people decades later.
The reason for mass extinction is not overpopulation, but human behavior.
Mass extinctions have happened long before there were humans. But of course we should try to prevent them. I am all in favor of protecting the Amazon and other rain forests, where a considerable percentage of the world's species are at home.
Still, just because species disappear does not mean nature collapses. Here in Europe a lot of species have disappeared over the centuries, but still, Europe is doing ok with its reduced number of species.
No, that is not at all what I am saying. I do not suggest using less resources in the West so that developing countries can use more. I suggest downsizing as a virtue that others can adopt once they realize that despite our material modesty we lead reasonable, sustainable lives.
People can change. For instance in Africa there are former poachers who now protect what they used to kill. They have been educated and convinced to change. People can learn and change their behavior. That also applies to your "questions". Sure, there will always be a stubborn part of society that just doesn't care, but if 80-90% change, it would already be enough.
My point is that the megafauna was natural, yet it lead to climate change. I am against the notion that humans are basically bad for our planet just because they are humans. Millions of bisons etc. have disappeared and been replaced by humans.
My grandkid now has a 4 yr degree from UCLA and having issues with finding a "decent" job for all these years of hard "school" work. Her father is now saying, do you want to go for Masters...like that's going to change things a lot.
Back in my DAY, I came out of high school and working for good ole Westinghouse for 5 good years and lived at home at paid my folks too.....not today's world.
When it got to where a med priced car in this time costs more than my folks first house, I knew something STUNK.
And yet we have shills saying that we need even MORE immigrants to take these mythical jobs that don't exist
The "world" can't be overpopulated, as there are vast areas of earth with no living humans. The world has a distribution problem not overpopulation problem.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
