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.
Because i am in a office for 8 hours a day, i have nothing but time to waste and I go into all the topics on this board and many othere.
that is why i can write on green living, which i dont believe in anyway.
because if they really wanter everyone to go green, green products would be cheap instead of more money, and EVERYONE would have a clothesline, and they would not be banned from HOA, and other types of buildings.
Imagine in Palm Springs California where the temperature goes to 112 degrees, I did not see one clothesline outside. People would rather waste electric than hang clothes out in the back yard....112 degrees, gimme a break, don't be so dumb and lazy, hang the damn clothes out.
Just curious... what kind of job do you have that you can spend hours a day at work surfing the forums?
If the US (as a leader) openly said population size is an issue and we are reducing immigration to 5,000 people a year. We are mandating birth control for women that want to take welfare from the government and offering money or college to women 18-25 that use long term birth control. And the only foreign aid that we will offer is in the form of birth control products, then it would provide an example that some other countries might follow.
Our population would be reduced, at least slowing world growth some. You can bet that some western European countries would follow our lead.
I understand consumption can be reduced, but I also understand that effort is 100% a waste if the population size isn't addressed. That is the part most green people are missing.
those are purely assumptions. you're assuming that reducing immigration would in turn spark other countries to somehow put controls on their population growth, i guess because they wouldn't be losing people to the US anymore? but the US isn't the only country people emigrate to. so you'd have to have all the other countries adopt similar policies.
mandating birth control - please tell me what group of politicians would do this? republicans? democrats? who?
i think it'd be awesome to give money to women taking birth control, or even college.
here's an example...since the 70s, we've had numerous advancements in our automobiles, but many have concentrated on the addition of power and size to our vehicles. so, although we're driving more cars and more miles and are a larger population, we're consuming less oil per capita than we were back then. now think if all that advancement went towards fuel economy instead of increasing power...how much less would we be consuming?
it's been said that if every home replaced 1 incandescent with a CFL, we could close somewhere around 80 coal fired plants. there's countless more examples like this. we're going to need to reduce our impact for various reasons, population control or not.
those are purely assumptions. you're assuming that reducing immigration would in turn spark other countries to somehow put controls on their population growth, i guess because they wouldn't be losing people to the US anymore? but the US isn't the only country people emigrate to. so you'd have to have all the other countries adopt similar policies.
I'm assuming we can get other western nations to jump onboard with the idea. And since western nations have the highest consumption, reducing growth in these first makes the biggest gains. China and Japan are already starting to turn their growth, so they would probably be vocal supporters. Singapore also pushed a policy on it's people for a while.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp
mandating birth control - please tell me what group of politicians would do this? republicans? democrats? who?
Republicans tried in the early 1990's. As soon as norplant came out they called it the "vaccine for poverty". Democrats, the ACLU and NAACP didn't support it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp
here's an example...since the 70s, we've had numerous advancements in our automobiles, but many have concentrated on the addition of power and size to our vehicles. so, although we're driving more cars and more miles and are a larger population, we're consuming less oil per capita than we were back then. now think if all that advancement went towards fuel economy instead of increasing power...how much less would we be consuming? ]it's been said that if every home replaced 1 incandescent with a CFL, we could close somewhere around 80 coal fired plants. there's countless more examples like this. we're going to need to reduce our impact for various reasons, population control or not.
It's been said that if the average fuel economy on cars driven now was 40mpg, in 5-7 years we would be consuming the exact same amount of fuel as now.
The population growth will always overtake any environmental gains.
Because i am in a office for 8 hours a day, i have nothing but time to waste and I go into all the topics on this board and many othere.
that is why i can write on green living, which i dont believe in anyway.
because if they really wanter everyone to go green, green products would be cheap instead of more money, and EVERYONE would have a clothesline, and they would not be banned from HOA, and other types of buildings.
Imagine in Palm Springs California where the temperature goes to 112 degrees, I did not see one clothesline outside. People would rather waste electric than hang clothes out in the back yard....112 degrees, gimme a break, don't be so dumb and lazy, hang the damn clothes out.
Funny post, nightcrawler! Clotheslines in Palm Springs? Palm Springs? Don't they have golden fire hydrants and diamonds in every window?
LOL, Many green products have been hyjacked by not so green companies. They saw a trend, jumped on it, and jacked up the price.
Let me make this a little easier to get to the point to avoid any confusion:
Just a series of yes/no questions:
Would you support the reducing of immigration to 5,000 people a year?
Would you support stripping illegals of all rights and deporting them when they are found?
(those two would significantly reduce our population growth and size in the next 5 year)
Would you support mandating birth control use for welfare recipients?
Would you support a program that gives women small amounts of cash (~$100/year) for going on long term birth control such as IUD's, depo provera or norplant?
Is the US overpopulated?
Would you support a federal law mandating anyone convicted of felonies on 3 separate occasions will be put in prison for life with no chance of parole?
Would you support a federal law mandating anyone convicted of violent felonies on 2 separate occasions will be put in prison for life with no chance of parole?
There, no assumption Just simple yes/no questions.
So eco people, let's here so glorious answers (I'd say yes to them all).
(BTW I appreciate you responding Bradykp)
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Randy, What does life without parole have to do with being green? I don't know what point you are trying to make here. It looks like you are going more into social issues rather than environmental ones. Sure reducing immigration would improve the environment in the US over the long term, but so would increased gov. Regulations and they would be way more specific to ensuring sustainable resources. Immigration is what will keep the usa from stagnating like japan and europe due to a falling birth rate
Would you support the reducing of immigration to 5,000 people a year? NO
Would you support stripping illegals of all rights and deporting them when they are found? NO
Would you support mandating birth control use for welfare recipients? NO
Would you support a program that gives women small amounts of cash (~$100/year) for going on long term birth control such as IUD's, depo provera or norplant? NO
Is the US overpopulated? YES
Would you support a federal law mandating anyone convicted of felonies on 3 separate occasions will be put in prison for life with no chance of parole? NO
Would you support a federal law mandating anyone convicted of violent felonies on 2 separate occasions will be put in prison for life with no chance of parole? NO
Randy, What does life without parole have to do with being green? I don't know what point you are trying to make here. It looks like you are going more into social issues rather than environmental ones.
What I'm getting at is that post "green" people seem to lack the critical thinking to truly address environmental issues. They "think" what they are told to think and stay within a political ideology.
While you don't seem to grasp that overpopulation is the driver to environmental issues, nearly all environmental scientists do. There are reports out there that show IF the US lowered consumption to the lowest consuming western society we would still be overpopulated.
While you won't understand how social issues and environmental ones are closely related until a specific political leader tells you, there are people that can think on their own and realize this.
I've explained how high crime encourages migration out of cities that leads to suburban sprawl. And suburban sprawl is bad for the environment on so many different levels. If the crime rate of Detroit was that of Podunk, Iowa it could easily see people migrating to the city and the growth and use of mass transit (which requires high density living to be affordable).
I'm well aware that the "green" people won't likely change their minds. They will wonder why people don't jump on board and do everything green by a specific political ideology and continue to see nothing done.
Anyone else care to answer the questions honestly?
Stop looking for pigeonholes where there are none.
I'm 2 for 2.
I'm not saying 100% are that way. But at least 90% that I've met are.
Why so many of you are hung up on the fact that 90% of the people I've talked to are that way and 100% of the ones that have answered so far is beyond comprehension. Maybe it a stage of denial?
How about a few more people give honest answers. Or are you afraid to pidgeonhole yourself?
I'm not saying 100% are that way. But at least 90% that I've met are.
Why so many of you are hung up on the fact that 90% of the people I've talked to are that way and 100% of the ones that have answered so far is beyond comprehension. Maybe it a stage of denial?
How about a few more people give honest answers. Or are you afraid to pidgeonhole yourself?
Randy, I don't appreciate your condescension. It should be obvious from my previous posts that I make my policy stances based on rational economic analysis rather than listening to a chosen political leader. You never answered my question either so I will pose it again. How does life without parole have anything to do with the environment? I agree that overpopulation is the foremost environmental concern, but limiting immigration to the usa will do nothing to limit population growth in the countries that contribute the most new mouths to feed every year. Look at these countries projected population growth: Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Yemen, Saudi Arabia.....to further limit population growth through immigration to the usa, which is very close to a sustainable 2.1 birthrate, would lead to economic stagnation. I guess economic stagnation is good for the environment, but not for standard of living. These goals must be strived for at the same time. China is now focusing on gdp/unit of energy consumption, and we should do the same here
Let me make this a little easier to get to the point to avoid any confusion:
Just a series of yes/no questions:
Would you support the reducing of immigration to 5,000 people a year? Yes
Would you support stripping illegals of all rights and deporting them when they are found?
Yes, there illegals.
(those two would significantly reduce our population growth and size in the next 5 year)
Would you support mandating birth control use for welfare recipients? No
Would you support a program that gives women small amounts of cash (~$100/year) for going on long term birth control such as IUD's, depo provera or norplant? No
Is the US overpopulated?
I'll say yes, it's getting close
Would you support a federal law mandating anyone convicted of felonies on 3 separate occasions will be put in prison for life with no chance of parole? No
Would you support a federal law mandating anyone convicted of violent felonies on 2 separate occasions will be put in prison for life with no chance of parole?
Make it 3 felonies and you have a deal.
Other wise no.
There, no assumption Just simple yes/no questions.
So eco people, let's here so glorious answers (I'd say yes to them all).
(BTW I appreciate you responding Bradykp)
I'm not for the Govt. support of birth control or abortion. That is not what the Govt is for.
I can't see putting someone a way for life for committing a non violent offense or for a victimless crime.
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.
Just simple yes/no questions.