jdhuyvetter
SWFMAS Event Coordinator
Thats nice atreis but the problem is still overpopulation .......
Isn't this an opinion?
Thats nice atreis but the problem is still overpopulation .......
Thats nice atreis but the problem is still overpopulation and filling an entire page with opinions wont change that... sorry.
My point is: stating "the problem is over-population" is easy. Very easy. So ridiculously easy that it serves no useful purpose.
The hard part is coming up with a solution that works to solve the problem. Some problems (and I think this is one) are intractable. There is no solution that solves the problem, so identifying the problem accomplishes nothing.
Therefore, move on. Come up with a problem that CAN be solved - possibly a piece of the larger problem.
Examples:
How do we reduce the growth in population? China has one solution, but hopefully it's obvious that the people of other countries wouldn't put up with it. Are there other solutions that can be implemented, even incrementally, in other countries? (Possible example: Improved educational opportunities, especially for women.)
How do we reduce the per-capita consumption of resources by the over-large population we are stuck with? (This is where the environmental movement comes from, and whence this thread sprang.)
+1 I understand that they can do more the limit the impact in a "central location", but the standards aren't good enough to ensure it. There is a bonus in the switch though, since a central supply can be changed without every car changing.
We do things with best intentions. Force everyone to CFL bulbs, its a great energy savings. Of course, don't put a recycling plan in place, nor notify people they need to recycle the bulbs (which is in most places a consumer cost) and the mercury filling the land fills dooms us all anyway.
We need to clean up our acts some, regardless of your stance on "man made" global warming. But if we aren't doing it in a responsible way there is no gain.
According to these sources, and several others, your numbers are very far off. This is a European source so I doubt there is a positive US bias. As of 2011 China produces almost double the total CO2 as the US and the US is not the highest per capita producer.
Total production
Per Capita
Emulate China, personally could care less about providing opportunities for the weak. If folks focused more on themselves they would be less of a burden on society. Life is survival and no matter how it gets churched up with PC there are predators and prey no matter how noble it may seem to help the weak. Trying to change this with more laws only distances mankind from nature.
Sound cruel and heartless? Sub-human perhaps, cold and mean... or may a dose of reality in alignment with nature? How does nature address the problems of opportunities for the weak? Or are we as humans above all of this with our superior intellect and knowledge of the universe. Lets create a few more laws to fix the weather too.
It comes down to efficiency and effectiveness my friend. I know your looking for an argument but I dont work that way, it's just that I really dont care what others think and respect their right to disagree. To argue about something I've lived would be like arguing with the same weather. It's true for me and thats all that matters.
If the response to this were the length of the Gettysburg address filled with substance, I doubt if it would change your mind. Most peoples opinions do not change even when the truth is stares them in the face. Trying to do so is simply a waste of energy and bandwidth...LOL.
Fact is...
There is tons of factual data...LOL and personal experience to counter and dissolve each of your points in detail as I have personally lived in many of these countries for years at a time as required of my profession. Some things are futile. My experience based on living in these countries is overpopulation. You would have more luck convincing someone who hasn't lived it. I would invite you to do as I have and spend a few years living in India or PI or Africa or Pakistan ....or pick one and I'll describe it for you based on living there.
You have no idea who I am, in what countries I have lived (or traveled to for work or family), or what life experiences I have had - yet you resort to personal attacks, apparently assuming that I am a particular type of person with no evidence of that. As such, I can only conclude that you're a troll and not interested in anything even close to useful or responsible discussion.
Yup, and respectfully I, dont care either :sad1:....noticed the old condescension trick though LOL.... conclude all day. The problem is still overpopulation. It affects trolls too.
Who has said that overpopulation is not a problem in this thread? You are arguing that the problem is the cure. How you go about attaining zero growth is really the issue. Given the wide variety of education, culture and religious beliefs it is not one that will likely be solved any time soon.
The only significant dips in the planets population have been through war , famine or disease. Whether we like it or not, one or more of these will probably be the only way some regions numbers problems will be reduced. Of course this is only one guys opinion.
How does nature balance itself? Yes, IMO the problem is the cure if left alone with no human intervention, the thing is most people will not or cannot leave things alone and allow nature to work unattended. They must intervene and start saving things, maybe it makes them feel good to change things I suppose. People always ask, what if it were you or your kid... and thats a hard position to be in. I would default to how things work in nature, as humans we seem to think we know better? Maybe we should take the safety labels off and let the problem solve itself. Cold, inhumane, barbaric, insensitive or would doing so strengthen the species as it does in nature?
So it sounds like the answer you are proposing is to let human kind and society run itself back into the stone age using survival of the fittest. Thats not really a solution to population control its a road to the end of civilization. We cant be like every other animal on the planet, we have no natural defense like claws,teeth, poison bites or overpowering strength to keep us alive. We have zero natural survival tools. Our key to survival is our "superior " intelligence.
We no longer play by the same rules that apply to the rest of the animal kingdom. Therefore the whole let natural selection take its course with human kind wont work, that ship sailed along time ago when we first discovered penicillin.:beer:
Are you aware that the REAL evidence, not the left winger kind, shows no warming for 15 years?
Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of approximately 1.7 mm/year over the past 100 years (measured from tide gauge observations), which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. Since 1993, global sea level has risen at an accelerating rate of around 3.5 mm/year. Much of the sea level rise to date is a result of increasing heat of the ocean causing it to expand. It is expected that melting land ice (e.g. from Greenland and mountain glaciers) will play a more significant role in contributing to future sea level rise.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/sea-level-rise.gif
if getting rid of your car, or stopping driving using combustion engines of any kind, was the only way to save reefs worldwide. would you be willing to do it ?
i'm presenting this more as a 'food for thought' post, as opposed to seeing what folks say to justify their lifestyle vs. their professed 'caring' about the reefs![]()
interesting how most of you never even addressed the original question, or avoided the simple yes/no answer required to address it. so again:
if owning a car, and having reefs were mutually exclusive (regardless of ANYTHING else, including whether or not you think climate change is bs ), would you give up your car? it's a simple yes or no. (you may assume that for the purposes of the question,having a car isn't required for you to get to work, or you live close enough for it to not be an issue).
i'm not trying to make any assertions regarding whether climate change is real, or whether cars are a contributor, etc etc.
in other words-car or wild reefs. which would you choose IF THAT WAS THE CHOICE. no rationalization/justification necessary, or needed, or even wanted
IT'S A (mebbe not ;-p) HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION!!!! WITH A ONE WORD ANSWER! :lol:
instead, i'm seeing most posts here not having anything to do w/ the original question/post that's quickly degrading into what will be a locked/closed thread.
you people are funny, and your reading comprehension is a tad dissapointing ;-p![]()