unless everyone walks, there will be no 100% green people around.
though.. over using a jet / plane is truly unnecessary
GW should be at the top of the list.. right along with most other presidents..
Yes, let's go after planes. Those nasty things that have made our economy grow like crazy.
How do you think these people sell this 'olive oil' a thousand miles away?
By bus?
Or how these celebs tote around a 'personal crew' of 100 or so people..
By cab?
seriously! Dig deeper.. you will see that not only do they probably OWN several planes, but they choose to use them above anything else.
Im not bashing the use of such transportation.. Im bashing the EXCESS in which they are used.
I like planes. Stupid holier than thou celebs I can deal without.
Actually, I could care less how much resources any one individual wishes to (presumably) squander.....it would not matter in the big picture if the population was small enough......thus to me it is not a question of resource squandering, it's a question of far too many humans on the planet for people's wants.
Chumly wrote:Actually, I could care less how much resources any one individual wishes to (presumably) squander.....it would not matter in the big picture if the population was small enough......thus to me it is not a question of resource squandering, it's a question of far too many humans on the planet for people's wants.
That's why resources are cheaper in real dollars than when
The Population Bomb was written, right?
I know nothing about the book you refer to, nor what "resources" you make reference to, nor precisely what you mean by "cheaper in real dollars", nor even if your claim is factual (which you have yet to demonstrate I might add) what relevance you assert your claim has to my post.
You are going to have to be one whole heck of a lot more explicit if you expect responsive commentary on my part to your post.
Let's see...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
Quote:The book is primarily a repetition of the Malthusian catastrophe argument, that population growth will outpace agricultural growth unless controlled.
Quote:The predictions came true, but the effects are mainly unfelt in the developed world. The world food production grows exponentially at a rate much higher than the population growth, in both developed and developing countries, partially due to the efforts of Norman Borlaug's "Green Revolution" of the 1960s, and the food per capita level is the highest in history. On the other hand population growth rates significantly slowed down, especially in the developed world [1]. Famine has not been eliminated, but its root cause is political instability, not global food shortage
My bad on the "real dollars;" I meant "inflation-adjusted" dollars.
My assertion has absolutely nothing to do with the "Malthusian catastrophe argument", nor to do with supply/demand function in terms of commodity-based resources and net buying power dynamics over time.
It much simpler and more direct than that.
If there was a small population of say 10 million world wide, then the impact of each individual, regardless of how (presumably) wasteful each might be, would be lessened dramatically.
Further, there is no express mandate for these billions; given the increased inherent risk such needless billions represent to global long term safety / survivability.
I'm still trying to figure out how Travolta flew that 707 all by himself.
In other words, provide a logical rationale as to why we should live as billions of sewer rats, in a cesspool of our own waste, as opposed just a few rodents living in relative freedom, cleanliness and luxury.
Hong Kong is a toilet, India is a cesspool, Mexico is an offal dump, Eastern Europe is a broke, toxic dump site......the list goes on. Who the hell wants to live like that?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace