What are you doing against Global Warming

Yeah well think about it, by the time the population does get cut in half we'd have still been consuming resources at the same rate, only advanced with China and India in the game, so not only is your idea inhuman and unnecessary, it's also ineffective.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Do you think it matters if you water your lawn during the middle of the day during a drought?

I don't think anybody would particularly care if I urinated on my lawn during a drought. I'd just be expending resources that I could've hoarded for use if the situation became life-threatening desperate.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Yeah well think about it, by the time the population does get cut in half we'd have still been consuming resources at the same rate, only advanced with China and India in the game, so not only is your idea inhuman and unnecessary, it's also ineffective.

It also sounds like genocide.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Well if you're not on city/township water I suppose it's just your problem now, isn't it?

Not really, because you're still draining from the general level of underground water. Where I'm from most homes have private wells, and any summer there's severe shortages of rain peoples' wells will dry up partially due to the overuse of other people in the area.

Of course, you could just say something like "WELL THEY SHOULD JUST GET A DEEPER WELL DUG DUR HRR HRR" but I'm running under the assumption that people aren't trying to be complete douchebags in every aspect of their life.

Originally Posted by Watts

I don't think anybody would particularly care if I urinated on my lawn during a drought. I'd just be expending resources that I could've hoarded for use if the situation became life-threatening desperate.

Not sure if this is trying to be funny because you couldn't make a good point or if there's supposed to be some point about how you can make an absurd hypothetical situation that would some way discredit a situation that can, and does, happen.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

What am I doing against Global Warming? In the short term, I am smoking a cigarette. In the long term, I am voting democrat.

I agree with Chibi that natural resources are being consumed far too quickly in lieu of a growing world, but I really don't feel that I can do much about how many children someone chooses to have or not have. In a way its none of my business and yet everyone lives in the same world and uses the same general resources. Its all connected. I am not sure what to make of this.
Whatever can be said, it does seem like the world population increase is having a profound effect upon global warming.

I don't really feel empowered to do much against global warming. That is, I really don't think there is much I can personally do to make a difference either way.

FELIPE NO

Thank you, Gechmir. I'll look through those soon, it's quite a lot of text!

Watts, I don't quite understand your position and how it relates to energy policy. I understand you seem to enjoy pissing in the wind, which I was honestly better off not knowing.

Perhaps I'm just dense, but you veered off into Analogy Land so quickly I lost track of what you were trying to say.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Yeah well think about it, by the time the population does get cut in half we'd have still been consuming resources at the same rate, only advanced with China and India in the game, so not only is your idea inhuman and unnecessary, it's also ineffective.

Like I said, many people will disagree with me.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Chibi Neko

Like I said, many people will disagree with me.

When people think about it and realize that "cutting the population at least in half" means three billion people need to die, one would hope they disagree with you.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I didn't mean to dick around with analogies or this topic..... so I'll spell out my position.

Any energy resources you're not willing to burn I'd be happy to use up, and so would the billion or so people in the developing world. The poor countries are already priced out of the game. The way this fits into the analogy is this; the "water" (let's call it oil) was already used up when I drank it. I just found a efficient way to deal with the "waste". By "watering" (urinating -on-) the lawn during the drought. (oil shortage)

As energy becomes more expensive the economies that will perform the best will be the ones that utilize the resources we already have out of the ground. Even renewable energy sources require some amounts of nonrenewable energy to be created. Energy is not going to be getting any cheaper anytime soon as demand exceeds the preexisting supply we have access to. Economic growth is a nasty beast that'll only consume more. It's a shortsighted mistake to think we're not going to use every drop of oil or lump of coal we extract from the ground. Which is why when you boil down practically any environmental issue like diminishing energy resources, clean water, topsoil, etc. the easy answer is to kill off three billion or so people. (I'm not trying to pick on you, Chibi. I'm all for population control. Just not like that.) I find it incredibly lacking for more then one reason.

Energy conservation is a noble goal, but a unrealistic goal.The only plausible way this could happen is if economic incentives were thrown in. Whether they're brought on by choice, (doubtful for the majority) or economic hardship. (likely for everyone) With entire industries that are set up to waste nonrenewable energy as quickly as possible (ie: tourism) because it is more profitable, the difference between what a industry could save by it's elimination or emphasis on efficiency would far outweigh the few drops of energy you personally save. The energy saved could/would be redirected to other "greener" investments. I'm not arguing against personal conservation or a switch over to renewable sources of energy because in the long run it's going to save you money making it economically viable. Nor am I arguing for people to use "less". That is not economically viable. I'm arguing that pre-existing resources could be better utilized and/or redirected at a industrial level to facilitate a "greener" economy. Whether that be to combat global warming, (which I don't care about) protect the environment, (which I do) or spur more investment into green (renewable) energy. (which everybody should care about)

This is just one idea (that doesn't involve genocide) about how to cope with environmental issues. It may or may not include heinous amounts of government regulation. Not that it matters. Economics is ultimately dictated to by Mother Nature.... and not Marx's model of a central command and control economy. (for all you liberals)

Oh yeah, if there isn't enough contradictions about me in this thread I'm a Republican. Though if you read the entire post that probably became apparent.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Of course, US natives are barely experiencing replacement birthrates and European countries are in the negative. It's doubtful that we'll really need population control, since as people move away from subsistence farming, there is not a need to have extra kids (hands) in order to create more wealth. The same thing will happen to China and India... eventually.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Of course, US natives are barely experiencing replacement birthrates and European countries are in the negative. It's doubtful that we'll really need population control, since as people move away from subsistence farming, there is not a need to have extra kids (hands) in order to create more wealth. The same thing will happen to China and India... eventually.

The problem in rising demographics is in the Third World where birthrates are exploding, just like the population of the United States / Europe did when they were in the beginning stages of industrialization.

Short of the global economy collapsing (which is a possibility) the added stress more mouths puts on pre-existing resources is a factor that deserves considering when contemplating economics, energy/water/topsoil shortages, global warming or whatever else that involves the world.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Watts, the thing is, we're already starting to see companies adopting more green practices since they do see economic incentives. Texas Instruments gave their engineers a challenge. Design a plant that would be cheaper to operate in the US than in China, or else it will be built in China. They found that the best way to reduce costs was to use practices which reduced chemical waste, reduced energy consumption, and increased efficiencies.

I'm not saying individuals conserving resources will stop the earth from being depleted, but hopefully it will help spur on alternative methods of producing what's currently done with wasteful methods. If they're developed in the first world, then hopefully they can trickle down to third world and developing nations so they don't need to repeat all of the same stages of consumption that we had to.

All people would have to do is weigh current satisfaction versus what could happen in the future and realize a bit of sacrifice now might lead to a big payoff later. Of course, people are notoriously short-sighted, so I suppose it's a bit too much to ask.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by SCHWARZE-1

When people think about it and realize that "cutting the population at least in half" means three billion people need to die, one would hope they disagree with you.

I guess saying 'cutting' was the wrong way to say it, what I meant was 'if' our poplulation was half of what it is today, then our resources would not be eaten up as fast, also if we had a one-child policy for the whole world, the population would decrease over time, that's if of course the bird flu does not mutate and kill us off first.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by SCHWARZE-1

When people think about it and realize that "cutting the population at least in half" means three billion people need to die, one would hope they disagree with you.

I think the people who believe that the population should be cut in half, should be the ones to go.. eh? good Idea I think.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by GRUN-2

Watts, the thing is, we're already starting to see companies adopting more green practices since they do see economic incentives.

I know, that's what I was mostly basing my model off of. Boeing is trying to grow jet fuel made off of ocean algae. If this is successful then a new realm of possibilities will be opened up with "blue" (ocean) energy. That's just as clean and renewable as "green" energy.

The part I wasn't basing this on was how I was viewing industry. Not from a race to the top of efficiency, but to a race to the bottom. Which would result in it's elimination. Barring any massive government subsidizing, that might not even be a option.

Jam it back in, in the dark.