by oldflame 69 Replies latest jw friends
Guys, I think it's pretty much inevitable no matter what we do, ultimately. Mother will correct things at some point, either by some worldwide disease or some other natural disaster. It's happened before, it will happen again.
We like to think we humans are above naturally occuring herd culling, but we're not.
Still, we try. *shrug*
No, eventually Andromeda, our closest galactic neighbour which happens to be heading straight for us, will slam into us. Fortunately for us, our sun will already have expanded to into a gas giant and engulfed all of the inner planets including earth. I guess if there are any humans around at that time, they must have got over burying their heads in the sand in order to have survived for so long.
Ballistic, I know what that curve means. It's a parabola. Know what happens after the rate of increase reaches 0?
When I was a kid, we didn't know if the rate of increase would ever slow down. I was taught the population would continue to expand indefinitely. People also feared catastrophic collapse. The math isn't saying so any more.
No one's predicting it will reach zero though are they?
Zero growth means you are at the top of the hill. What happens when you get to the top of the hill?
Not to worry, the downhill trend won't be happening for several generations.
Daniel-p, you might note, though it's not been very much time yet, how few people have bothered to respond to my query about how many people have actually done anything substantial to reduce their footprint, or even looked into it very deeply. Very few people do, though they'll gibber on about articles like this every year or so.
I completely agree with you that a lot of people talks about reducing their footprint or conserving energy, etc, but that little is actually being done on their part to solve the problem. Buying a new electric vehicle or a more efficient washer/dryer is hardly going to change the world. Few people realize how manufacturing an electric vehicle places just as many toxins into the environment and uses just as much resources in the form heavy metals and hydrocarbon components as manufacturing a typical combustion vehicle. However, most of the work towards sustainable growth is happening behind the scenes with local government and businesses. Many cities and counties have come up with a set of indicators to figure out what is happening and how and which policies can make a difference, also figuring out if former policies made any difference. THe problem is that sustainability as a planning paradigm is quite new. It is founded on long-held ecological principles, but in application it is very new. The problem that I am working on is the fact that many of our ecological and economic problems are at a regional scale, and how local government and industry can effect change incrementally within that region.
I frequent energy conventions and summits and yes, I see a lot of "preaching to the choir" and "amen brothers" when it comes to reitterating redundant environmentalist rhetoric. I like to think that I am not a part of that, and that I try to sift out the bullshit from fact and possibility and how I can make a difference in helping local economies grow sustainably.
I'll probably be dead by then, so it's all good.
Al Gore's movie "An Inconvient Truth" really brings out how the earth is being used up and destroyed by humans. Everyone should see it, because it a fact that humans need to wake up and do something.
This would be the upper class oil billionaire Al Gore, would it? The one who flies around in his private jet, lecturing the middle class on how every time they fill up their SUV with fuel, a polar bear dies?
Any test that calls eating meat once or twice a week "often" is retarded
Get used it - we have to start thinking differently if the human race is to avoid disaster.
Eyeslice; the test is drastically simplified, yes. But its helpful for people to start thinking about the global implications of their actions. The meat reference is there because it takes an inordinate amount of energy and resources to produce the meat we buy at the supermarket. There are a lot of steps in the chain of the livestock industry. Some people in the world will never in their lifetime eat the amount of meat we eat in a month. The fact is, we are highly priveleged and lucky to be born in the place and time we were. Our lifestyle is supported by the labor and resources of the entire world. To address the tangential discussion: mother nature or "whatever" will certainly "reset" the world's nature of economy. (See the theory of deep ecology.) But since our planet has the ability to "solve" things in such a matter, isn't it desirable to find out how future generations can avert it and find a way to continue the human species in what we have come to see as a successful way? Restricted resources and over-population can have horrific results. All you need to do is look up net imports and exports for certain resources country by country as well as population density and quantity of ag land to connect the dots.
Our lifestyle is supported by the labor and resources of the entire world.
Really? Australia is a net exporter of food and other resources, as is Canada. Last time I looked, our living standards were pretty high.
