Environmental hysterics

[HAL 9000 96]

Gary, I agree that there are political problems that exacerbate the problems of famine, but I totally don't agree that we have enough resources at this point in time to support the world's current population to a reasonable standard of living. I don't mean just stopping them starving to death which may or may not be possible were these corrupt governments to allow for equitable distribution of disaster aid. I mean allowing everyone who is willing and able to work to support themselves the opportunity to not only earn enough, or grow enough food to survive but to survive in comfort and with the ability to move away from the poverty line.

A quick example, how long would oil last if everyone on the planet had access to the resources to own a car or white goods? I know this is somewhat facile an argument, but my point is that many people who are living in first world countries don't really want to face the fact that they can live this way because the majority of the world population simply don't have access to the resources that we simply take for granted. So, while one could perhaps argue that strictly speaking famine need not exist I think it's almost impossible to argue that poverty need not exist with our current global population.

Once we reach our carrying capacity (artificial adjustment included), things should turn a lot uglier for those that can't back their consumption levels with the appropriate might. I think at the current rate of consumption, countries like the US will have to either adjust or suffer continued social, political, belicose, and economical consequences of our bipolar way of self-service.

At some point the natural forces will balance with the population. Most 1st world countries are no longer growing in population as fast as the rest of the world. There will be an adjustment period and it will be painful but in the end it will balance out. The trick is to minimize the suffering until that balance is achieved.

I think the adjustment we're thinking of is different. You are probably thinking of adjusting our consumption levels below that of a detrimental threshold so as not to invoke massive famine in the USA, as well as in inviting those ills I mentioned in the previous post?

I was thinking more of a global phenomenon that will totally change the face of how consumption is initiated. Either it will be done by us, thereby subverting any possible downstream consequences (as mentioned previously) OR it will be done against us (us meaning those that consume at our levels). I prefer to hope that we will take the preemptive route as that means less detriment to us and our species.

In the end, any natural balancing against our activity will mean a lowering of our natural carrying capacity. We see it already in conjunction with artificial pressures that yield lower birth rates due to economics: lower rates of fertility. But we are also seeing this balancing act from nature due to changing weather dynamics: more and stronger oceanic storms, warmer water currents, greater and longer drought seasons. Our ability to play genetic engineering to protect our crops only can go so far in terms of shielding plants from the weather. Minute changes DO have a lasting effect on crops, livestock, and us.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Has anyone seen The Day After Tomorrow?

Nope, I knew they would fuel hysteria just by the title--parsed as "The Day After" + "Tomorrow".

[mawilson 2,133]

At some point the natural forces will balance with the population. Most 1st world countries are no longer growing in population as fast as the rest of the world. There will be an adjustment period and it will be painful but in the end it will balance out. The trick is to minimize the suffering until that balance is achieved.

You can't, Gary. That balance will never be achieved without pain and suffering (in other words, lots of people will have to die.)

[mawilson 2,133]

I was thinking more of a global phenomenon that will totally change the face of how consumption is initiated. Either it will be done by us, thereby subverting any possible downstream consequences (as mentioned previously) OR it will be done against us (us meaning those that consume at our levels). I prefer to hope that we will take the preemptive route as that means less detriment to us and our species.

You're right. I'll tell you what's going to happen.

There will be no balance. People in third world countries will keep breeding like rabbits and

the world population will reach 9-10 billion in 20-30 years. We (1st world) will keep consuming

at our current rate. Today, there's enough food for everybody, but billions of people are hungry

simply because they cannot afford it. In 20-30 years, there won't be enough food for everyone,

food will become even more expensive, and even more people around the world will be hungry.

Then, one day, they will rise up against us and seek to destroy us to take away what we have.

Do I have a solution? Yes. Start building a f###ing wall now.

[Amby 490]

I was thinking more of a global phenomenon that will totally change the face of how consumption is initiated. Either it will be done by us, thereby subverting any possible downstream consequences (as mentioned previously) OR it will be done against us (us meaning those that consume at our levels). I prefer to hope that we will take the preemptive route as that means less detriment to us and our species.

You're right. I'll tell you what's going to happen.

There will be no balance. People in third world countries will keep breeding like rabbits and

the world population will reach 9-10 billion in 20-30 years. We (1st world) will keep consuming

at our current rate. Today, there's enough food for everybody, but billions of people are hungry

simply because they cannot afford it. In 20-30 years, there won't be enough food for everyone,

food will become even more expensive, and even more people around the world will be hungry.

Then, one day, they will rise up against us and seek to destroy us to take away what we have.

Do I have a solution? Yes. Start building a f###ing wall now.

I like the thought of a wall. we can turn the border into berlin. then when it comes down we can have the hoff come sing songs in a lighty up shirt and piano tie.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Amber&Neil

[mawilson 2,133]

A quick example, how long would oil last if everyone on the planet had access to the resources to own a car or white goods? I know this is somewhat facile an argument, but my point is that many people who are living in first world countries don't really want to face the fact that they can live this way because the majority of the world population simply don't have access to the resources that we simply take for granted. So, while one could perhaps argue that strictly speaking famine need not exist I think it's almost impossible to argue that poverty need not exist with our current global population.

I do. I'm glad you see it too.

[HAL 9000 96]

I was thinking more of a global phenomenon that will totally change the face of how consumption is initiated. Either it will be done by us, thereby subverting any possible downstream consequences (as mentioned previously) OR it will be done against us (us meaning those that consume at our levels). I prefer to hope that we will take the preemptive route as that means less detriment to us and our species.

You're right. I'll tell you what's going to happen.

There will be no balance. People in third world countries will keep breeding like rabbits and

the world population will reach 9-10 billion in 20-30 years. We (1st world) will keep consuming

at our current rate. Today, there's enough food for everybody, but billions of people are hungry

simply because they cannot afford it. In 20-30 years, there won't be enough food for everyone,

food will become even more expensive, and even more people around the world will be hungry.

Then, one day, they will rise up against us and seek to destroy us to take away what we have.

Do I have a solution? Yes. Start building a f###ing wall now.

I'm sure you're a bettin' man so... what are the chances, statistically speaking, that this wall of yours will end up as obsolete as the mindset that produces bipolar consumption rates internationally?

[mawilson 2,133]

I'm sure you're a bettin' man so... what are the chances, statistically speaking, that this wall of yours will end up as obsolete as the mindset that produces bipolar consumption rates internationally?

It's us or them, man.

How many people can we feed? 300 million vs 1 billion? Not too bad, right?

How about 400 million vs 3 billion 30 years from now?

[mawilson 2,133]

the mindset that produces bipolar consumption rates internationally?

Bipolar consumption rates? You have no idea what you're talking about.

Economic demand comes from consumption. If the economy is going to grow,

economic demand has to increase.

Consumption rates decrease just a few per cent and the world economy goes

into a recession.

Why do you think the government is giving you the "stimulus"?

STFU and consume!

[HAL 9000 96]

I'm sure you're a bettin' man so... what are the chances, statistically speaking, that this wall of yours will end up as obsolete as the mindset that produces bipolar consumption rates internationally?

It's us or them, man.

How many people can we feed? 300 million vs 1 billion? Not too bad, right?

How about 400 million vs 3 billion 30 years from now?

LOL. Usually, there's little we can do after they've multiplied like bunnies... and then they can just come and get their dibs as they see fit for survival

Remember its about consumption, not production.

[HAL 9000 96]

the mindset that produces bipolar consumption rates internationally?

Bipolar consumption rates? You have no idea what you're talking about.

Economic demand comes from consumption. If the economy is going to grow,

economic demand has to increase.

Consumption rates decrease just a few per cent and the world economy goes

into a recession.

Why do you think the government is giving you the "stimulus"?

STFU and consume!

Yes, I do know what I'm talking about... 4% of the world population consumes roughly 25% of its resources. That is bipolar and is what I am talking about. No wall will protect you from the rest of the 96%.

[peejay 327]

the mindset that produces bipolar consumption rates internationally?

Bipolar consumption rates? You have no idea what you're talking about.

Economic demand comes from consumption. If the economy is going to grow,

economic demand has to increase.

Consumption rates decrease just a few per cent and the world economy goes

into a recession.

Why do you think the government is giving you the "stimulus"?

STFU and consume!

Yes, I do know what I'm talking about... 4% of the world population consumes roughly 25% of its resources. That is bipolar and is what I am talking about. No wall will protect you from the rest of the 96%.

The US military has all the capability it needs to protect us from the 96%.

[mawilson 2,133]

I'm sure you're a bettin' man so... what are the chances, statistically speaking, that this wall of yours will end up as obsolete as the mindset that produces bipolar consumption rates internationally?

It's us or them, man.

How many people can we feed? 300 million vs 1 billion? Not too bad, right?

How about 400 million vs 3 billion 30 years from now?

LOL. Usually, there's little we can do after they've multiplied like bunnies... and then they can just come and get their dibs as they see fit for survival

Remember its about consumption, not production.

We can't consume less. In our current economic model it's impossible - the entire financial

system depends on GDP growth.

I realise there are limits for growth of the world's GDP, but there are ways to keep our own

GDP growth going.

War is one way. You spend money on making weapons, then spend money paying people to

use those weapons, and then use even more money in reconstruction.

Yes, I do know what I'm talking about... 4% of the world population consumes roughly 25% of its resources. That is bipolar and is what I am talking about. No wall will protect you from the rest of the 96%.

You're wrong. 4 people with machine guns can easily kill 96 unarmed people.

The US military has all the capability it needs to protect us from the 96%.

Bingo.

[HAL 9000 96]

the mindset that produces bipolar consumption rates internationally?

Bipolar consumption rates? You have no idea what you're talking about.

Economic demand comes from consumption. If the economy is going to grow,

economic demand has to increase.

Consumption rates decrease just a few per cent and the world economy goes

into a recession.

Why do you think the government is giving you the "stimulus"?

STFU and consume!

Yes, I do know what I'm talking about... 4% of the world population consumes roughly 25% of its resources. That is bipolar and is what I am talking about. No wall will protect you from the rest of the 96%.

The US military has all the capability it needs to protect us from the 96%.

Yeah...

[HAL 9000 96]

I'm sure you're a bettin' man so... what are the chances, statistically speaking, that this wall of yours will end up as obsolete as the mindset that produces bipolar consumption rates internationally?

It's us or them, man.

How many people can we feed? 300 million vs 1 billion? Not too bad, right?

How about 400 million vs 3 billion 30 years from now?

LOL. Usually, there's little we can do after they've multiplied like bunnies... and then they can just come and get their dibs as they see fit for survival

Remember its about consumption, not production.

We can't consume less. In our current economic model it's impossible - the entire financial

system depends on GDP growth.

I realise there are limits for growth of the world's GDP, but there are ways to keep our own

GDP growth going.

War is one way. You spend money on making weapons, then spend money paying people to

use those weapons, and then use even more money in reconstruction.

Yes, I do know what I'm talking about... 4% of the world population consumes roughly 25% of its resources. That is bipolar and is what I am talking about. No wall will protect you from the rest of the 96%.

You're wrong. 4 people with machine guns can easily kill 96 unarmed people.

The US military has all the capability it needs to protect us from the 96%.

Bingo.

I can see we are completely equipped to handle such catastrophic events. I mean, look at the way we've already handled much simpler events that have actually occurred. Flawless.

So the entire US population is in the Armed Forces? That's news to me.