Consumption, Not Population Is Our Main Environmental Threat

[Peikko 1,575]

Pretty accurate - it's not fair, it never has been fair. The most fair thing we can do is to think of ways to reduce populations in order to be able to give everyone the same shot at a lifestyle that is comfortable. Yes, we can look at certain aspects of consumerism - but it's virtually impossible to persuade people that what they are doing is wrong so you can try to impose measures, but imposition isn't fair or part of what we expect from our society so what's left?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Pretty accurate - it's not fair, it never has been fair. The most fair thing we can do is to think of ways to reduce populations in order to be able to give everyone the same shot at a lifestyle that is comfortable. Yes, we can look at certain aspects of consumerism - but it's virtually impossible to persuade people that what they are doing is wrong so you can try to impose measures, but imposition isn't fair or part of what we expect from our society so what's left?

Stop blaming Third World countries.

[mawilson 2,133]

It is an issue of population. Large populations are not sustainable without massive energy consumption and, perhaps more importantly, a large consumption rate is indicative of a comfortable lifestyle. What does this guy want? Massive populations that live barely live at subsistence levels? What a crock of ###### that is.

[alienlovechild 75]

Our lifestyle is one that's based on high consumption - in part, because we're using up the natural resources from all over the world.

Not a problem if people pay for those resources in nations that have a surplus or willing to take cash to buy other goods. The new protectionists wave a environmentally sustainable flag.

We couldn't facilitate that same standard of living if we were restricted to the natural resources on our own bit of land.

It's great we've moved beyond the North Korean model of self-sustainability. I thought talk like that died long ago but some never learn as they earn for the days of tilling the soil and making their own loin cloth. Luckily NYC uses no excessive resources from elsewhere.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It is an issue of population. Large populations are not sustainable without massive energy consumption and, perhaps more importantly, a large consumption rate is indicative of a comfortable lifestyle. What does this guy want? Massive populations that live barely live at subsistence levels? What a crock of ###### that is.

Oh great...another British snob pipes in.

[Peikko 1,575]

How is that 'blaming' anyone FP? It's an explanation of reality, not an excuse or a way to lay blame at the door of third world societies, indeed I want them to have the exact same opportunities we have had and the BEST way to achieve that is to stress depopulation to allow these societies the chance to grow to become affluent in the exact same way. The other way around, we are all just going to end up like third world societies.

The worst aspects of those societies no less, not those things that make them culturally interesting or distinctive.

[mawilson 2,133]

It is an issue of population. Large populations are not sustainable without massive energy consumption and, perhaps more importantly, a large consumption rate is indicative of a comfortable lifestyle. What does this guy want? Massive populations that live barely live at subsistence levels? What a crock of ###### that is.

Oh great...another British snob pipes in.

I don't see you giving up consumerism and eschewing the modern products and services

that we take for granted in our daily lives either.

It's not up to you to decide what I should consume and to define what is "excess".

Edited April 14, 2009 by mawilson

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How is that 'blaming' anyone FP? It's an explanation of reality, not an excuse or a way to lay blame at the door of third world societies, indeed I want them to have the exact same opportunities we have had and the BEST way to achieve that is to stress depopulation to allow these societies the chance to grow to become affluent in the exact same way. The other way around, we are all just going to end up like third world societies.

The worst aspects of those societies no less, not those things that make them culturally interesting or distinctive.

Well, you're essentially telling them that their problems have to do with over population, while ignoring the reality that Third World Nations use a fraction of resources that Developed Nations do. Especially, given the fact that Developed Nations would not be able to sustain our current living standards without the backs of Third World Nations. Pour that cup of reality and drink it, my British Colonist friend.

[Peikko 1,575]

Not ignoring anything, and certainly not blaming these countries for their large populations. There is little point in doing so. What is required is for the whole planet to consider the idea of reducing their populations not imposing it on anyone. I don't see how you are going to simply ask everyone to live at substitence level, and I can't see you volunteering to do so either, and let's face it, why should that be the solution?

I think what you seem to be implying is that I would like to eliminate all those nasty foreigners, but that is not my argument at all, nor is it that our society should be allowed to continue growing population wise unchecked. Far from it, actually.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Not ignoring anything, and certainly not blaming these countries for their large populations. There is little point in doing so. What is required is for the whole planet to consider the idea of reducing their populations not imposing it on anyone. I don't see how you are going to simply ask everyone to live at substitence level, and I can't see you volunteering to do so either, and let's face it, why should that be the solution?

My goodness, my British Colonist friend - can you not see the correlation between the standard of living in Third World Nations and ours? Can you not reach the conclusion that if you wish to maintain your current standard of living, you must embrace the notion that Third World Nations should continue to live in substandard conditions? I know it's hard to take the colonist out of your British blood, but do try and step outside of your skin to see it from the POV of natives.

Edited April 14, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[mawilson 2,133]

Not ignoring anything, and certainly not blaming these countries for their large populations. There is little point in doing so. What is required is for the whole planet to consider the idea of reducing their populations not imposing it on anyone. I don't see how you are going to simply ask everyone to live at substitence level, and I can't see you volunteering to do so either, and let's face it, why should that be the solution?

My goodness, my British Colonist friend - can you not see the correlation between the standard of living in Third World Nations and ours? Can you not reach the conclusion that if you wish to maintain your current standard of living, you must embrace the notion that Third World Nations should continue to live in substandard conditions? I know it's hard to take the colonist out of your British blood, but do try and step outside of your skin to see it from the POV of natives.

I see it and I'm ok with it. That's why we have all those nasty foreigners.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Not ignoring anything, and certainly not blaming these countries for their large populations. There is little point in doing so. What is required is for the whole planet to consider the idea of reducing their populations not imposing it on anyone. I don't see how you are going to simply ask everyone to live at substitence level, and I can't see you volunteering to do so either, and let's face it, why should that be the solution?

My goodness, my British Colonist friend - can you not see the correlation between the standard of living in Third World Nations and ours? Can you not reach the conclusion that if you wish to maintain your current standard of living, you must embrace the notion that Third World Nations should continue to live in substandard conditions? I know it's hard to take the colonist out of your British blood, but do try and step outside of your skin to see it from the POV of natives.

I see it and I'm ok with it. That's why we have all those nasty foreigners.

I know...because you a true Red Coat. You would have been hanged in the gallows at the birth of this nation for your insolence.

Edited April 14, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How is that 'blaming' anyone FP? It's an explanation of reality, not an excuse or a way to lay blame at the door of third world societies, indeed I want them to have the exact same opportunities we have had and the BEST way to achieve that is to stress depopulation to allow these societies the chance to grow to become affluent in the exact same way. The other way around, we are all just going to end up like third world societies.

The worst aspects of those societies no less, not those things that make them culturally interesting or distinctive.

Well, you're essentially telling them that their problems have to do with over population, while ignoring the reality that Third World Nations use a fraction of resources that Developed Nations do. Especially, given the fact that Developed Nations would not be able to sustain our current living standards without the backs of Third World Nations. Pour that cup of reality and drink it, my British Colonist friend.

But their problems do have to do with population and (in a lot of cases) with despotic governments that would prefer to spend their money on military weapons than the civilian infrastructure.

Who's fault is it that Robert mugabe took zimbabwe from an African success story to a failed state with cholera outbreaks and barely enough food to feed their own people?

Whose fault is it that Sudanese farmers have presold their crops to arab countries?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How is that 'blaming' anyone FP? It's an explanation of reality, not an excuse or a way to lay blame at the door of third world societies, indeed I want them to have the exact same opportunities we have had and the BEST way to achieve that is to stress depopulation to allow these societies the chance to grow to become affluent in the exact same way. The other way around, we are all just going to end up like third world societies.

The worst aspects of those societies no less, not those things that make them culturally interesting or distinctive.

Well, you're essentially telling them that their problems have to do with over population, while ignoring the reality that Third World Nations use a fraction of resources that Developed Nations do. Especially, given the fact that Developed Nations would not be able to sustain our current living standards without the backs of Third World Nations. Pour that cup of reality and drink it, my British Colonist friend.

But their problems do have to do with population and (in a lot of cases) with despotic governments that would prefer to spend their money on military weapons than the civilian infrastructure.

Who's fault is it that Robert mugabe took zimbabwe from an African success story to a failed state with cholera outbreaks and barely enough food to feed their own people?

Whose fault is it that Sudanese farmers have presold their crops to arab countries?

Let's start from the beginning, my British Colonist friend. You and your ilk sailed across the world looking for more 'stuff.' And when you found a place, you didn't give a rats ####### about the natives. You just took and took and took. You colonized the world, leaving the natives in the sh!tter. Thank you.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't think they follow one from the other FP. I am not suggesting that change isn't made - as I said, WASTE is a big SIN and should be at the top of the SIN tree. I am not suggesting that the Western nations should be exempt from population reduction, in fact they most certainly should lead the way. I am suggesting that to go along the line of reducing the Western standard of living to that of a third world nation is a complete non starter