Consumption, Not Population Is Our Main Environmental Threat

[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.

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.

Yes, and no FP, yes and no. There certainly was a lot of rape and pillage, but not exclusively so. To completely blame the English for the state of the world as it stands is a tad naive

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

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

Would you be willing to sacrifice your current standard of living if you knew that doing so meant that Third World Nations substandard of living would improve? And what I mean by substandard - no access to clean, drinkable water, no sanitary ways of disposing human sewage, no basic nutrition, no education for all.

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?

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.

Yes we did, but so did the french, Spanish Germans, all the way back to the Greeks and Romans. Africa has been raped and pillaged for centuries, I have no illusions about that.

I will point out though that the UK does provide financial and other assistance to former colonial territories via the commonwealth.

That said this doesn't explain the mugabes and sudan's of the world, or indeed what can be done about them. Unless you are going to jump on board with the bush doctrine.

But given the US' general attitude of one rule for us, another for everyone else when it comes to war crimes and the selective focus on human rights, I might ask you about your own countries burden of moral responsibility.

[mawilson 2,133]

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.

So why didn't the "natives" fight back? Because the indigenous civilizations were primitive and

backwards. European civilization was superior in most respects to those in other parts of the world.

THAT, my friend, is the reason they are sucking wind today, just as they did centuries ago.

[c_and_a 0]

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.

So why didn't the "natives" fight back? Because the indigenous civilizations were primitive and

backwards. European civilization was superior in most respects to those in other parts of the world.

THAT, my friend, is the reason they are sucking wind today, just as they did centuries ago.

And the fact that many indigenous leaders cooperated with the colonists at the expense of their native populations, something that continues in a similar form today.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Africa pissed away it shot at shifting the balance of power away from Europe when hannibal barca refused to conquer the Roman empire.

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

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.

So why didn't the "natives" fight back? Because the indigenous civilizations were primitive and

backwards. European civilization was superior in most respects to those in other parts of the world.

THAT, my friend, is the reason they are sucking wind today, just as they did centuries ago.

A typical response I'd expect from a British snob who thinks that being topless and wearing a grass skirt is backwards. Remember, love is a primal thing.

[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

Would you be willing to sacrifice your current standard of living if you knew that doing so meant that Third World Nations substandard of living would improve? And what I mean by substandard - no access to clean, drinkable water, no sanitary ways of disposing human sewage, no basic nutrition, no education for all.

No, quite frankly, I am not willing to live in the same conditions to satisfy some weird idea that populations should be allowed to grow ad infinitum. However, that is not really the point, is it? What I, at an individual lever am, or am not prepared to do is not going to change a thing.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

So why didn't the "natives" fight back? Because the indigenous civilizations were primitive and

backwards. European civilization was superior in most respects to those in other parts of the world.

THAT, my friend, is the reason they are sucking wind today, just as they did centuries ago.

And the fact that many indigenous leaders cooperated with the colonists at the expense of their native populations, something that continues in a similar form today.

True that

[Peikko 1,575]

It's like asking you, are you prepared to move back to Europe to allow the native American populations have their just inheritance. Are you?

Edited April 14, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[mawilson 2,133]

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

Would you be willing to sacrifice your current standard of living if you knew that doing so meant that Third World Nations substandard of living would improve? And what I mean by substandard - no access to clean, drinkable water, no sanitary ways of disposing human sewage, no basic nutrition, no education for all.

No, quite frankly, I am not willing to live in the same conditions to satisfy some weird idea that populations should be allowed to grow ad infinitum. However, that is not really the point, is it? What I, at an individual lever am, or am not prepared to do is not going to change a thing.

Damn, MC, that's cold. I'm beginning to like you more and more.

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

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

Would you be willing to sacrifice your current standard of living if you knew that doing so meant that Third World Nations substandard of living would improve? And what I mean by substandard - no access to clean, drinkable water, no sanitary ways of disposing human sewage, no basic nutrition, no education for all.

No, quite frankly, I am not willing to live in the same conditions to satisfy some weird idea that populations should be allowed to grow ad infinitum. However, that is not really the point, is it? What I, at an individual lever am, or am not prepared to do is not going to change a thing.

Of course you wouldn't, you British snob. The whole world is for your taking. Thank you very much.

[Peikko 1,575]

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.

So why didn't the "natives" fight back? Because the indigenous civilizations were primitive and

backwards. European civilization was superior in most respects to those in other parts of the world.

THAT, my friend, is the reason they are sucking wind today, just as they did centuries ago.

And the fact that many indigenous leaders cooperated with the colonists at the expense of their native populations, something that continues in a similar form today.

True that

Indeed, no illusions here.

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

Would you be willing to sacrifice your current standard of living if you knew that doing so meant that Third World Nations substandard of living would improve? And what I mean by substandard - no access to clean, drinkable water, no sanitary ways of disposing human sewage, no basic nutrition, no education for all.

No, quite frankly, I am not willing to live in the same conditions to satisfy some weird idea that populations should be allowed to grow ad infinitum. However, that is not really the point, is it? What I, at an individual lever am, or am not prepared to do is not going to change a thing.

Of course you wouldn't, you British snob. The whole world is for your taking. Thank you very much.

Are you prepared to move back to Europe to allow the native American populations a claim to their just inheritance?

Edited April 14, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[mawilson 2,133]

It's like asking you, are you prepared to move back to Europe to allow the native American populations have their just inheritance. Are you?

I'm sure Steven would love to move to Europe - a socialist liberal heaven where everyone

(except those on welfare) works for the government and everything is shared equally.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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

Would you be willing to sacrifice your current standard of living if you knew that doing so meant that Third World Nations substandard of living would improve? And what I mean by substandard - no access to clean, drinkable water, no sanitary ways of disposing human sewage, no basic nutrition, no education for all.

No, quite frankly, I am not willing to live in the same conditions to satisfy some weird idea that populations should be allowed to grow ad infinitum. However, that is not really the point, is it? What I, at an individual lever am, or am not prepared to do is not going to change a thing.

Of course you wouldn't, you British snob. The whole world is for your taking. Thank you very much.

Would you though?

How much would you give up/take away from your wife and kids to facilitate a fair deal for everyone?