Consumption, Not Population Is Our Main Environmental Threat

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Killing me would contribute to overconsumption by birds and bugs and other wild animals.

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

Killing me would contribute to overconsumption by birds and bugs and other wild animals.

Metaphorically, my good man.

[Brit Abroad 166]

No guilt at all. I have enough trouble keeping afloat. The do gooders can kiss my azz.

At the risk of sounding like the world's greatest ###### I'm going to suggest that people who claim they are struggling financially could often cut back on things they regard as essential.

That full-package cable deal where you watch maybe 3 out of the 10 channels on a regular basis, the latest cellphone and expensive all-inclusive airtime contract instead of a pay as you go (consume what you need), the multiple tvs and cars, unnecessary trips that consume gas (single occupancy when you do the same trip as your neighbor every day), bad choices in food deals (too much in pack, expensive meat cuts, imported fruit and veg), the latest clothing and footwear (fashion and labels), over-cycling of laundry instead of saving it until there's enough for a medium/large load(reducing the electricity/water/washing powder needed), using lower wattage eco-friendly light bulbs, better maintenance of cars that make them more efficient (less gas and fewer emissions), use of more "raw" foods to reduce the electricity/gas used in cooking everything, replacing household items for cosmetic reasons rather than function (that shiny new coffeemaker/toaster/wafflemaker) etc etc. The list is literally endless and consumerism is so ingrained that we don't even realise we're doing it until someone else points it out.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

No guilt at all. I have enough trouble keeping afloat. The do gooders can kiss my azz.

At the risk of sounding like the world's greatest ###### I'm going to suggest that people who claim they are struggling financially could often cut back on things they regard as essential.

That full-package cable deal where you watch maybe 3 out of the 10 channels on a regular basis, the latest cellphone and expensive all-inclusive airtime contract instead of a pay as you go (consume what you need), the multiple tvs and cars, unnecessary trips that consume gas (single occupancy when you do the same trip as your neighbor every day), bad choices in food deals (too much in pack, expensive meat cuts, imported fruit and veg), the latest clothing and footwear (fashion and labels), over-cycling of laundry instead of saving it until there's enough for a medium/large load(reducing the electricity/water/washing powder needed), using lower wattage eco-friendly light bulbs, better maintenance of cars that make them more efficient (less gas and fewer emissions), use of more "raw" foods to reduce the electricity/gas used in cooking everything, replacing household items for cosmetic reasons rather than function (that shiny new coffeemaker/toaster/wafflemaker) etc etc. The list is literally endless and consumerism is so ingrained that we don't even realise we're doing it until someone else points it out.

Go ** yourself

[Brit Abroad 166]

Go ** yourself

I have a husband for that, but I appreciate the thought.

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

No guilt at all. I have enough trouble keeping afloat. The do gooders can kiss my azz.

At the risk of sounding like the world's greatest ###### I'm going to suggest that people who claim they are struggling financially could often cut back on things they regard as essential.

That full-package cable deal where you watch maybe 3 out of the 10 channels on a regular basis, the latest cellphone and expensive all-inclusive airtime contract instead of a pay as you go (consume what you need), the multiple tvs and cars, unnecessary trips that consume gas (single occupancy when you do the same trip as your neighbor every day), bad choices in food deals (too much in pack, expensive meat cuts, imported fruit and veg), the latest clothing and footwear (fashion and labels), over-cycling of laundry instead of saving it until there's enough for a medium/large load(reducing the electricity/water/washing powder needed), using lower wattage eco-friendly light bulbs, better maintenance of cars that make them more efficient (less gas and fewer emissions), use of more "raw" foods to reduce the electricity/gas used in cooking everything, replacing household items for cosmetic reasons rather than function (that shiny new coffeemaker/toaster/wafflemaker) etc etc. The list is literally endless and consumerism is so ingrained that we don't even realise we're doing it until someone else points it out.

AMEN!

Go ** yourself

I have a husband for that, but I appreciate the thought.

Oh he's a lucky guy. I love you, Brit - but just platonically. I'm adding you on my friend's list.

[Peikko 1,575]

Nothing on the list I don't do already, see Steven, you demand too much of me!

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

Nothing on the list I don't do already, see Steven, you demand too much of me!

That's great. I don't think we in the Developed Nations have to give up that much comfort in order for the Third World's living standards to increase and there are immeasurable benefits when you lift all boats.

Edited April 15, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Nothing on the list I don't do already, see Steven, you demand too much of me!

That's great. I don't think we in the Developed Nations have to give up that much comfort in order for the Third World's living standards to increase and there are immeasurable benefits when you lift all boats.

What makes you think that any of those things would actually help?

That's one hell of a butterfly effect you're talking about.

[Peikko 1,575]

Sorry Steven but I believe you are quite wrong, and I also believe that having a good standard of living is what we should be aiming for, not lowering our standards to meet that of those who live in poverty.

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

Sorry Steven but I believe you are quite wrong, and I also believe that having a good standard of living is what we should be aiming for, not lowering our standards to meet that of those who live in poverty.

Ehem...you were the one that was making that argument to begin with...remember?

[Peikko 1,575]

, I don't think you understand anything I have said.

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

, I don't think you understand anything I have said.

You know what I think? I think you are a deviated prevert.

[Peikko 1,575]

That is the weirdest conclusion you have come to to date. Any more pearls of wisdom to share about me?

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

MC, if you are coming from the POV that resources are finite and that we should be concerned about population growth as it relates to the consumption of those finite resources, correct?

So...I presented to you the question then - if you would be willing to sacrifice your higher standard of living in order for those living in substandard conditions to improve and you said, 'no.'

Now you are saying that you don't believe they are connected.

Edited April 15, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano