Consumption, Not Population Is Our Main Environmental Threat

[Peikko 1,575]

No, that is not what I am saying.

I started off by saying the simply reducing consumption is not an answer, all that would do would be to reduce the standard of living for everyone and the bigger the population grew, the lower the standard of living would become. At some point reducing population has to kick in. Personally, I would go for a two pronged approach, reduce population and commit to reducing waste.

However, as PP also said, and this is the real bullet, there is no way of actually achieving these aims by consent and certainly not by asking consumers to reduce their personal use, particularly if there is no measure of what a 'reasonable' level of consumption is.

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

No, that is not what I am saying.

I started off by saying the simply reducing consumption is not an answer, all that would do would be to reduce the standard of living for everyone and the bigger the population grew, the lower the standard of living would become. At some point reducing population has to kick in. Personally, I would go for a two pronged approach, reduce population and commit to reducing waste.

However, as PP also said, and this is the real bullet, there is no way of actually achieving these aims by consent and certainly not by asking consumers to reduce their personal use, particularly if there is no measure of what a 'reasonable' level of consumption is.

Well, we're talking about modifying individual behavior as well as modifying behavior of industry (consumption). There are ways, through tax incentives that can do help greatly. But I said this before - in terms of population growth, the evidence is that in developed as well as developing nations, people tend to have less children. So I would conclude that if you could improve the living standards in Third World countries, there would be a natural decrease in childbirths.

[Ban Hammer 13,364]

Did I say tender? I meant limp!

Well, it's not going to be 'white guilt' in your case, that's for sure

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

i thought curry floated?

[Amby 490]

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'm not a British snob and I completely agree with them Steve

[Amby 490]

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.

Couldn't he just move to Vermont?

[dalegg 143]

A couple of those poorer more populated countries benefit greatly from America's overconsumptious behavior. In fact, they make it easier for us to be that way by providing us with low cost labor and products. So, I still blame them.

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

A couple of those poorer more populated countries benefit greatly from America's overconsumptious behavior. In fact, they make it easier for us to be that way by providing us with low cost labor and products. So, I still blame them.

[dalegg 143]

A couple of those poorer more populated countries benefit greatly from America's overconsumptious behavior. In fact, they make it easier for us to be that way by providing us with low cost labor and products. So, I still blame them.

That's right. Free travel too.

[mawilson 2,133]

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.

Yes, I could, but I don't want to. I'm going to keep my cable deal and my premium channels and the 4 billion

poor in Asia, Africa and other parts of the world can kiss my аss.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

mawilson

[mRx 16]

I don't really understand the aim of the OP. He's introducing nothing groundbreaking by stating that higher consumption levels are correalated with higher standards of living. Other things being equal; if I eat 2 apples a day, and my neighbor eats only one, I'd say I have a higher standard of living than him. There is a failure to see that every single thing on this planet was originally made from resources that came from Earth. But the failure to replenish and maintain resources is not an issue related to overpopulation or consumption level.

The problem with our environment is there is little incentive to maintain it. That's largely because there is no such thing as private property. If people were actually allowed to own property, then there would clearly be an incentive to preserve, maintain, and replenish it. Forests, rivers, lakes, beaches, and oceans are considered public, and therefore no individual incentive exists to protect those resources. Federal bureaucrats assigned to protect these lands are not going to lose their job, or take a paycut, if the resources they administer are depleted or corrupted. Likewise, they face no gain if they do replenish these resources. Incentive is a powerful principle, and it's one associated with ownership. Allowing ownership rights would be extremely cost effective and beneficial to society as a whole; far more so than an impoverishing policy such as rationing resources.

[Amby 490]

mawilson

I salute you both on that one

I recycle. Good enough for me.

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

There's British Colonial elitism all over this thread.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No there isn't.

No-one is advocating colonialism.

[Amby 490]

I'm not british