How many planets would we need if everyone was to live like you?

[Draknor]

Originally posted by: glenn1
This "test" is idiotic. It treats population, economic, and environmental concerns all as a zero-sum game.

Quick question for all you tree-hugger types out there. Let's take two groups of 100 people. One is a conclave of earth-first environmentalists, live in some old growth forest, walk or take public transportation wherever they go, and don't use air conditioning or any of the other "evil" convieniences of modern life that use electricity, oil, wood, or any other sort of resources, and produce small handmade crafts to support themselves. The second group takes full advantage of modern convieniences, drives to work every day, make large use of oil and electricity resources, and otherwise do all the things which would get them a low score on this test from the BBC. Which group would you rather choose?

The reason why you always get this question wrong is because you never bother to ask WHO the people in the second group are. Let's say that they are scientists working on hydrogen powered fuel cells. Or doctors who help treat and cure thousands of people. Or engineers working on new, more fuel efficient vehicles. Now which group do you think is better for the environment, the first group or the second?

glenn1 - there's a problem I see with your reasoning. If everyone lived as the first group did, then you wouldn't need the hydrogen fuel cells, more fuel efficient vehicles, etc. Or, I would argue that those scientists & engineers could still take public transportation, eat organic foods, forgo some of the "modern conveniences", and yet still work on better fuel, more efficient vehicles, and better cures.

What's good for the environment cannot be untied from what's good for society in an economic sense. Economic growth is a prerequisite for being able to be a better steward of the environment. That's why the anti-growth agenda that the "Earth First" crowd is pushing is so frightfully, dreadfully, and deadly wrong.

I sort of agree with this, but not totally. I agree that, as technology improves, the potential to reduce ecological damage also improves (better efficiency, etc). But that doesn't mean it happens right away - b/c it's usually cheaper to just exploit the environment. Given a choice between lower price & more green-friendly (everything else equal), most people (Americans, at least), will choose the lower price. And so that's what industries make a top priority.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

WTF?!

I only score a 6.3!

That's bullsh!t. I am far more wasteful and consuming than that!

 

[zephyrprime]

The US like most fully industrialized nations is at zero population growth if you subtract immigration. Most of Europe is in negative growth (the US will be in a few decades), Japan is in negative growth. You wanna reduce global population? Support globalization.

This is totally right. Population growth isn't an issue any more. Who would have guessed that in the 1970's?

 

[krackato]

Look, I don't see what everyone's problem with lowering population growth is. It's only a matter of time until we go from 6 billion to 12 billion. And then 30 billion. And what's to stop us from going to 60 billion? Are you saying the world would be the exact same and that the environment wouldn't have a negative impact if the population of the earth was 10x greater? Of course the environment would be negatively impacted.

I don't think forcing people to stop having children is ever a good solution, or forcing abortions like they do in China. I also don't think that the United States really has to worry about out of control population growth much like the rest of the industrialized world which has fallen to 1-2% population growth thanks to the modernization of their economies and the growth of women's rights. It has been statistically shown that when women in a country are educated or even employed in greater numbers, population growth rate decreases.

I go back to the fact that the United States doesn't have the type of over-population problem that countries like India and China currently have (we've got problems dealing with the SUV's that we drive and the fact that no one seems to understand that we live like Kings and not everyone is as lucky), but slowing the rate of population increase in impoverished nations would certainly seem to be in their best interests.

 

[pyonir]

10.6 planets for me.

Yay.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

The US like most fully industrialized nations is at zero population growth if you subtract immigration. Most of Europe is in negative growth (the US will be in a few decades), Japan is in negative growth. You wanna reduce global population? Support globalization.

This is totally right. Population growth isn't an issue any more. Who would have guessed that in the 1970's?

it definetly still is, not in the western world but with the rest of the world its a very very big problem.