if everyone lived like you, how many planets would we need?

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Eli
Hmm.. Yeah, I understand that.

But it would be physically impossible for every country on the planet to have our bounty, even if they had the technology, right? Isn't that what this test, as full of bullsh!t as it is, is trying to say?

Are you saying that ISN'T the case, that if poor countries did have the means, they would have no problem becomming as successfull as we are?

What about allocation of resources though? We have a finite ammount....?

You say "poor" countries are such because they lack resources. I say that's bullsh!t. Most "poor" countries are "poor" because they lack political stability and the ability to develop what resources they have.

Again, NO politically stable country has ever faced a famine due to a lack of resources. ALL famines have been political or natural disaster related.

This is correct. And sometimes there are some distribution problems, like when we send aid to a struggling country and the dictator of that country steals all the aid money to fund his armies and forces the people to starve to death... that kind of thing.

We have a global economy now, and corporations WANT to open up these struggling areas to business as it means more workforce and more markets, but they cannot invest in politically unstable areas with any sense of confidence. Think of it as trying to open a Korean grocery store in the middle of South Central at the height of the Rodney King riots. Who in their right mind would do that? And that is why most of these struggling countries continue to struggle.

hrm. I do completely understand this.

So you basically believe that we aren't destroying our planet? That we aren't using finite resources, that it isn't going to be a problem?

I dunno man... I have a hard time with that. We've gone from 1 billion to 6 billion in the last 150 years, what about the next 150 years? Something is going to have to break.

 

[compudog]

I am at 4.5.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Eli

I dunno man... I have a hard time with that. We've gone from 1 billion to 6 billion in the last 150 years, what about the next 150 years? Something is going to have to break.

Political and economic stability brings with it a dramatic decrease in population growth.

Europe has negative growth, and the US's main growth is from immigration.

The key is not liberal guilt, but political and economic stability. But then, the same people who spout the nonsense you believe are also the very same ones who oppose the spread of freedom and capitalism around the world.

Ironic, huh? The very people who spout this garbage are the very ones blocking the very actions needed to fix the problem.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Amused

Sure it can. Much of the planet is undeveloped. Hell we pay our farmers to under/not produce to keep food prices high. There is PLENTY of food to go around.

And, again, I will NOT be made to feel guilty for my success. If you cannot see how that very thing is the cornerstone of socialist liberal ideology, and not science, I don't think you're capable of being objective here.

bah, don't start in with that bullsh!t. I'm being as objective as I possibly can; from my point of view you are completely forgetting that there are FINITE resources on this planet.

And you are completely ignoring the fact that much of the needed resources are renewable. The world would have no trouble feeding many billions more than we already have. The problem is not ability, but stability.

Again, point to a single politically stable country facing a famine due to a lack of resources.

The most important resource currently is not renewable...

I'm listening. Are you telling me that there ARE enough resources on the planet to support everybody living like me? Every one of the 6 billion people gets a 2000 square foot house, 2 cars and all the food they can eat?

I'd be thrilled if that were true, but I have never heard of such a thing.

Are you telling me that the whole "Ecological footprint" thing is a bunch of bullsh!t?

If you have 100% of something.. Nation A uses 50%, Nation B uses 40%.. that means, even if Nation C developed a stable government and started to be successful, as you say.. there is only 10% left. If they want more than 10%, they are going to have to take it from Nation A or B.

What am I missing?

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Eli

I dunno man... I have a hard time with that. We've gone from 1 billion to 6 billion in the last 150 years, what about the next 150 years? Something is going to have to break.

Political and economic stability brings with it a dramatic decrease in population growth.

Europe has negative growth, and the US's main growth is from immigration.

The key is not liberal guilt, but political and economic stability. But then, the same people who spout the nonsense you believe are also the very same ones who oppose the spread of freedom and capitalism around the world.

Ironic, huh? The very people who spout this garbage are the very ones blocking the very actions needed to fix the problem.

Stop with the personal attacks. I'm trying desperately to understand where you're comming from and you are not helping.



I am not being closed minded, I am trying to understand what you're saying with every braincell in my head. It isn't making sense, so please fscking help me OK?

Fscking christ.

I understand what you're saying, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE EARTH ONLY CONTAINS XXX OF EACH FINITE RESOURCE, NAMELY... LAND!!!!!!????

Let's look a bit beyond 150 years in the future. What about 500? 750? Nothing in the scheme of time. Are you OK with the idea that our end could be that close simply because there isn't enough space on the fscking planet to support 20 billion people?

????????

Where do you draw the line? Do you believe that the Earth can support 20 billion? 30, 40, 50?

What the hell?

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Sorry. This shouldn't turn into a red state/ blue state crapfest that doesn't even go close to the topic.

I don't feel the least bit guilty about the life I lead. True this test is a sham, but it's value is in demonstrating that there is a great difference in people's quality of life, and asking ourselves if we can sustain our own level, let alone bring everyone else up to ours. If there's a total of 10 apples, and I have 6, everyone else has at most 4. I'm suprisingly comfortable with that scenario. Does my car (which I drive all over the place) use too much gas? Yep. Does my hot water (which there's plenty of) take too much oil, electricity, etc, etc? Sure. Am I going to change my ways? Not really. I wouldn't object to a more efficient and sustainable way of living (check this thread), as long as it doesn't cramp my style. I'm concerned about the people's and planet's well-being, but there's no way I'm going to live in a cave, eating sticks and sh!t. I'd much rather see other countries (and parts of my own) improve the quality of life for their people. Not only will other countries be nicer places to live and visit, but the people will stay there.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Eli
hrm. I do completely understand this.

So you basically believe that we aren't destroying our planet? That we aren't using finite resources, that it isn't going to be a problem?

I dunno man... I have a hard time with that. We've gone from 1 billion to 6 billion in the last 150 years, what about the next 150 years? Something is going to have to break.

Our population has grown because of our successes. This is something to celebrate, not lament. 100 years ago, a baby born had less than a 50% chance of reaching adulthood. Now that same baby has a nearly 100% chance.

Nothing is going to break, unless we let it. Starvation is far less common today with 6 billion people than over 100 years ago with 1 billion people. Our only issue right now is energy and that is only passing. More energy from the sun strikes the earth every single day than all the energy in all the oil that we have ever pumped from the earth. And that energy from the sun that reaches the earth represent only the tiniest fraction of the sun's total energy.

 

[cquark]

And the "war for oil" pile of bullsh!t is so silly and simplistic, it barely deserves a response. The US has not taken ownership of a single mideast oil well.

No one ever used the term "war for oil" to mean that direct US ownership of Middle Eastern oil .

You're the one who's spouting the simplistic strawman position that "war for oil" means that and what you're saying is a pile of bs.

The more common result of a confilct for oil is imposing a highly unfavorable contract on the defeated government, like the US did when it overthrew the Shah of Iran. Getting 40% of Iran's oil revenues was quite a prize for the American oil companies who had nothing beforehand, and the British and French were happy with the other 60%.

However, the US global political position prevents it from using the Iranian approach in Iraq today, but the war is still about oil. First, the US has built permanent military bases in Iraq and in neighboring countries, expanding its already heavy military investment in the Middle East, to ensure that the US has a level of control over its foreign oil supply in the future. Second, the oil support industry, like Halliburton, made billions on preferential contracts with Iraq. Third, it prevented Iraq from trading oil in euros, which would be disastrous to the value of the US dollar. The US needs the US dollar to be valued to continue its current federal debt-spending and to maintain its trade imbalance.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Eli
hrm. I do completely understand this.

So you basically believe that we aren't destroying our planet? That we aren't using finite resources, that it isn't going to be a problem?

I dunno man... I have a hard time with that. We've gone from 1 billion to 6 billion in the last 150 years, what about the next 150 years? Something is going to have to break.

Our population has grown because of our successes. This is something to celebrate, not lament. 100 years ago, a baby born had less than a 50% chance of reaching adulthood. Now that same baby has a nearly 100% chance.

Nothing is going to break, unless we let it. Starvation is far less common today with 6 billion people than over 100 years ago with 1 billion people. Our only issue right now is energy and that is only passing. More energy from the sun strikes the earth every single day than all the energy in all the oil that we have ever pumped from the earth. And that energy from the sun that reaches the earth represent only the tiniest fraction of the sun's total energy.

....

Something will break. It will break when there is no longer standing space because there are 50 billion people on the planet.

Hopefully by that time we've found something other than Earth, I guess....

I guess I should have more faith in technology to pull us out of our energy woes, but for some reason I do not. That doesen't mean anything obviously, and I'd have to be a sadistic SOB to not wish that we DO find something... but still.

By it's very definition, you cannot spread a finite resource out forever.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Eli
Something will break. It will break when there is no longer standing space because there are 50 billion people on the planet.

Hopefully by that time we've found something other than Earth, I guess....

There will never be 50 billion people on earth. At one point, the population pressure will stabilize based on our ability to sustain our population. How do you think the human population was so low in the past and then didn't explode until industrialization? Because before our ability to sustain ourselves was less. Now our ability is much more. So it won't explode or break. It will reach a peak point based the current level of sustainability and then stabilize. Which is what scientists are currently predicting, with the peak somewhere around 7 billion reached in the next 20 years.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Amused

And you are completely ignoring the fact that much of the needed resources are renewable. The world would have no trouble feeding many billions more than we already have.

While global cropland and population quadrupled from 1700-1950, the amount of arable land has increased by only 23% since 1950, while world population has more than doubled. The era of easy cropland expansion has passed. Few countries have much more land that could be converted, while others are experiencing a shrinkage of arable land. In the US, the falling water tables of the Ogallala aquifer have forced the reversion of land from wheat farming to less productive grazing land.

Also, the Green Revolution that lets us feed the world today by making land more productive is based on artificial fertilizers, which are made from petroleum. Petroleum production reached its maximum in the US over 30 years ago, and the Middle East will reach its peak in the next few decades. While the US has a low population density and will be able to afford higher prices to make fertilizer, the third world will not be so fortunate.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: cquark

And the "war for oil" pile of bullsh!t is so silly and simplistic, it barely deserves a response. The US has not taken ownership of a single mideast oil well.

No one ever used the term "war for oil" to mean that direct US ownership of Middle Eastern oil .

You're the one who's spouting the simplistic strawman position that "war for oil" means that and what you're saying is a pile of bs.

The more common result of a confilct for oil is imposing a highly unfavorable contract on the defeated government, like the US did when it overthrew the Shah of Iran. Getting 40% of Iran's oil revenues was quite a prize for the American oil companies who had nothing beforehand, and the British and French were happy with the other 60%.

However, the US global political position prevents it from using the Iranian approach in Iraq today, but the war is still about oil. First, the US has built permanent military bases in Iraq and in neighboring countries, expanding its already heavy military investment in the Middle East, to ensure that the US has a level of control over its foreign oil supply in the future. Second, the oil support industry, like Halliburton, made billions on preferential contracts with Iraq. Third, it prevented Iraq from trading oil in euros, which would be disastrous to the value of the US dollar. The US needs the US dollar to be valued to continue its current federal debt-spending and to maintain its trade imbalance.

i agree with you completely


The former Soviet states have mostly stable, but horrible, governments, and their people face shotages of damn near everything. Under Soviet rule, this was intentional. But now, with quasi-free people, they still suffer.

 

[cquark]

Again, point to a single politically stable country facing a famine due to a lack of resources.

Your statement is a self-fulfilling prophecy because famine also causes political instability. Unsurprisingly, people who are starving try to do something to avoid dying, and governments are rarely stable in such conditions. Probably the most stable example is the Irish potato famine, as Ireland was ruled from London, which was mostly isolated from the political fallout.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Amused

And you are completely ignoring the fact that much of the needed resources are renewable. The world would have no trouble feeding many billions more than we already have.

While global cropland and population quadrupled from 1700-1950, the amount of arable land has increased by only 23% since 1950, while world population has more than doubled. The era of easy cropland expansion has passed. Few countries have much more land that could be converted, while others are experiencing a shrinkage of arable land. In the US, the falling water tables of the Ogallala aquifer have forced the reversion of land from wheat farming to less productive grazing land.

Also, the Green Revolution that lets us feed the world today by making land more productive is based on artificial fertilizers, which are made from petroleum. Petroleum production reached its maximum in the US over 30 years ago, and the Middle East will reach its peak in the next few decades. While the US has a low population density and will be able to afford higher prices to make fertilizer, the third world will not be so fortunate.

Thank you. Although I don't think you're going to get a welcome response.

Are we all in agreement that phsycal land space is our most finite resource?

Originally posted by: Vic
There will never be 50 billion people on earth. At one point, the population pressure will stabilize based on our ability to sustain our population. How do you think the human population was so low in the past and then didn't explode until industrialization? Because before our ability to sustain ourselves was less. Now our ability is much more. So it won't explode or break. It will reach a peak point based the current level of sustainability and then stabilize. Which is what scientists are currently predicting, with the peak somewhere around 7 billion reached in the next 20 years.

Yeah, I understand that.

But - 20 years! Come on. .that's within my lifetime! What about the next 10,000?

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Eli
Something will break. It will break when there is no longer standing space because there are 50 billion people on the planet.

Hopefully by that time we've found something other than Earth, I guess....

There will never be 50 billion people on earth. At one point, the population pressure will stabilize based on our ability to sustain our population. How do you think the human population was so low in the past and then didn't explode until industrialization? Because before our ability to sustain ourselves was less. Now our ability is much more. So it won't explode or break. It will reach a peak point based the current level of sustainability and then stabilize. Which is what scientists are currently predicting, with the peak somewhere around 7 billion reached in the next 20 years.

try 7 billion in a decadeor less. the growth is exponential.

 

[iskim86]

16 total foorprint, 3 and a half planets.

 

[tami]

"do you have electricity in your home?"

what kind of question is that? do they expect us to live in a teepee?!

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Vic
Which is what scientists are currently predicting, with the peak somewhere around 7 billion reached in the next 20 years.

Actually the current scientific predictions are that we'll hit 7 billion by 2015 and reach a maximum of 10 billion +/- 2 billion by 2050.

 

[tami]

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 5.2
MOBILITY 1
SHELTER 4
GOODS/SERVICES 4.4
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 15



IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 24 ACRES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.



IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3.3 PLANETS.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

I'm less concerned about life in 10,000 years than I am about 10, 20, 100 years. This is a critical time, with a mix of ample resources for some, no resources for others, ancient technology at their limits, and modern technology just now becoming understood.

Technology can help ease the suffering of billions, but if it is used foolishly, that's as bad as being used for evil.

 

[suse920]

15.8

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: tami
"do you have electricity in your home?"

what kind of question is that? do they expect us to live in a teepee?!

well, i'm on the internet aren't i? waitaminute, so are they!

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Vic
Which is what scientists are currently predicting, with the peak somewhere around 7 billion reached in the next 20 years.

Actually the current scientific predictions are that we'll hit 7 billion by 2015 and reach a maximum of 10 billion +/- 2 billion by 2050.

Hey, you edited.

This agreed with your pre-edit post; 7 billion by 2010.

But it says we'll have over 10 billion by ~2035.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
try 7 billion in a decadeor less. the growth is exponential.

Of course. But it can't be exponential forever. Just as in the past, pressures will keep this down. Oddly enough, capitalism provides the best system for this. As population pressures increase the cost of resources, it discourages people from having more children because of the prohibitive financial burden. We've already seen this effect in the past 50-60 years. Once very large families of 8-10 children were common, now they are not. The net effect is a reduction of the growth rate. Remember that every couple with 2 or less children leads to what is effectively a negative growth rate.

But does it really matter exactly how many there are of us? Once the world had only 100 million, and famines were commonplace, and now we have 6 billion and famines are rare.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
try 7 billion in a decadeor less. the growth is exponential.

Of course. But it can't be exponential forever. Just as in the past, pressures will keep this down. Oddly enough, capitalism provides the best system for this. As population pressures increase the cost of resources, it discourages people from having more children because of the prohibitive financial burden. We've already seen this effect in the past 50-60 years. Once very large families of 8-10 children were common, now they are not. The net effect is a reduction of the growth rate. Remember that every couple with 2 or less children leads to what is effectively a negative growth rate.

But does it really matter exactly how many there are of us? Once the world had only 100 million, and famines were commonplace, and now we have 6 billion and famines are rare.

Right, but there must be a breaking point. Technology will let the population exceed that point, and there will be a very difficult road ahead of us from then on. America throws away more food than the rest of the world eats. This is because we have both the resources and the tech to produce food like it's going out of style. However, this can't be sustained with current tech. Pesticides, fertilizers, energy production, etc. will come back to bite us on the @ss. I don't mind having plenty of food, but I recognize the fact that new ways are needed.