AMDZen
Lifer
- Apr 15, 2004
- 12,589
- 0
- 76
CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 6.9
MOBILITY 0.2
SHELTER 4
GOODS/SERVICES 3.7
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.
FOOD 6.9
MOBILITY 0.2
SHELTER 4
GOODS/SERVICES 3.7
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.
Dude, it isn't bullsh!t. Again, why is it hard to understand the concept of your individual ecological footprint?
If I'm using 500 acres of land to support myself while little Joe Africa over there gets 0.1 acre, that's kinda fscked up isnt it? I'm not being "anti-capitalist" when I say that. I'm simply realizing our incredible excess.
/hippy bump
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,424
- 19,839
- 146
The test, and theory behind it, are full of sh!t. Obviously, not everyone is living 7 to a 20 meter house with no utilities and a vegan lifestyle, yet this test requires that to have "1.0" planets.
Wake up. This is guilt ridden liberal bullsh!t.
We do not live in excess, but in success.
Originally posted by: Amused
Heh. You are guilty of heresy against the liberal god, Amused.
No sh!t, huh?
Even after I pointed out the obvious bias and fraud of this "test" people still blindly support it.[/quote]I'm not saying that it isn't biased, fraudulent or that it doesen't have alterior motives. That's this particular test, and that may be true.
But the concept is sound. The test is designed to do nothing more than to make people think. Obviously, everybody on the planet cannot live as most who have posted in this thread do; there isn't enough planet.
Nobody is going to take the test and go, "OMG! I've gotta start living 3rd world country-like!"....
It's just simply to make you stop and think...
It's not really that big of a deal. The idea of the test is sound, the execution of this particular test may not be the best.
no, millions of them live on the street with no utilities and little food at all. It's one thing to say that the test is biased. It's another thing to say that the entire world could live like the average American with no shortages of resources, if they "tried hard enough".
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
It's simple math, people. It can't take an average of 4 earths, as this website would imply, to support everyone when we only have 1 earth. If everyone lived like you is just a way to make you feel guilty. You wouldn't take that kinda sh!t about your "sins" from a preacher in a church on Sunday, but you'll take it from this website even though it's the same agenda just a different god?
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,424
- 19,839
- 146
I'm not saying that it isn't biased, fraudulent or that it doesen't have alterior motives. That's this particular test, and that may be true.Originally posted by: Eli
Originally posted by: Amused
Heh. You are guilty of heresy against the liberal god, Amused.
No sh!t, huh?
Even after I pointed out the obvious bias and fraud of this "test" people still blindly support it.
But the concept is sound. The test is nothing more than to make people think. Obviously, everybody on the planet cannot live as most who have posted in this thread do; there isn't enough planet.
Nobody is going to take the test and go, "OMG! I've gotta start living 3rd world country-like!"....
It's just simply to make you stop and think.[/quote]
It makes me think how fortunate we are to live in a capitalistic society that has developed and perfected agriculture to make it possible to feed far more people per acre than ever before. I'm thankful that this development continues IN SPITE of the constant activism against it by the very same people who put out garbage like this.
These same people in the 70s predicted world wide famines in the 80s, then 90s, then 2000s and so on. They're full of sh!t. They are no different than the religious fruitcakes who stand on street corners and rant about the end of the world.
Huh? I'm totally confused by this statement... What does religious stuff have to do with it?
What do you mean it "can't" take an average of 4 Earths? Obviously there is only 1 Earth, but.. huh? This thread is confusing me.
There is only so much space on this planet. Maybe the test is unreliable, biased, fraudulent, etc. Should we half the numbers? Half them again?
So the people that are using 6 planets according to the test really only need 1.5 plants? Yeah, that's a lot better...
I don't get it.
Isn't it kinda like Poker? For everyone that wins money, there MUST be someone that loses money, or the process wouldn't work.
For everyone that is "successful" on Earth, there MUST be someone that is not.. because there are not enough resources for everybody to live like there are multiple Earths, which is what we are doing right now, RIGHT?
Let's not focus so much on this particular test. We already get that it's biased, it is still interesting.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,424
- 19,839
- 146
Prove it.
Every famine I have read about in the last 50 years was caused by political action or great natural disaters which led to the breakdown in supply chains, NOT a shortage of resources.
Politically stable countries NEVER face famines.
Why is that?
Hell, in the US we PAY farmers to not grow crops to prop up the prices of an over abundance of food.
Good GAWD the crap people swallow. :roll:
Umm, are you telling me that you believe there is enough space on this planet for all 6 billion people to live like I do? You do?
I'd like you to prove that there is.
What about when the population tops 8 billion? 9, 10?
IMO, you are being incredibly short sighted. Sure, we're successful.. But to say that it isn't at others' expense is ignorant, is it not?
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,424
- 19,839
- 146
At others expense?
Who the fsck am I holding down?
Good GAWD let go of your misplaced liberal guilt.
If another country over populates itself, that is NOT my fault. If another country is unstable politically, and causes it's own famine, that is NOT my fault.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Environmentalism is a modern incarnation of earth goddess worship, probably the oldest religion on earth. They are worshipping a god, the earth, and the purpose of their agenda is make you feel guilty that your success and good life is a moral sin, just like how a fundamentalist preacher would condemn homosexuals.
This is not about winners and losers, successful and nonsuccessful. We have our bounty because we are more efficient, primarily due to our technology. Today's farms and fields yield many times more per acre than those of yesterday. Where once the earth had far fewer people and most went hungry, now we have a lot more people and most have plenty. Yet the earth worshippers would tell us that that is a sin. Make sense?
edit: And yes, we have so much plenty that governments must subsidize farmers to not grow food in order to prop up food prices.
edit2: Remember that mother earth worshippers typically hate human life too, and that human sacrifice was typical of the worship in ancient times. This is why they always complain that the earth is overpopulated, and why PETA wants to decimate the human population by forbidding people the animal protein that they need to survive. When they talk of decreasing the human population, I just always tell them, "You first."
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....?
I understand this point of view, but I don't necessarily agree with it.
Sure, you don't have your finger on anybodies forehead... But you may as well, because you are using resources that are no longer available to the world since you are using them, correct?
Gah. Just answer me this. Do you, or do you not believe that the Earth can support all 6 billion people as if everyone was American?
I say that it cannot, considering that we already use such a huge portion of the pie.. it's simple math, right?
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,424
- 19,839
- 146
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.
yes, and ALL atheists are bitter God-hating people who were abused as children, and all religious people are stupid mindless fools, and all cops are fat, donut-eating and corrupt...
Some environmentalists are crazy. There's no denying that. But there are WAY too many intelligent people, including a lot of scientists, who buy it at some level. I'd argue that, like many things in life, an initially accurate observation got taken over by a bunch of zealots, so now you get hippies who think the world is going to end next year, and people who think we can strip-mine, log, and dump radioactive waste at eight times our current level with no negative effects whatsoever.
My question is, Who would you believe? Who would you see as an authority on the subject, if they said "Yes, the earth's resources are limited, and will only support ___ level of use per year"? Plenty of very prominent scientists have argued for conservation. Do you not trust the scientific community?
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,424
- 19,839
- 146
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.
Hmm.. I'm gettin' this.
I still can't get off the natural resources thing though. Obviously we don't have enough natural resources in North America to support everybody that lives in North America; we have to bring in a lot of things from other places.
What is going to happen when there are no more "things" in other places because we have used it all? ....
I completely get what you're saying, but what about the other half?
Is it OK to use all the resources you want simply because you're "successful"? What happens when they're gone?
Call me all the political names you want, I don't think you can convince me that this isn't a problem that we're going to have to face in the future, although I would certainly like to hear otherwise.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
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.Originally posted by: Amused
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.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....?
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.
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.
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.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,424
- 19,839
- 146
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.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter