How many planets would we need if everyone on Earth lived like you? - Page 4

XarXo · September 6, 2002, 16:40

1 planet with the surface area of... Jupiter

orange · September 6, 2002, 16:43

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
CS,

Why, the kind where they have everything they need and want to eat, their own car at 16 or 17, reasonable gas prices, and basically all the creature comforts I enjoy, with added benefits due to technology.

because we all know that's what's important in life

David Floyd · September 6, 2002, 16:43

Al B. Sure! · September 6, 2002, 16:57

David Floyd:

I agree with you in concept... these environmentalists are ridiculous with their 'shocking statistics' that honestly mean little and there's no reason why any of us should go out of our way to protect the environment especially since I'm confident as technology progresses, we'll have no problem with pollution.

However, I'm still worried about the problem of decadence. A very very high living standard leads to sin and disrespect for one's fortune (rich whiteys from connecticut becoming free love hippies).

Although in all honesty, if I had money I know I'd be living large. Still, eventually I'd be ashamed of myself.

thanks

Al B. Sure! · September 6, 2002, 17:06

I just wanted to add that I think that some of Dave's comments here are being taken a little too far. Him being a libertarian, I'm sure he favours a clean unpolluted world but he doesnt want the gov't legislating this. Little things that people do like start a car pool, recycle, etc. I'm sure he's all in favour of. So don't take **** like that more than 15 minute shower thing too seriously.

(I hope I spoke accurately for Dave and he was exaggerating a bit in his comments)

thanks

Eli · September 6, 2002, 17:14

Total Footprint 3.2
In comparison, the average ecological footprint in your country is 4.4 global hectares per person.

Al B. Sure! · September 6, 2002, 17:15

nevermind. my bad

CyberGnu · September 6, 2002, 17:55

The question is whether these 'shock values' are shocking us the right way. What they basically say is that if the average chinese wants the same standard of living as the average european, we would need like 2 earths, right? Shouldn't we be more concerned about the number of chinese than the european standard of living? If you halved the number of chinese and indians, all of a sudden we only need 1.5 earths. Count in all the people in underdeveloped countries, and we are all of a sudden doing fine.

And I'm not saying that we should kill people off. I'm saying that we need to work out a better solution... One part of the world started consuming a lot more than average, but on the other hand stopped their population growth. The other part of the world instead went for unchecked population expansion, up to the point where all these people are essentially doomed to poverty....

Not sure exactly where I'm going with this.... Except that we should send more condoms to India.

Giovanni Wine · September 6, 2002, 18:20

If everyone lived like me, we would need 2.9 planets.

Food 0.9

Mobility 0.2

Shelter 1.5

Goods/Services 2.6

Total Footprint 5.2

In comparison, the average ecological footprint in Italy is 3.8 global hectares per person.

Saluti

Giovanni Wine · September 6, 2002, 18:24

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
The question is whether these 'shock values' are shocking us the right way. What they basically say is that if the average chinese wants the same standard of living as the average european, we would need like 2 earths, right? Shouldn't we be more concerned about the number of chinese than the european standard of living? If you halved the number of chinese and indians, all of a sudden we only need 1.5 earths. Count in all the people in underdeveloped countries, and we are all of a sudden doing fine.

And I'm not saying that we should kill people off. I'm saying that we need to work out a better solution... One part of the world started consuming a lot more than average, but on the other hand stopped their population growth. The other part of the world instead went for unchecked population expansion, up to the point where all these people are essentially doomed to poverty....

Not sure exactly where I'm going with this.... Except that we should send more condoms to India.

I actually think you are right

It is not us that needs to live in poverty like the average Indian or whatever underdeveloped country

It's them who needs to stop reproducing like rabbits, and try to slowly diminuish their population

so that tere would be more resources for the people

We probably need to reduce the pop from the 6 billion we are now, to a more substainable 2-3 bilion

Saluti

Carver · September 6, 2002, 19:11

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Why, the kind where they have everything they need and want to eat, their own car at 16 or 17, reasonable gas prices, and basically all the creature comforts I enjoy, with added benefits due to technology.

They're going to need air to breath to enjoy any of this. The right-wingers just don't get it. None of the money or material goods they value will mean anything if the planet dies. Idiots like Bush and people on Fox News talk about envoirnmentalism hurting the economy, slashing jobs, raising prices... guess what AIR IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN MACROECONOMIC GROWTH.

chequita guevara · September 6, 2002, 19:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Giovanni Wine
It's them who needs to stop reproducing like rabbits, and try to slowly diminuish their population

Typical racist environmentalist BS. The problem is not the number of people in the world. The problem is that they want to live like us, and there simply aren't the resources on planet Earth to do that.

You can only live high on the hog fo so long. After that you get what happened to Rapa Nui.

Lefty Scaevola · September 6, 2002, 19:18

Children are indeed the overwhelming main cause of poverty. The cosumme a lot and produce very little. Aslo younger adults earn less than older (non retired) adults.
One example it the common comparison between the incomes between too 'UNAMED RACIAL GROUPS' in the USA. When age normed, comparing only between same age person and families wiht the same age distrution, a large majority of the income disparity vanishes. I am not sure what the figure is now, but the last time a saw is some years ago over 75% of the income disparity was due to the differences in the age distribution in the populations, rather than discriminationor other factors, just do to reproductive strategy (or lack thereof), which itself (reproductive habits) is, of course, influenced by poverty.

CyberGnu · September 6, 2002, 19:28

No need to go to extremes. Yes, we do need to learn to live more environmentally friendly, but that is mainly at a global perspective. Global warming is the main thing that americans should worry about...

But this footprint measures EVERYTHING. Including eating meat, which, if you live in the US, is absolutely pointless. Sure, you can feed ten people the grain it takes to make enough meat for one, but so what? That is just thermodynamics. We're currently buning as much food, calorywise, as we the meat we eat. It's economics, not irresponsibility.

As long as the US population stays stable (discounting immigration) I don't think the world has cause for complaint, except for global warming.

Ned · September 6, 2002, 19:38

9.9

David Floyd · September 6, 2002, 20:10

orange,

Quote:

because we all know that's what's important in life

I was asked what kind of life I want my kids to have. And I answered. In part, I want them to grow up in a country where they are able to have a car at a young age, and actually afford the gas.

AS,

Quote:

However, I'm still worried about the problem of decadence. A very very high living standard leads to sin and disrespect for one's fortune (rich whiteys from connecticut becoming free love hippies).

Can you explain sin and disrespect, please? What's wrong with becoming a free love hippie, if that's what one wants to do?

Quote:

Him being a libertarian, I'm sure he favours a clean unpolluted world but he doesnt want the gov't legislating this.

Well, I'm more concerned about government legislation than pollution, yes.

Quote:

Little things that people do like start a car pool, recycle, etc. I'm sure he's all in favour of.

Sure, whatever floats their boat. I'm still gonna drive, though, and I'm not gonna recycle if its extra work for me. I don't have the time to drive around dropping stuff off at recycling centers.

Quote:

So don't take **** like that more than 15 minute shower thing too seriously.

Actually, I really do that.

David Floyd · September 6, 2002, 20:11

Carver,

Quote:

guess what AIR IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN MACROECONOMIC GROWTH.

Frankly, I'm not concerned. I've seen statistics showing that natural volcanos pump out more CO2 at one time than industrial production. Can't cite the source, but it does make sense.

CyberGnu · September 6, 2002, 20:25

David, so? Natural CO2 isn't the problem, nature compensates for that. Human CO2 is a net addition, however.

David Floyd · September 6, 2002, 20:27

Well, I know nothing about science, hence because I don't understand it the problem isn't there. And in cases of money and standard of living vs. "environment", I'll let you guess which one wins out for me, and for the vast majority of Americans. Be realistic.

chequita guevara · September 6, 2002, 20:30

Actually, most Americans say they would be more environmentally conscious if someone told them what to do. However, as we've been conditioned to be lazy, I doubt even if they were hand led to the recycling bin, that they'd do it.

David Floyd · September 6, 2002, 20:32

Yes, most Americans SAY that. I bet most Americans wouldn't DO that though

CyberGnu · September 6, 2002, 20:53

well, one could hope that most americans wouldn't object too strongly to the only thing I think helps, a carbon tax...

Bereta_Eder · September 6, 2002, 21:00

Just 2 planets

David Floyd · September 6, 2002, 21:18

Quote:

well, one could hope that most americans wouldn't object too strongly to the only thing I think helps, a carbon tax...

You don't think Americans would object to higher taxes to address something they don't see as a problem? Oh how WELL you know us

Carver · September 6, 2002, 22:34

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
well, one could hope that most americans wouldn't object too strongly to the only thing I think helps, a carbon tax...

That's a great idea. The mileage on cars should be periodically inspected, the authorities then look at what type of car you have and approximate the amount of pollutants released - and tax your arse.

Of course, where this would really pay off is with businesses.

And DF, I am one American who definently sees the destruction of Earth (the only class M planet we know of) as a problem.

David Floyd · September 6, 2002, 23:17

Well I wouldn't worry about the destruction of earth, I'm sure technology will solve anything that comes up. Hey, I'm an optimist.

That, and the earth won't be destroyed in my lifetime. What can I say, I'm also a bastard.