"JSM" <ekrubmeg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:63c2c229-4eb8-47b2-8825-5e74687ff41a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Apr 8, 3:46 am, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > "jerry" <electric...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >
> >
news:3a9e0e63-724e-4f76-bc99-a33c1e1e9e59@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Apr 6, 5:30 pm, JSM <ekrub...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> > >> Biofuel Farming Looks to Be an Environmental Disaster
> > >> Growing corn for ethanol may increase greenhouse gases for over a
> > >> century.
> > >The bottom line is
> > >there are too many people on this planet and it is time for the
> > >Malthusian Principle to kick in. That means some form of control has
> > >to happen such as mass starvation, a global epidemic, a global war,
or
> > >some catastrophic event to curb the over population. There are too
> > >many people on this planet for all of them to have the same standard
> > >of living as we have in the USA, and that is a fact. The Internet
and
> > >global communications have educated the m***** so they are no longer
> > >happy living in the bottom third of humanity. They are not going to
> > >take it any longer. Something has got to give
> >
> > There are a lot more people per square foot in China than most of the
> > rest of the world, so I think we are a long way away from true
> > overpopulation.
> >
> > The real problem isn't overpopulation, the real problem is lifestyle.
> > That is what really is going to have to "give"
> >
> > If you think about it you will realize the majority of the Earth's
resources
> > that the average human consumes in the United States are used for
> > things unrelated to that human's survival. For most people if they
> > were to simply move to within a half mile of their workplace they
> > could walk to work, and their needs for vehicle fuel to shuttle
> > them around might be confined to a few trips to the grocery store.
> >
> > However, their problem is that their lifestyle would likely take a
nose
> > dive. In most cities in the country, they are not organized to where
> > you have desirable housing mixed in with desirable office space. In
> > most cities you have the highest paying jobs and nice offices
concentrated
> > in one section of the city, and the most desirable housing
concentrated
> > 10-20 miles away in another section of the city.
> >
> > And, on the bottom end of the spectrum, you have the crappy ****
> > jobs miles and miles away from the crappy **** housing.
> >
> > All of this creates a huge need to shuttle people around many miles
> > in the average day. It is not uncommon for the average person
> > to physically move 40-50 miles in a single day. This is insane,
> > and it is tremendously wasteful. It costs far, far more in energy
> > costs to simply move the person around to the places they need
> > to go during the day than to feed them.
> >
> > It literally would be cheaper to the society for the government to
> > deliver food to anyone with a job that requires them to commute
> > more than 30 miles a day, than for them to actually make the 30
> > mile commute.
> >
> > When you start thinking about the enormous amount of wastage
> > inherent in US society caused simply by the society being what
> > it is today, and you understand that this has been enabled by nearly
> > a century of almost free gasoline, you will realize how incredibly
> > large an amount of fat there is that can be simply sliced out of
> > US society, if a real crunch happened.
> >
> > We are a long, long way from not having enough resources to
> > sup****t a larger population. But we have nearly run out of
> > resources to sup****t the current US lifestyle.
> >
> > It is going to take at least 4-5 years of gasoline running at the $4
> > a gallon mark for people to be forced to actually change their
> > lifestyle. And even then, the only changes they will likely be
> > willing to make are to buy more fuel efficient cars. That will
> > not result in any significant decrease in fuel consumption, it will
> > just stunt the growth of fuel consumption.
> >
> > Ultimately, your going to have to see gasoline go to the $6 a
> > gallon price point in today's dollars to actually force people to
> > make the kinds of drastic lifestyle changes - like moving - that
> > will result in a true decrease in energy consumption. But that likely
> > will not happen in our lifetimes because every time that gasoline
> > prices rise, it makes it economically possible to bring oil reserves
> > on to the market (like tar sands for example) that would previously
> > have been uneconomical to exploit. And, there are a far, FAR
> > larger amount of those more expensive oil reserves in the world
> > that nobody has bothered to go digging for until the prices got
> > higher.
> >
> > It really is going to take another century of demand from the
> > public for living and working environments that are less
> > resource consumptive than what we have today, for there to
> > be any real change. But, it will come. One day historians will
> > look back at the fabled 2 hour per day job commute that many
> > people make today, and wonder how people managed to live.
> > Just as we look back at the old washboards and wonder how
> > people used to manage to do a full load of laundry.
> >
> > Ted
>
> Ted, you strike as one of the religious freaks that doesn't want
> anything stopping his attempt at making enough people to start his own
> country.
Ha ha ha ha that's pretty funny. As I am not a member of any church
and think most of the Jesus stuff pure BS. (he might have lived, but
as for all the alleged miracles, baloney baloney baloney. If you can't
accept his philosophy based purely on it's own merits, and have to
use the "son of god" mythos to lend legitimacy to it, you have no real
faith anyway)
And as for myself, 2 children is all I have and all I'll ever have. Put
your money where your dick is, freak.
> I do hate tp point out my post was a copy of a paper printed
> by noted people in their field. Unlike some people who's speciality
> is BS.
Ah, so your a plagarist who cannot think originally.
"noted people in their field" absolute rubbish. What you printed out
was a political diatribe. Nobody really knows the carrying capacity
of The Earth it is pure speculation as to what it is, and pure speculation
as to what might happen if that capacity is exceeded.
Claims that such and such will happen are based on animal studies
of populations, which are flawed as most animals are not self-aware,
and those that are cannot think abstractly to any degree that they
can control their own destiny. Homo Sapien is the only specie the
Earth has produced after 4 billion years of evolution that can control
it's own destiny. And that specie has demonstrated an amazing amount
of adaptation to environmental changes.
As I said earlier and as your feeble brain apparently has difficulty
understanding, as humans make changes to solve problems, it causes
side effects that those humans will then have to live with. For all
we both know, in 10 years we will have lightweight batteries that
are cheap to manufacture, and photovoltiac cells that have 90%
energy conversion efficiency - if that happened, it would in one
stroke permanently solve the trans****tation problem as it would be
very easy to run a car off a solar cell on the roof of your house.
However, failing that happening, the particular side effect of much
higher fuel prices is that society in general will eventually adapt by
changing so that a lot of trans****tation of people and goods will
not need to take place. Just as society adapted to take advantage
of the artificially low fuel prices caused by the discovery of easily
obtainable oil.
And as for the overpopulation problem, if you knew anything at all
about it you would know that at least in the US the gain in population
is all due to immigration, the birthrate among people who's families
have lived in the US for a number of generations has stabilized. The
overpopulation problem in the US is actually the immigration problem.
And that is one reason the US population is against another amnesty,
as we graphically see the results of the first one - look around, you
see today a much greater percentage of Latino faces than you did
30 years ago. The existing old-guard WASPs fear their own genetic
line being drownded in a flood of new genetic lines from south of the
border and they don't like it.
So far, there have only been 4 methods of reducing Human population
that have ever been demonstrated to have worked:
1) Wars.
2) Faminine, pestilence, disease, inadequate medical care
3) Forced sterilization, enforced population limits (see China PRC)
4) Changing the economy so that rather than multiple children being
an economic benefit, more and more children increase the economic
burden and limit parental options.
Only the last 2 are really humane. China tried options 1 & 2 and
decided that they would do #3, and at the same time, jazz up the
economy so that eventually, they would not need to do #3 anymore,
and could simply do #4. The US and Europe decided to do #4.
Africa has mostly chosen #2, the Mid East seems to have
chosen #1.
Notice that "appeal to people to have fewer children with juvenile
political sky-is-falling diatribe" is not on that list. Why, because it
does not work.
Ted
|
