If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by Voyager on December 25, 2008, 5:55 pm
Larry Caldwell wrote:
> In article <8b939634-ea9b-44bb-93d7-230c577a01cc@
> 41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, tgdenning@earthlink.net (tg) says...
>
>> one house every 100 years is much greener than one every 50.
>
> There is no such thing as "green" construction. If you want to save the
> environment, quit having children. Every child that is not born cuts
> your ecological footprint by 50%.
>
No it doesn't.
|
|
Posted by tg on December 26, 2008, 6:48 am
wrote:
> In article <8b939634-ea9b-44bb-93d7-230c577a01cc@
> 41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, tgdenn...@earthlink.net (tg) says...
> > =A0one house every 100 years is much greener than one every 50.
> There is no such thing as "green" construction. =A0If you want to save th=
e
> environment, quit having children. =A0Every child that is not born cuts
> your ecological footprint by 50%. =A0
It is obvious that human freedom and prosperity can be optimized by
reducing the population, and I have been advocating that for decades.
However, you need to learn a little math before you jump into the
fray---your statement makes no sense.
-tg
> --
> For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
> with my first name and last initial.
|
|
Posted by PeterD on December 26, 2008, 8:40 am
wrote:
>wrote:
>> In article <8b939634-ea9b-44bb-93d7-230c577a01cc@
>> 41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, tgdenn...@earthlink.net (tg) says...
>> > one house every 100 years is much greener than one every 50.
>> There is no such thing as "green" construction. If you want to save the
>> environment, quit having children. Every child that is not born cuts
>> your ecological footprint by 50%.
>It is obvious that human freedom and prosperity can be optimized by
>reducing the population, and I have been advocating that for decades.
>However, you need to learn a little math before you jump into the
>fray---your statement makes no sense.
Agreed, the poster's math is meaningless, but the concept is the main
and most important issue. Overpopulation is the issue, more than
anything else. The earth currently supports many times the number of
people that it should, and as a result as population grows unchecked,
the quality of life declines for *all* people.
|
|
Posted by Voyager on December 26, 2008, 8:40 pm
PeterD wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> In article <8b939634-ea9b-44bb-93d7-230c577a01cc@
>>> 41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, tgdenn...@earthlink.net (tg) says...
>>>> one house every 100 years is much greener than one every 50.
>>> There is no such thing as "green" construction. If you want to save the
>>> environment, quit having children. Every child that is not born cuts
>>> your ecological footprint by 50%.
>> It is obvious that human freedom and prosperity can be optimized by
>> reducing the population, and I have been advocating that for decades.
>> However, you need to learn a little math before you jump into the
>> fray---your statement makes no sense.
>
> Agreed, the poster's math is meaningless, but the concept is the main
> and most important issue. Overpopulation is the issue, more than
> anything else. The earth currently supports many times the number of
> people that it should, and as a result as population grows unchecked,
> the quality of life declines for *all* people.
>
By what standard? What is the population that the earth "should" support?
|
|
Posted by Robert Cohen on December 26, 2008, 10:03 pm
re: population limits
Apparently Malthus ultimately prevails
The situation will probably not change, although credit China for its
efforts, because it's disliked
for it's restriction to one child, and allegedly women are in shortage
because of it, so it hasn't worked well
The RCC will change--it eventually does but usually post facto after
the damages are done
So, the Bush II regressive politiks does what it does, and i presume
whatever progress that Clintonism
brought about has been gutted by prevailing reactionary GOP politiks
The irony is his kin/grandmother was allegedly an ardent Planned
Parenthood official type
|
Page 8 of 15 < 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Little green airlines? | June 2, 2008, 1:46 am |
| Therma-Green Corporation | January 7, 2008, 4:32 pm |
| Dwyer Green Building | September 16, 2008, 1:58 am |
| green roofs in Mexico | April 20, 2009, 3:15 pm |
| Cost benefits of "going green" | November 5, 2009, 9:40 pm |
| Information On Any Subject FREE From the Green Machine | September 24, 2006, 3:52 pm |
| MEEF CyberShow Top Ten Green Products in 2006 | December 27, 2006, 12:36 pm |
| Green building products for home improvement | September 6, 2008, 1:50 am |
| Mint Green: a wild and wicked approach to roofing a cabin | August 11, 2007, 12:18 pm |
| construction | July 15, 2007, 7:04 am |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
> 41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, tgdenning@earthlink.net (tg) says...
>