If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by leonard78sp@primus.ca on December 27, 2008, 6:02 pm
On 12/26/08 8:40 AM, in article vjn9l4psnlin312vtnnqaj5glt3r6229g3@4ax.com,
> 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,
> he quality of life declines for *all* people.
** 3 posters each knowing less about "planning" than his predecessor.
|
|
Posted by Larry Caldwell on December 26, 2008, 12:17 pm
In article <430eb5eb-5252-4a83-8e9f-3f5e621228b9
@r27g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, tgdenning@earthlink.net (tg) says...
> 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.
You are quite right. Assuming a child is born at age 20, and you both
live to age 80, the correct statement is that every child you have
increases you ecological footprint by 66%. This is because it takes two
people to have a child, so you personally only get dinged for half the
damage an additional human does.
If we had a nicely declining population, we would have an adequate
supply of housing for a long time. However, it is already too late for
birth control to save any remnant of a natural planet. Doesn't building
houses for the species responsible for destroying nature and calling it
"green" strike you as a bit ironic?
--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.
|
|
Posted by Matt Barrow on December 26, 2008, 8:15 pm
> In article <430eb5eb-5252-4a83-8e9f-3f5e621228b9
> @r27g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, tgdenning@earthlink.net (tg) says...
>> It is obvious that human freedom and prosperity can be optimized by
>> reducing the population, and I have been advocating that for decades.
That's nutty!
Then why are so many dense populations iprosperous and so many sparse
populations impoverished?
>> However, you need to learn a little math before you jump into the
>> fray---your statement makes no sense.
> You are quite right. Assuming a child is born at age 20, and you both
> live to age 80, the correct statement is that every child you have
> increases you ecological footprint by 66%.
So what? Carbon is good, it's plant food - and human production of CO2 is
minisclue compared to natural sources.
> This is because it takes two
> people to have a child, so you personally only get dinged for half the
> damage an additional human does.
You need to get dinged upside the head!
|
|
Posted by PeterD on December 27, 2008, 10:49 am
wrote:
>> In article <430eb5eb-5252-4a83-8e9f-3f5e621228b9
>> @r27g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, tgdenning@earthlink.net (tg) says...
>>> It is obvious that human freedom and prosperity can be optimized by
>>> reducing the population, and I have been advocating that for decades.
>That's nutty!
>Then why are so many dense populations iprosperous and so many sparse
>populations impoverished?
huh? care to post an example. Say for a dense population we use India?
Care to name a sparse population that will show this is true?
Remember, not just number of people per square KM, but a low number of
people that can be supported on that KM.
|
|
Posted by Larry Caldwell on December 27, 2008, 5:35 pm
Barrow) says...
>
> > In article <430eb5eb-5252-4a83-8e9f-3f5e621228b9
> > @r27g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, tgdenning@earthlink.net (tg) says...
>
> >> It is obvious that human freedom and prosperity can be optimized by
> >> reducing the population, and I have been advocating that for decades.
>
> That's nutty!
>
> Then why are so many dense populations iprosperous and so many sparse
> populations impoverished?
Every prosperous population on the planet maintains its wealth by using
up irreplaceable resources. Many of those resources could be conserved
if the planet's population was reduced to between 750 million and 1.5
billion people.
> >> However, you need to learn a little math before you jump into the
> >> fray---your statement makes no sense.
> > You are quite right. Assuming a child is born at age 20, and you both
> > live to age 80, the correct statement is that every child you have
> > increases you ecological footprint by 66%.
>
> So what? Carbon is good, it's plant food - and human production of CO2 is
> minisclue compared to natural sources.
Carbon is only one small part of the damage you are doing. In the USA
alone, one million acres a year disappears under concrete and asphalt.
That represents the total ecological destruction of that land. You will
have been dead a thousand years and the survivors will still be dealing
with the destruction you and your kind have done. Fisheries are
collapsing. Large areas of the oceans on every continental shelf are
turning into dead zones where nothing lives. This is all because there
are too many people for the planet to support. Everything is running
down and dying. Nothing is getting better. Do you see a trend there,
or are you too stupid to open your eyes?
> > This is because it takes two
> > people to have a child, so you personally only get dinged for half the
> > damage an additional human does.
>
> You need to get dinged upside the head!
You need to be castrated.
--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.
|
Page 10 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
>