The futility of the Prius and the end of the world …

dogman said:
You wanna save the world? Don't reproduce. About the only thing two people can do by themselves that really impacts the planet.

2 People is enough to engineer a plague. :twisted:

Or likely pull of a massive scale poisoning if they were both clever and diabolical.

But yeah, if you're not an evil monster, not having kids seems like the most you could do.

The problem is, if all the best and brightest don't have kids, where does that leave us? We know the retards aren't going to stop having kids.
 
Think the Earth is finite? Think again
the main problem with resource-pessimists such as Malthusians is that they continually misinterpret social limits as physical limits. They naturalise social limits, reinterpreting and re-presenting problems of social development as problems of nature’s shrinking bounty. They make the fatal flaw of arguing that the main barrier to progress and human comfort is the barrier erected by nature’s limited resources, when in fact it is the barrier erected by crises of social imagination.

The more the merrier as far as I'm concerned.

ps. I drive an ev because I'd prefer to live in a city with cleaner air where we don't have to wipe up black dust in our houses.
 
flip_normal said:
the main problem with resource-pessimists such as Malthusians is that they continually misinterpret social limits as physical limits. They naturalise social limits, reinterpreting and re-presenting problems of social development as problems of nature’s shrinking bounty. They make the fatal flaw of arguing that the main barrier to progress and human comfort is the barrier erected by nature’s limited resources, when in fact it is the barrier erected by crises of social imagination.

The more the merrier as far as I'm concerned.
I completely agree. All throughout recorded history people have said "No, the earth cannot sustain any more people!", and the population at large ignored them and grew larger. As a result, the use of resources increased in efficiency and the population sustainable by a given resource pool was increased. Then, additional or different resources were discovered, and the sustainable population was increased yet again. The cycle repeats over and over. Personally I see no problems that would prevent the continuation of this trend.
 
x88x said:
flip_normal said:
the main problem with resource-pessimists such as Malthusians is that they continually misinterpret social limits as physical limits. They naturalise social limits, reinterpreting and re-presenting problems of social development as problems of nature’s shrinking bounty. They make the fatal flaw of arguing that the main barrier to progress and human comfort is the barrier erected by nature’s limited resources, when in fact it is the barrier erected by crises of social imagination.

The more the merrier as far as I'm concerned.
I completely agree. All throughout recorded history people have said "No, the earth cannot sustain any more people!", and the population at large ignored them and grew larger. As a result, the use of resources increased in efficiency and the population sustainable by a given resource pool was increased. Then, additional or different resources were discovered, and the sustainable population was increased yet again. The cycle repeats over and over. Personally I see no problems preventing the continuation of this trend.
You wrote
Personally I see no problems preventing the continuation of this trend.
This makes no sense in the context of the rest of your post. Surely you meant to say
Personally I see no problems with the continuation of this trend.
 
Jeremy Harris said:
jmygann said:
The elephant in the room is population.

Good time to cut Planned Parenthood funding.

Adopt the "One Child" policy. It's worked OK for China..................

Jeremy

You're up against world religion which depends on
"be fruitful and multiply; populate the earth abundantly" (Genesis 9:7)
The problems described by David Attenborough's crisp words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxfnttoIrMg#t=4m15s
Clink on link above or manually advance youtube video below to 4m15s (ES bulletin board youtube embed rejects the #t=4m15s directive)
[youtube]lxfnttoIrMg [/youtube]
 
flip_normal said:
You wrote
Personally I see no problems preventing the continuation of this trend.
This makes no sense in the context of the rest of your post. Surely you meant to say
Personally I see no problems with the continuation of this trend.
Doh! ..yeah..edited.
 
kriskros said:
... i saw my first"fat" kid when i was in boarding school[actual he was just chubby] he took a lot of ribbing...today i read about %40 of North Americans being fat or obese...europe is probably about the same...

The US leads the world in terms of obesity, I believe, by margin that's significant enough to skew things like product design and standards for the US market. When designing some aircraft seats I used European anthropometric data, only to find that the seats were deemed too small for the US market. The US anthropometric data demands substantially bigger seats. Both data sets are current and based on population surveys.

Europe copies the US on pretty much everything, both good and bad, so with the import of fast food emporia and trends towards processed food with a high sugar and fat content we are heading towards our own obesity crisis over here. I have to say that we've not caught up with the US yet; anyone from over here who visits the US can't help but notice the greater incidence of obesity there. In the UK, the average man weighs around 175lbs, the average woman around 145lbs. In the US the average man weighs around 190lbs, the average woman around 165lbs.

Jeremy
 
bobc said:
.......Unfortunately I believe that (as has been the case for some time) those who chose not to contribute to the overpopulation are, from a gene pool perspective, probably the only ones who should....

Very true. What's worse is that the state supports (or even encourages) very dumb people to breed. Whilst I (like most here I hope) don't support eugenic programmes, I can't help but wonder how we've allowed state-sponsored eugenics with the support we provide to those who have no other interest in life other than to live on state benefits, in state supported housing and breed endlessly.

Jeremy
 
Jeremy Harris said:
bobc said:
.......Unfortunately I believe that (as has been the case for some time) those who chose not to contribute to the overpopulation are, from a gene pool perspective, probably the only ones who should....

Very true. What's worse is that the state supports (or even encourages) very dumb people to breed. Whilst I (like most here I hope) don't support eugenic programmes, I can't help but wonder how we've allowed state-sponsored eugenics with the support we provide to those who have no other interest in life other than to live on state benefits, in state supported housing and breed endlessly.

Jeremy

In the US it stems from people thinking we are, and should be, a Democracy (mob rule) instead of a Constitutional Republic. If people had a more direct choice about what happens to their charity money instead of just handing it over to the government, there'd be more accountability in society (and more effective charity).
 
This discussion started out fairly innocently (doomsday and the differences between real social change and marketing hype), but has now evolved (mutated) into one ever more pulling in blame for the problem on socioeconomic classes and "intelligent" persons vs others ("retard [sic]"). At this point, I would suggest moving it to the BB/OTD. No reason we cannot discuss things like this and state opinions candidly, but IMHO, we should do so within our community, without inviting random (and not-understanding) eyes in.

Again, IMHO, only.

Cameron
 
I see your point Oldpiper, but i have to say, that as a community we can't move every passionate discussion to the cesspool just because "innocent" eyes might not understand. This is the internet, not some university debate where financial supporters would be appalled to find out what kind of debased subjects are being discussed and pull their donations from our coffers. It's discussions like these that are very poignant to our very existance online and judging by the 3 page reaction in just one day, others would agree that it should remain here, near the top of our discussion topics.

To the OP, I too have struggled with the utter futility my own efforts of conservation Vs. the reckless waste of our nations institutions. You work in a hospital, so you see how everything is packaged and then thrown away, just like the food industry, so much waste thrown away... I'm talking filet mignon that sat at a table untouched! The other staff would look at me like I'm crazy if I ate this favorite meat of mine (now Vegetarian :mrgreen: ). But I never got sick, they were sick all the time. I try to force myself to share germs with others, even though my inner hypochondriac tells me not to. I believe this is why people sit alone by themselves in these 4 ton boxes, they are SCARED! Scared of sharing germs, conversation, having their viewpoints and opinions challenged, it's safe in here, nobody will judge me or touch me or sneeze on me. Many of my friends, rich or poor have never been on a public bus. American society looks down on you for riding the bus, unless you live in a congested city. There are sooo many obstacles to overcome when it comes to changing peoples mind about their consumption, and I can only think of one sure fire way to start. GREED! I bet there are people flocking to the dealerships test driving the Prius this weekend because of rising gas prices. I love it! But in the end, they go home and do cost analysis spreadsheets etc... it all comes down to the dollar. Only all electric would come out on top if gas goes to $5 or $6 a gallon. I can't wait, exciting times ahead, be prepared to live meagerly and prepare your children to do the same, the zombie apocalypse is upon us.
 
Some of the biggest reasons that have their efffect on population growth are surprisingly counter-intuitive. I believe about 1/5th of the worlds population is in India (a billion-ish?). A teeming mass of chronically destitute humanity. No birth control, and babies being born in the gutter, to families that are born, live, and die in the gutter.

On occasion, there is an NGO push to provide free birth control, and aid-workers try to talk these poor illiterate homeless into getting free sterilization. Attempts are made to show that if they have fewer children, each child will be healthier and have a better chance to survive to a better life than the parents. Can you guess the most-often cited reason they will not do that?

If most of their children die before adulthood, they need to make a lot of babies so that at least one of them will be able to feed them when they are too old to work. And the vicious cycle continues. Also, the majority believe in re-incarnation, and they are taught that suffering in this life will lead to a better next-life (Huh?)

Although its true that there is actually plenty of land for the worlds current population, you can't really grow sufficient crops with well-water (in most places, there are a few exceptions), you need to irrigate with surface water (rivers, reservoirs, and aqueducts). Food can be grown, and a town can be built, if there is enough water available (and that is even considering the unlikely banning of lawns + golf-courses as un-neccesary water-hogs).

We can joke around about the coming Mad-Max/zombie-pocalypse, and reverting to horse-pulled plows to grow crops when there's no oil, but when transportation becomes prohibitively expensive, villages will need to be close to the farms that grow food. Windmills can pump the irrigation water, and my moneys on diesel tractors burning soy-oil, but the most vital resource will be fertile land and water.

People will always want to group into some type of village/town, not only for socialization, but also for mutual protection. Just the way I see it...lots of difficult transitions ahead....
 
spinningmagnets said:
you can't really grow sufficient crops with well-water (in most places, there are a few exceptions), you need to irrigate with surface water (rivers, reservoirs, and aqueducts).
Source? IDK about other areas, so this may well (no pun intended) be true somewhere, but where I grew up (eastern shore of MD) every farm that I know of that irrigates their crops uses well-water.
 
From what I understand natural citizens of first world nations are already at reproductive rates of lower than 2.0 per couple. For example Italy is at 1.23/2.00*. I believe the number for the US are around 2.0. One could conclude that as more people in India join the first world reproduction will drop.

Some may thinK that the wrong people are reproducing -the child that survives life in an Indian slum is most likely genetically stronger than the offspring that that survived in a low infant-death rate area.

* - http://www.doki.net/tarsasag/novedelem/upload/novedelem/document/birth_rate_in_Italy.htm
 
Speaking of many people being forced to re-embrace a horse-drawn local economy after the zombie-pocalypse, here's an Amish guy TO-tally kicking ASS!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DZmDGsrKh4

I agree on the total lack of even the most basic health-care in India and the high birth-rate results in an unusuallly robust gene-pool. Concerning river irrigation vs well-water, my opinion is based on totally unscientific informal polling and lots of reading, I could be wrong. Maryland has few people per square mile (fairly cold winters there), and the heavy snow-melt means the water-to-population ratio has a good survivability quotient...

If you are from Maryland, there are lots of people in India that would love you sponsoring their residency there. It would be a good experiment in rapidly increasing population vs impact on all local available resources...I agree water is not a problem in Maryland.
 
spinningmagnets said:
Maryland has few people per square mile (fairly cold winters there), and the heavy snow-melt means the water-to-population ratio has a good survivability quotient...
Well, not on the eastern shore...relatively warm winters compared to the rest of the state and massive fresh-water aquifers just a hundred or so feet down (and even bigger ocean-fed salt-water ones at various depths..the whole peninsula is basically a giant sand bar)...so yeah, end result is the same but the cause is different. ;)

For clarification:
maryland-map.jpg
Three vastly different regions geologically, ecologically, and culturally. What you said does, I believe, apply well to Western and northern Central, but not to Southern or Eastern. Though, the few people per square mile applies pretty well over the entire state except for a chunk around DC and Baltimore.
 
I have reason to be grateful to the people of Maryland, as your Governer very kindly presented me with a state flag, together with a certificate stating that this flag (now hanging on my study wall) had been flown over the state capitol in Annapolis in my honour many years ago. I'd been working in Southern Maryland at the time, at a fairly well known US naval air station.

Jeremy
 
etard said:
I bet there are people flocking to the dealerships test driving the Prius this weekend because of rising gas prices. I love it! But in the end, they go home and do cost analysis spreadsheets etc... it all comes down to the dollar.

If average Joe would actually do a rational cost-benefit analysis we would be way ahead. People would buy houses they could actually afford, so no housing bubble; drive vehicles (or use other transportation options) that make sense, instead of behemoth SUV and trucks; demand efficiency and accountability from corporate and public enterprise as well as government, instead of being swayed by empty campaign promises etc.

All of this could be done by most people if they tried. But somehow the idea to apply the math skills learned in school, even the most basic ones, is foreign to most people, often even highly educated people as well.
 
Rational being the operative term... Most people's behavior is ruled by emotion.
 
jag said:
If average Joe would actually do a rational cost-benefit analysis we would be way ahead. People would buy houses they could actually afford, so no housing bubble; drive vehicles (or use other transportation options) that make sense, instead of behemoth SUV and trucks; demand efficiency and accountability from corporate and public enterprise as well as government, instead of being swayed by empty campaign promises etc.

All of this could be done by most people if they tried. But somehow the idea to apply the math skills learned in school, even the most basic ones, is foreign to most people, often even highly educated people as well.

It's because car buying decisions are driven by the heart, not by a logical process of calculation.

I've owned a Prius since 2005 (I'm now on my second one) and although the economy influenced my decision when I bought the first one, the overwhelming reason for getting it was the pure geekiness factor. The second Prius buying decision was entirely illogical, as my annual mileage has massively reduced in the past couple of years, so I'd have been better off buying a small turbo diesel (SWMBO has a Citroen C3 turbo diesel that does a steady 63mpg). I bought another Prius because I'm just totally blown away by the technology.

Jeremy
 
Jeremy Harris said:
jag said:
If average Joe would actually do a rational cost-benefit analysis we would be way ahead. People would buy houses they could actually afford, so no housing bubble; drive vehicles (or use other transportation options) that make sense, instead of behemoth SUV and trucks; demand efficiency and accountability from corporate and public enterprise as well as government, instead of being swayed by empty campaign promises etc.

All of this could be done by most people if they tried. But somehow the idea to apply the math skills learned in school, even the most basic ones, is foreign to most people, often even highly educated people as well.

It's because car buying decisions are driven by the heart, not by a logical process of calculation.

I've owned a Prius since 2005 (I'm now on my second one) and although the economy influenced my decision when I bought the first one, the overwhelming reason for getting it was the pure geekiness factor. The second Prius buying decision was entirely illogical, as my annual mileage has massively reduced in the past couple of years, so I'd have been better off buying a small turbo diesel (SWMBO has a Citroen C3 turbo diesel that does a steady 63mpg). I bought another Prius because I'm just totally blown away by the technology.

Jeremy

For you the Prius made sense because you like the technology. The guy who bought a new V8 truck for commuting might have made a different decision if he had actually calculated and weighed the cost of it+gas to other alternatives. Rational is the key as TD mentioned. I think one can be rational to a point about most things, and still enjoy things. Riding a motor cycle is worth the risk and expense to those who enjoy it, so is extreme skiing and a lot of personal pursuits. However, I doubt that the average owner derives much actual pleasure from the Ford F350s and the like I see in the bumper-to-bumper traffic. With a calculation of costs beforehand showing the true cost he might have chosen to buy something else, take some time off, or work less overtime to make car payments and gas.

Similarly, had homebuyers not just been pointed to the dotted line on the contract by commission hungry brokers, but calculated what-if scenarios for what they would have left to live on monthly if one loses the job, interest goes up, etc, we would have fewer foreclosures.
 
Back
Top