|
U-Know! Forum » NEW FEATURE: What’s Your Consumption Factor? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Merrick 2148 posts |
May 23, 2009, 13:50
|
|
There's a new Feature article in U-Know, 'What’s Your Consumption Factor?' by Jared Diamond. Diamond is best known for his books 'Guns, Germs and Steel: A short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years', about how our industrial society evolved, and 'Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive' covering how civilisations deal with major crises and why those who have failed did so. In the article he explains that it's not so much how many of us there are on earth but how much we each consume. Taking numerous major factors, he calculates that the average American consumes 32 times as much as the average human. Were we all to consume that much, it would be the equivalent of having 72 billion people on earth. The idea that developing countries can some how catch up is cruel hoax, and their trying to do so will be catastrophic. http://www.headheritage.co.uk/uknow/features/index.php?id=95 |
|
PMM 2941 posts |
May 23, 2009, 16:19
|
|
This was posted about a month ago as a link to a New York Times article. I assumed I'd encountered a link to it via u-know, but I can't find any. I'm surprised I didn't post it here if that's the case. Maybe it went up on the village pump or something. Anyway, an excellent article from a fantastic author. Good to see it posted on u-know. |
|
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
May 25, 2009, 12:46
|
|
PMM wrote: This was posted about a month ago as a link to a New York Times article. I assumed I'd encountered a link to it via u-know, but I can't find any. I'm surprised I didn't post it here if that's the case. Maybe it went up on the village pump or something It was me posting it on an Unsung thread that turned political https://www.headheritage.co.uk/headtohead/unsung/topic/52860/threaded/659086 |
|
Kurtspank 7 posts |
May 31, 2009, 12:43
|
|
The article essentially suggests that we all consume less to allow the population to rise. To what point, in terms of population size, can this logic be followed? There's no reason why the world's population should stop at 9 billion - are we simply making this numbers/resources issue a later generation's problem? China's one-child policy as an example - shouldn't we aim to reduce world population? I suggest this would ultimately be the better and more beneficial course.
|
|
stray 1630 posts |
Edited May 31, 2009, 13:29
May 31, 2009, 13:22
|
|
Kurtspank wrote: The article essentially suggests that we all consume less to allow the population to rise. To what point, in terms of population size, can this logic be followed? There's no reason why the world's population should stop at 9 billion - are we simply making this numbers/resources issue a later generation's problem? China's one-child policy as an example - shouldn't we aim to reduce world population? I suggest this would ultimately be the better and more beneficial course. You do know Chinas one child policy actually results in children being abandoned to die, and infanticide, particularly of female children, who are seen as less useful ? Actually the logic is that if we consume less than we do than the planet could support a population many, many, many times the current population (check the numbers in the article, they are quite large multiples). People who advocate population control as the great panacea are usually extremely right wing individuals, the logical conclusion of that approach is an extremely controlled society. It's not a good thing, it's usually just a front for a more disgusting politic, such as selective sterilisation programmes. Population control is not necessary if we use resources effectively and SUSTAINABLY (this includes a diet with less meat and more crops, although I'd personally find that harsh, its preferable to some planetary wide birth laws). The fact is we consume more than we frankly need to, not that we breed too much. However, as an aside, the most effective way to control a countries birth rate is through improving the education, status and equality of the women within the country. What, out of interest, would your method be ? Yup, I'm simplifying, someone better versed in research in these fields than me will (hopefully) be along to post shortly. Sorry, but as you seem to have registered just to make this post I have to ask, are you Charles Webster Baer ? |
|
|
Kurtspank 7 posts |
May 31, 2009, 13:48
|
|
OK, simply & amicably: China's one child policy - Then it's the implementation of the policy that's abhorrent, not the aim. Consume less than we do - But as I say, surely we must reach a point where this logic fails, and any options we have now won't be available to us at that point? People who advocate population control - I have to resent your implication that I am an extreme right-wing individual. I am not. I don't understand your view that an ever-increasing population is a good thing - why? What, out of interest, would your method be ? I don't have a method - I just think that the quality of life for everyone would be much better if there were fewer of us. Yup, I'm simplifying - Ditto. I'm a concerned individual, not an expert. Are you Charles Webster Baer ? You're making two assumptions there, neither of which are correct. |
|
|
stray 1630 posts |
Edited May 31, 2009, 15:10
May 31, 2009, 14:57
|
|
I didn't say an ever increasing population was a good thing. How can you possibly implement the one child policy in a less abhorrent way, planet wide that is ? You say we must reach a point where this logically fails, Why ? Are we going to achieve immortality ? You don't have a method ? Of course not, because there isn't one, so why bother arguing for it then ? Quality of life would be better for all of us if there were less of us..er.. okay.. so what then, a cull ? Seriously, it's a bit pointless to suggest population control as a solution if you don't have any method or policy to implement it. I'd like limitless and costless energy for all but I've not got a method of achieving it. Just want to put that out there in the manner you've put out your population control argument. Edit : I also did actually give you a method for lowering population growth in my first reply. |
|
|
stray 1630 posts |
Edited May 31, 2009, 15:27
May 31, 2009, 15:27
|
|
Also, yep, sorry if I was making assumptions. But usually, as I said, the argument that population control will solve our problems comes from people on the far right of the spectrum. Also, I say again, not only is it possible for this planet to actually support a population many times it's current size, the size of our current population itself is. not. the. problem. As for CWB, we got a post here from him a coupla days ago and well, if you know of him you'll know his argument is the same, and he doesn't have much to back it up in terms of a rational policy or theory. SO I did 2+2=5 and I'm sorry about that. |
|
|
PMM 2941 posts |
May 31, 2009, 20:35
|
|
I don't think kurtspank is Charles Webster Baer. The style is very different. kurtspank does not protest that he does not know who CWB is, which suggests that this is a new nick for someone that's been here before. Fine by me. If you've ended up with a confrontational realtionship with a board, ditching the baggage associated with an old name and making a fresh start is a sensible approach. |
|
|
Kurtspank 7 posts |
May 31, 2009, 22:23
|
|
There's a disturbing tendency in this thread to demonise my views by association with this Charles Webster Baer. Now that I've Google'd this CWB bloke (since I didn't know who he was) I realise why you thought i was him - he is as vague as I am, although I don't get the 'Prez Earth' bit. But I would still advocate a consensual reduction in population via your suggestion of improvements in the education, status and equality of women rather than the cull idea you're attributing to me. My comment about reaching a point where this logically fails would refer to the time when the population reaches a size where further reduction in the quality of would be unacceptable by most people, not if we achieve immortality. If/when we hit this problem, how could we resolve it? I freely admit that my posts are rather pie-in-the-sky, if that's not an inappropriate expression in this context. Couple of other loose ends - I haven't posted on here before, and do you know what? I might post on other different subjects in the future! |
| Pages: 2 – [ 1 2 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
- ©2012ce Head Heritage Ltd. Contact us Top of page