View Single Post
Old 12-14-2009, 10:35 PM   #22 (permalink)
Frank Lee
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by roflwaffle View Post
How can you post something like this then complain about irrational emotional ranting? If you're going to look at it in a balanced manner, then even if you limit population there's still going to be a crisis of resources/pollution due to more opulent lifestyles. Either way people will hit the limit due to the product of population and lifestyle. Limit or cut one and the other increases up to whatever bounds prevent their product from growing. I'd rather see more people sucking down fewer resources per capita then fewer sucking down more, but I may be the minority in that view.
There was something irrational/emotional in my post?

I'm not so sure there's a direct connection between fewer people and more opulance. I don't see the possibility that, were there fewer consumers, that I'd then be able to have a bigger house, heat it warmer, and drive my pickup all over.

If there were fewer people perhaps there would be no complaining about ethanol production cutting into someone's tortilla supply.
__________________


  Reply With Quote