Quote:
Originally Posted by roflwaffle
Shouldn't that be "I digest"? But yeah, complaining about Haitians having a more kids per person when they suck down more than an order of magnitude less energy per person is Bullsheet IMO.
|
I believe the question is whether they would continue to limit themselves to what they're already experiencing if another option were as easily available as their current lifestyle?
IOW - Would they keep having 3.8 KpW, or as food supply/energy availability increases, would they continue to resolve their lifestyles back to their previous levels?
Looking at typical US consumption, I'd have to suggest the latter.
People tend to get more of something, and instead of conserving it, or making it stable and sustainable, spend it that much quicker until they're back in the same spot, only probably worse off in the event of a disaster.
Pay raises are a big one... People get pay raises, and instead of packing away some of that money, they take on another bill. Even though they were barely making it before, the pay raise enables them to keep their head above water, which isn't what they're used to, so the revert to the previous lifestyle by squandering the new income.
I suppose I'm saying that the most likely conclusion is that they've been doing this for so long that they'll likely continue it given another choice, even if that choice is just as simple to adapt as their current lifestyle.