[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

We live in houses which are expensive to build in terms of resources. Why ? We can use less resources for building if we all agree to live in a tower block.

Illusion, because you're not figuring in all the resource costs of the city-machine that supports the tower block. Now it's true that using current standard technology, the tower block might be more efficient than a suburban McMansion, but with improved technology (and lifestyle choices), a rural lifestyle can be far less energy & resource intensive than an urban one. See e.g. In Rural Minnesota, a 70-Acre Lab for Sustainable Living - NYTimes.com

And we discuss over population here too. So to prevent this do we stop people having kids...

Why is this nonsense? Especially if you live in one of those tower blocks, where it would be easy to add contraceptives to the drinking water :-)

That means we have a PC or a Phone which needs power, that makes CO2 and makes / consumes dangerous metals and causes polution. We communicate over a network which needs power - CO2, heavy metals, polution.

But which in the main uses far less power (& other resources) than alternative ways of doing the same thing. Just consider what went into paying a bill pre-internet: the business printed the bill, stuck it in an envelope, mail carrier brought it to your door, you wrote a check (which someone had to print, and make paper to print it on), stuck it in an envelope, the mail carrier came around again to take it back to the business. The business sorted all the checks they received, did accounting, took the checks to their bank where more accounting was done, the checks were sorted and sent to issuing banks. Your check wound up at your bank, where more accouning was done, and money finally subtracted from your account - for which the bank would print and mail a statement to you. Now the whole process is done, far more efficiently, by shuffling a few electrons.

...so we also need to burn gas or coal or use nuclear.

So exactly why shouldn't we be using nuclear? Because, just as some politicians listen to the "CO2 doesn't cause warming" crowd, so do others listen to the "Omigawd, it's radioactive" bunch. Because these groups get so involved in their fantasy worlds that they reject out of hand any information that conflicts with them?

Anyone here want to try that and see what happens to the contents of your fridge ? Anyone want to do that again and think what might happen if you had to keep medicine in your fridge ?

Anyone wonder why a properly-designed fridge doesn't keep things cold for more than a few hours without power?

This is what we expect the developing world to deal with because we fear CO2.

Not exactly. Why should we expect/insist that the so-called developing world turn itself into mirror copies of the first world? Especially when there is so much about this world that is unpleasant?

Surely if you believe this is the clear and present danger against the world and humanity / civilisation you should be holed up in a yurt somewhere off the grid...

Which is the wrong way to look at it. My withdrawing to a yurt - however much I might enjoy it - would have a negligible effect on net CO2 output. Whereas if I engage with the world, and help persuade millions of others to improve their lifestyles, that could (if I'm successful, of course) have a much larger effect.