Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
Wow! 1.4-billion Chinese,producing only double what 327-million Americans generate.No way we'll successfully compete against that.
|
To play devil's advocate, don't you think from the perspective of Mother Nature that the quantity of people places at least an equal weight of responsibility as the quantity of resources consumed per person? After all, choosing to have children is similar to choosing to consume. In fact, it's choosing to create another consumer.
Isn't it fascinating that when a few people have a lot, their numbers hold steady and even decline, but when a lot of people have little, their numbers multiply rapidly.
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for state mandates to cap population growth at the individual level (watch One Child Nation on Amazon).
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
It's been stated as fact by some who's careers follow that sort of thing.The UN recognizes India and China as 'developing' nations.They are not held to the same standards as 'developed' nations,as the USA.I've told you this at least three times that I can remember.
Only when lobbyists go the way of Red Dye#2 and the Dodo,will the market have any chance of functioning in any resemblance to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand.'
|
What's been stated as fact?
Developed/developing does not matter to Mother Nature, as presumably that's what we're concerned with.
This is all besides the point. CO2 emissions will not be curtailed unless economic growth is curtailed, and then shrunk. Therein lies the problem; getting all people everywhere to agree that they are receiving a fair cap on economic prosperity, and enforcing this by threat of violence. Who's peeing more in the pool is a minor complaint when everyone is peeing in the pool.