Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
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).
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.
|
I don't recognize the existence of a Mother Nature.I'll frame an answer with respect to a natural carrying capacity for the planet,in the absence of technology.About 100-million some claim.
Some people don't think beyond the end of their genitalia.Sex isn't a 'thinking; activity.And as Kafka has said,'When you have food in your jaw,all questions are answered for the time being.' It's probably that way for billions.
Historically,large excess population was war materiel.For instance,to fight off rich white foreign invaders who wanted to steal your silk,gold,diamonds,oil,rubber,sugar,fiber,quano, etc.,while they shoved opium down your lungs,under threat of cannon fire.
Some who have the least,living in ghettos,exercise thrift,raise a single child,educate them at home,providing upward social mobility.
As to 'fact',this is in reference to non-Chicago School economists,whom actually research extant cost/externalities associated with fossil-fuels,which never make it to the ledger sheets,allowing their products to be 'dumped' on the market,as is currently practiced with natural gas,coal,and petroleum.You just follow the chain of custody and smokestacks,tailpipes,waste lagoons,mine tailings,Super Fund sites,etc..
I do not subscribe to the social fallacy of economic growth being tied to hydrocarbons.You may visit with Brian Deese,of BlackRock Investments if you want to understand the undergoing transition off fossil-fuels.
'Developing','Developed' are metrics the international community accepts as metrics for emissions targets.As a signatory to some UN agreements,the United States will have to hold its tongue,when thinking of criticizing others for their development.History is littered with millions of dead as a consequence of our industrialization and empire.
We're actually being eclipsed by other nations.They have higher standards of living at less cost,and don't send their offspring to fight and die for foreign resources.Polite,civilized cannibalism,practiced in the most elite circles.