[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

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.

At what level of economic prosperity, and what is considered "sustainable"? There are zero things in the universe that are infinitely sustainable. Any notion of sustaining then must include the standard (per capita wealth, for instance) and the duration (x number of years).

Some people don't think beyond the end of their genitalia.Sex isn't a 'thinking; activity.

Sure, but then any behavior (including consumerism) at the core isn't a thinking activity. To dismiss reproduction as a special kind of non-thinking activity in comparison to all the others is arbitrary. It's a way to frame the conversation as group A good, group B bad.

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.

Good thing we don't live in history. Instead we live now, in the most peaceful period of time known to humankind. War and the associated plunder were known by all peoples.

Some who have the least,living in ghettos,exercise thrift,raise a single child,educate them at home,providing upward social mobility.

The exception doesn't falsify the rule.

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.

... and those facts are based on their subjective opinion of what a cost is. Any decision ever made carries with it infinite opportunity cost. It collapses an infinite universe of possibility down to a concrete reality.

I do not subscribe to the social fallacy of economic growth being tied to hydrocarbons.

Funny, there's a famous hockey stick chart that implies a relationship between 2 things based on how closely they track each other. I'll likewise provide these charts:





Not saying correlation = causation, but they seem to be very related.

You may visit with Brian Deese,of BlackRock Investments if you want to understand the undergoing transition off fossil-fuels.

The hope of decoupling wealth from fossil fuel consumption in the future is not the same as reality today. Dreams are not substitutes for reality.

'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.

So some people in the world agree on an arbitrary definition of developed/developing, and I should respect that because? The UN is worse than garbage based on their constantly being wrong about most things, especially with regard to calling evil good, and good evil.

History is littered with millions of dead as a consequence of our industrialization and empire.

Now, is littered with billions of people who have never been better off than any other time in history. Seems to suggest some good decisions had been made.

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.

I'll ask for example nations. I wonder if any of that is facilitated by oil wealth, diminutive size, and relative homogeneity (to help filter out the potential landmine examples)?

My simplified understanding of this whole post is white = bad, all other colors = good, regardless of the impact to the environment.