Study says drive-thrus are cleaner than park and walk

[Doofus McFancypants]

Our family made our own choice to have only 2 children.
For our own reasons, beliefs, goals, risk/reward, and other reasons.

I honestly think that if people STOP AND THINK.- the world will be a much better place.

I can see people having 8 kids - provided they "STOP AND THINK" first.
I can see people having NO kids - as long as they STOP AND THINK first.

80% of the issues we see can be solved by "Stop and Think"

I choose to park and walk - because i "Stop and Think"
OThers may choose NOT to park - JUST PLEASE STOP AND THINK

steve

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

How can you post something like this then complain about irrational emotional ranting? If you're going to look at it in a balanced manner, then even if you limit population there's still going to be a crisis of resources/pollution due to more opulent lifestyles. Either way people will hit the limit due to the product of population and lifestyle. Limit or cut one and the other increases up to whatever bounds prevent their product from growing. I'd rather see more people sucking down fewer resources per capita then fewer sucking down more, but I may be the minority in that view.

There was something irrational/emotional in my post?

I'm not so sure there's a direct connection between fewer people and more opulance. I don't see the possibility that, were there fewer consumers, that I'd then be able to have a bigger house, heat it warmer, and drive my pickup all over.

If there were fewer people perhaps there would be no complaining about ethanol production cutting into someone's tortilla supply.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

There was something irrational/emotional in my post?

Sure thing, at least IMO. Looking at global population w/o looking at global average lifestyle (What the UN calls it, I'm sure there are other names for the same thing) is only looking at half the picture.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I'm not so sure there's a direct connection between fewer people and more opulance. I don't see the possibility that, were there fewer consumers, that I'd then be able to have a bigger house, heat it warmer, and drive my pickup all over.

The link is called the elasticity of demand. It varies depending on the commodity in question, but as a whole, limits to the availability of a resource will reduce demand as price increase, and vice versa.

When oil prices shot up in the late seventies, w/ ~220 million people in the U.S., consumption fell quickly from a bit less than 19mbpd to a bit over 15mbpd. When prices fell, consumption climbed from 15+mbpd to 21-mbpd. Now that prices have increased, consumption has fallen back to 19-mbpd, about the same level as 1977, but now there are almost 100 million more people.

Like you pointed out, we're in a finite world w/ limited resources, so we can have however many people consuming however much on average. If we increase the number of people, resource prices tend to increase and consumption on average drops. If we decrease the number of people we tend to see the opposite. You or I specifically may not increase consumption as prices drop, but as a whole people tend to.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

If there were fewer people perhaps there would be no complaining about ethanol production cutting into someone's tortilla supply.

I doubt that. On average, we would probably just suck down more ethanol in larger vehicles. Besides, linking the price of fuel (relatively inelastic short run) to the price of food (also relatively inelastic short run) can make for some very appealing short run profit taking, if you're into that sort of thing.

[Frank Lee]

I do consider global average lifestyle; I know that basically it sux. We have Haitians chronically eating DIRT and others in other places not a whole lot better. Now, if these dirt-eating Haitians could find it within themselves to not have 9 kids each, perhaps their available resources would better match demand.

If we increase the number of people, resource prices tend to increase and consumption on average drops.

Should point out that individual consumption may drop but total consumption does not, at least until the resource in question really becomes unavailable.

Maybe I'll reverse myself re: "opulance" - fewer people leading to more opulance for the individual. Sounds like a wonderful thing right? And with a great enough reduction in population, the opulance probably will only go so far, not enough to offset the low pop thus reducing consumption. Quality, rather than quantity, of life- what a concept!

[roflwaffle]

I think the Haitians eating dirt has more to do w/ the country being in the top three (they were number one a few years ago) most corrupt countries in the world. The current total fertility rate is more or less the same as the U.S. in the early 60s, but I don't remember anything about JFK extolling the virtues of mud cakes at the time. I also doubt that we could reasonably reduce population beyond the ability of people to hoover up more resources.

I don't think reducing population just so people can have bigger houses and cars and junk is good either, especially considering that from the POV of research, provided of course there's a decent quality of life as you mentioned, having more people is better than having fewer people. The more we know about the universe the better our odds of not being wiped out seem to be. Course, it's totally up to human civilization what it wants, but it seems really short-sighted to complain about population when a world w/ just a carbon free energy sector could support 8+ billion in a sustainable manner, and more w/ other measures. It's way easier, and ethical to boot, to switch to renewables at little to no long run premium, than it is to screw with other people's in the arena of reproductivity.

[Wonderboy]

I agree with shovel, if you are going through a drive thru let alone going to a fast food place in general, you are already contributing to a system that is so harmful and so wasteful of fossil fuel that deciding whether to go though the drive thru is like deciding whether to apply a band-aid to a decapitation patient. It may sop up a couple cc's of blood? The vehicle and the method by which one drives pales in comparison to the environmental impact of what one chooses (or chooses not) to eat. What food we choose to buy from the market or restaurants could easily be considered a vote for what kind of lifestyle and what kind of wasteful production we want to perpetuate. This kind of election is one where not voting counts as a vote against.

[shovel]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

The more we know about the universe the better our odds of not being wiped out seem to be.

You're going to have to explain this to me, I'm concerned about us wiping ourselves out by making the planet inhospitable (to us or to our food/neighbor animals) . What wiping out are you talking about? aliens or something?

[Frank Lee]

It's way easier, and ethical to boot, to switch to renewables at little to no long run premium, than it is to screw with other people's in the arena of reproductivity.

Sounds backwards: overzealous breeders are screwing with everyone else's quality of life.

[99LeCouch]

Uh, yeah, our biology dictates that making kids is something agreeable to do.

And then they are sitting in the McD's drive-thru getting unsustainable beef between two or more slices of refined carbohydrates for their brood. And the deep-fried potatoes, shakes, etc.

Lovely pickle we put ourselves in.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by shovel

You're going to have to explain this to me, I'm concerned about us wiping ourselves out by making the planet inhospitable (to us or to our food/neighbor animals) . What wiping out are you talking about? aliens or something?

The key assumption is just basic biology, that humans will behave like any other species, and population will be limited due to whatever environmental constraints. The biggest difference is that there's a wider range of variability in terms of resource consumption w/ humans than there is w/ most other animals, so we can choose to have 1 billion sucking down the resources the planet can provide in a sustainable manner, or 10 billion sucking down a tenth of what the 1 billion suck down per capita. The difference would be like people on average driving conventional Fjord Explod3rs versus electric Pius/V0lt like vehicles.

Given the same environmental impact, would we be better off w/ n many researchers/scientists/engineers/etc, or 10n many researchers/scientists/etc? Two brains are better than one, and ten billion brains are probably better than one billion brains given the same impact on the Earth, at least IMO.