Study says drive-thrus are cleaner than park and walk

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

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

I suppose it would be as a much a population issue as it was a lifestyle issue if per capita resource consumption was more or less equal across the board, but it ain't. We have about 1+ billion hoovering up more than half the planets resources with the other 5+ billion sucking down about the same amount, and if we ignore national boundaries and focus on wealth it's probably worse.

So, lets say we address the poor countries w/ 5+ billion and higher population growth rates. Each billion people contributes about 2.2 hectares per person in terms of the global average, so to get down to a sustainable level by only addressing population in the "breeder' countries, we would have to knock off 3+ billion people. On the flip side, w/ 1+ billion responsible for the other half of the impact, that's about 10+ hectares per person in terms of the global average, so to get down to a sustainable level by only addressing population in the "non-breeder' countries, we would have to knock off .6+ billion people, probably less in terms of the wealthiest people in the world.

If we can get the same result by reducing population by 3+ billion that we can by reducing population by another .6+ billion or less, is that a population problem or a lifestyle problem? Heck, if we can get the same result w/ no change in population, just a change in lifestyle, is that a population problem or a lifestyle problem? Granted, it's not strictly an either or thing, but I still think it's primarily a lifestyle problem because the problem could be solved by a change in lifestyle alone, while a change in population wouldn't be enough since the increase in impact associated w/ lifestyle hasn't shown the same signs of slowing down that the growth of population has. Also, living in a more sustainable way seems more ethical that forcing someone else not to live, at least according to most morals I've heard of.

[tasdrouille]

Self control has never been evolution's forte.

[shovel]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

Also, living in a more sustainable way seems more ethical that forcing someone else not to live, at least according to most morals I've heard of.

Wha? So every day I spend not trying to make babies I'm "forcing" thousands of potential someones to not live? And those times I log on to adult websites?

SOMEONE LOCK ME UP I'M A MENACE TO POTENTIAL SOCIETY!

[cfg83]

tasdrouille -

Originally Posted by tasdrouille

Self control has never been
's
.

Huh?

CarloSW2

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

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.

All evidence points to having 10n more idiots and ***holes.

[cfg83]

Frank -

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

All evidence points to having 10n more idiots and ********.

We know from past experience that this is a hot topic for you. If you want to maintain "constructive dialogue", then you have to set the example of a higher standard.

In my opinion the majority of those ten billion brains aren't idiots. The real problem is that they will not have access to a good education (a brain is a terrible thing to waste, yada yada yada). When people in developing countries, in particular women, have access to education, the birth rate falls :

Population Module - Lesson 3 - Page 2 - How does education affect fertility rates in different places? - Center for Global Geography Education

The education of women plays a significant role in the issue of population growth. Many studies have found a significant correlation between education and fertility - as literacy improves, fertility rates tend to decrease (Figure 2). Other studies show that fertility rates tend to be lower in countries where women have access to decent jobs, good health care, and family planning resources - all attributes of economic development.

Women's Education and Fertility Rates in Developing Countries, With Special Reference to Bangladesh
http://www.eubios.info/EJ124/ej124i.htm

From our discussion thus far, we have observed that education does have a major impact on fertility. Even after controlling for other relevant factors, the education of women stands out as a significant factor in determining fertility. It mostly operates through some intervening variables that determine the demand for children, supply of children and costs of regulation. It was shown that the greatest impact of education on fertility occurs when levels of education are at secondary level. Small amounts of primary education are not likely to have a significant impact. However, the threshold level varies from one social setting to another. In highly gender-stratified societies, the threshold level is likely to be higher than in relatively egalitarian societies. Education has been found to increase women's levels of autonomy in decision-making, in acquiring knowledge, in gaining access to economic resources, and in interacting with a wider social circle. It is through this autonomy that education exerts an impact on fertility.

I am not making a dig at gender. The majority of human society is patriarchal, so females are less in control of their destiny than males.

CarloSW2

[Frank Lee]

Sorry, that was a drive by.

OK... per 100 people units, how many are going to be scientists that do something that has a profound good effect on humanity?

I'm not gonna look it up but I'd say it's closer to 1:100 than 99:100.

In the meantime, per productive scientist, their "caseload" of human units increased exponentially.

Or.... right now, today, there are more scientists than ever in history.

Are we better off today or not?

hmmmm

[shovel]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Sorry, that was a drive by.

OK... per 100 people units, how many are going to be scientists that do something that has a profound good effect on humanity?

I'm not gonna look it up but I'd say it's closer to 1:100 than 99:100.

In the meantime, per productive scientist, their "caseload" of human units increased exponentially.

Or.... right now, today, there are more scientists than ever in history.

Are we better off today or not?

hmmmm

So if we are to, in the interest of maintaining constructive dialog, postulate that any number of humans on earth will create the same pollution (because billions will presumably live in cubicles and ride mass transit while sparse populations will cruise around in aircraft carriers on wheels) .. then we are left to wonder what other good comes from either position.

Scientists vs. "idiots" is probably too simple. Persons actively pursuing a reduction in mankind's environmental impact vs. persons just occupying space and doing all the people things that result in pollution and ruined ecosystems?

I would argue that as our environment becomes more damaged, our arable land and food production becomes more difficult and it becomes more lucrative and in the public interest to fund projects that pursue a reduction in our environmental impact - creating jobs in that sector and luring otherwise uninvolved people toward that. So in that sense our impact on earth can become self-limiting. Assuming the damage for which we're all responsible doesn't overwhelm our best efforts at quenching it.

I do know this: when a human is born in the US it's going to use over a thousand diapers that have to be manufactured and placed in a landfill. It's going to by cultural necessity get thousands of pounds of plastic stuff, toys, dishes, clothes, shoes, etc that have to be manufactured and will end up in a landfill. It's going to need food and room to live, which by necessity displace the "wild" nature. At some point it's going to own a car that has to be manufactured, that burns fuel, and will be disposed of at some point. And another car after that. And another car after that. And at some point it will probably make 1 or more additional humans, who will also place those same demands on the world.

Meanwhile by voluntarily taking advantage of the staggering number of birth control options we have available to us.... we can avoid all of that. Without oppressing or harming anyone.

Frankly I'm depressed that there exist people who fail to see this direct and linear progression. As Carlos' link illustrates, education reduces rates of pregnancy - go figure. Smart people see the value in restraint and the options available for controlling your destiny. In other words, if you want to help the environment you can do just that through ordinary, full spectrum education.

Idiocracy wasn't a comedy, it was a horror film.

[Wonderboy]

In my opinion the majority of those ten billion brains aren't idiots. The real problem is that they will not have access to a good education (a brain is a terrible thing to waste, yada yada yada).

YES!

I think this is THE most important aspect of culture that no one really has. If we ALL had equal education, then many of the problems we have now would never come about. Unfortunately this is not the case, and is why our way of life (capitalism, essentially) is inherently flawed because educating everyone equally is impossible. Education is hugely important, and is a big bottleneck that can easily be taken advantage of for better or for worse. The best we can do in our own little spheres of influence is to try to educate the assh***s and the ignorant instead of immediately dismissing them. If they need dismissing, at least do it with a lesson :P

[tasdrouille]

This thread has gone sideways and around to end up where it is now, but I don't mind really.

If a single individual influences enough people to change, can't his actions offset more than his footprint? In that case, couldn't it actually be worthwhile to have kids?