We're all Doomed

[aBAzLLnA]

Then...you can't forget about the Global Warming. The size of the ozone hole these days is about the size of North America.

It's just ridiculous how many problems we've created. And the thing is, people aren't taking these things seriously at all...

PS: Dominus, where in Boston you from? I'm in the burbs atm.

 

[Dominus]

Originally posted by aBAzLLnA
Then...you can't forget about the Global Warming. The size of the ozone hole these days is about the size of North America.

It's just ridiculous how many problems we've created. And the thing is, people aren't taking these things seriously at all...

PS: Dominus, where in Boston you from? I'm in the burbs atm.

Northeastern University. Litterally right next to the Museum of Fine Arts.

 

[CableLight]

Found this...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7030046/

Comments? Thoughts? Dinner reservations?

 

[check_mate_kid_uk]

in the book 'the universe in a nutshell' by stephen hawkins he says that with the current rate of growth, by 2600 there will be 200,000,000,000,000 thats 200 trillion people he also says that if all things grew equaly eg consupmtion then the heat produced from the electricity we use would make the earth glow hot. The population will be standing shoulder to shoulder and if you stacked all the books being published you would have to travle at 90 miles an hour to keep up with the line!

 

[Nocturnal]

The question is, will each new person add more resources than they take? I'd say that in our country, if you are anywhere near or above the poverty line, then yes.

When people are starving because they can't support themselves, there is a deficit of resources. In my opinion, the deficit is not there because there are a lack of natural resources, it's there because there are a lack of human resources. If people had the correct technology and education, they would be able to create enough resources to feed themselves.

At least in western society, people are getting more out of existing resources in addition to finding new ones. I doubt that that trend will falter for quite some time, even centuries or more.

 

[CableLight]

Could it be argued, Noctural, that if someone is in poverty they might not add resources, true, but they also don't really take as much away, no?

In some ways, they might actually act as - how do I want to say this - a decomposer(?). Take a bum for example: He has no job so he can't really contribute much, but he has no money so he can't take much. Instead, he might take what was already taken (i.e. garbage) and reuse it.

Is this positive? I don't know...Just a thought.

 

[Nocturnal]

maybe it's hardly true at all in our country, but what about when people die because they cannot support themselves? if a country is relying on foreign aid simply to keep their people alive, they definitely have a deficit of resources. Does a bum add anything to society? It depends on how he lives. Does he live off of social security and pay back less in the end? Or does he go from dump to dump finding food that costs society nothing, and also helps other homeless people build homes?

It's not easy to measure how much an individual takes/adds to society when they aren't making a lot of money, but overall, in many 3rd world and developing countries, you can tell from the death toll, inadequate education and healthcare, etc that they are behind in human resources/technology.

 

[CableLight]

Well, lets take Eithiopia for example (again).

I don't think it would be too bold of my to make the following claims about the country:

1) Very high poverty rate
2) Low education
3) Short(er) life expectancy
4) High birth rates

I'm not trying to sound like an ass, but is diverting resources from other countries going to do anything but raise the prices of those resources for the people in the donating countries? I can't say anything definitive of their lack in resources (or maybe just the lack of getting to those resources), but I'm not seeing a big change for the people as a whole. It would take such an insane amount of resources to "get them back on track," per se, but something like that isn't feasible.

It may be ethical/moral, but is there a better solution?

 

[Nocturnal]

It does take a lot to get them "back on track," which is why they need to start by doing it themselves in my opinion. Most of those countries have governments that are way off track though. In Inda, for example, the application process to become a business owner is so rigorous and thorough that it is just making their economy worse, and this is only a policy, which could be easily changed.

Other things aren't so easy to change, but they've got to start somewhere.

 

[aBAzLLnA]

Well, one solution to high-birth rates is to educate people. It appears that literacy affects the birth rate in a country. So, one plan to deal with Asia's high population is to somehow educate everyone...

 

[CableLight]

Originally posted by aBAzLLnA
Well, one solution to high-birth rates is to educate people. It appears that literacy affects the birth rate in a country. So, one plan to deal with Asia's high population is to somehow educate everyone...

Well, here's something odd to note. I'm not extremely sure if this is practiced a whole lot anymore, mostly due to groups of people who've incorporated more technology into their lives, but I know a lot of hunter/gatherer groups did this...

In addition to regular "population control," i.e. not having so many kids, a lot of hunter/gatherer groups practiced infanticide. Since food was usually hard to come by, many groups didn't want/couldnt afford to have a lot of kids running around.

It's not the most humainly-moral thing to do, but...Just something to note.

 

[aBAzLLnA]

Yeah, the only problem with that is the rest of the world would definitely react to such an act. Once USA gets wind of something like that, I'm sure some BS would get started...

 

[CableLight]

Yeah, no kidding. The NW Coast Native Americans have this thing called a Potlatch, which is this big accumulation of possessions by members of the tribe(s) which are distributed to other members by the chief. It was a way to show wealth and gain status, and one way to really prove you had wealth was to just burn your possessions. The government cracked down on that, and now - from what I understand - it's rarely practiced anymore, or, if it is, it's now an "underground" type of thing.