Brittian Planning Individual Carbon Rationing

bmulligan

bmulligan

CAGiversary!
Feedback
25 (100%)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1021983/Every-adult-Britain-forced-carry-carbon-ration-cards-say-MPs.html

Our masters in England are always ahead of the curve on these things. With suppression of free speech, assembly and obedience to politically correct behaviour being forefront on the list, they have now outlined the plan for total control of human beings and the complete elimination of freedom in the modern world with carbon rationing cards. I'm sure you Leftists here will fawn over this idea as a perfect solution to our gluttonous addiction to oil.

What's next? Electricity rationing? Food rationing? Child Rationing? Living space rationing? Of course not, you say, but this slippery slope isn't uphill from here - it's a freefalling downward spiral. And just think: we can have another new bureaucracy to save the environment from Bacterium Homosapius.
 
Governments consider dumb things all the time. Care if it actually happens, which is unlikely.

[quote name='bmulligan']Child Rationing?[/QUOTE]

This one needs to happen, and I have full confidence that it eventually will.
 
It's an interesting question as to why a conservative govt would back a plan like this. Conservative leadership doesn't give a damn about the enviornment so I'm immediately extremely suspicious.

Simple corruption or something worse?

BTW Bmull - a good lefty solution would be to do something similar to Portland (bike racks on busses, free accessable parking for elec cars, etc). This is typical conservative BS.
 
[quote name='Koggit']
This one needs to happen, and I have full confidence that it eventually will.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='camoor']That's pretty scary man.[/QUOTE]

I was just going to say...

That's a frighting statement, koggit.

Are you silently smiling and nodding about Burma and China these days too? Ultimately it's all about what's best for the current environmentalist inquisition?

OP, it just goes to show that the fanatical environmental movement has many easy comparisons to medieval religion.
 
[quote name='Koggit']


This one needs to happen, and I have full confidence that it eventually will.[/quote]


I doubt that. America seems to love dishing out welfare to lazy fucks that don't want to work, and just want to sit home popping out babies all day. I'm actually impressed that a law was passed limiting how many kids you can get money for.
 
[quote name='camoor']It's an interesting question as to why a conservative govt would back a plan like this. Conservative leadership doesn't give a damn about the enviornment so I'm immediately extremely suspicious.

Simple corruption or something worse?

BTW Bmull - a good lefty solution would be to do something similar to Portland (bike racks on busses, free accessable parking for elec cars, etc). This is typical conservative BS.[/QUOTE]

It's the Kyoto treaty brilliantly redefined to be implemented at the consumer level. The "Left" is far more ambitious than bike racks and free parking, c'mon !
 
I'm actually impressed that a law was passed limiting how many kids you can get money for.
Click to expand...
Me too, but you know there are some people who legitimately and for good cause can't take care of themselves right?
 
[quote name='Koggit']



This one needs to happen, and I have full confidence that it eventually will.[/quote]

Just for that, I'm now having 4 kids when I get married. :D

Don't worry, if I don't like that last one, I'll him... or her... Koggit.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Me too, but you know there are some people who legitimately and for good cause can't take care of themselves right?[/quote]

Oh, I totally agree wth that man. I'm just so sick of the people that abuse it and think theres nothing wrong with it. I met a girl that worked at Walmart, and actually made them limit her hours to put her under a certain limit (hours or wage wise I'm not sure) so that she could collect more. I wanted to punch her in the face for that.
 
Meh, this is just another stupid idea that won't go anywhere. They couldn't even push ID cards through in the UK, this won't go anywhere either.

[quote name='bmulligan'] With suppression of free speech, assembly and obedience to politically correct behaviour.[/quote]

Well at least in the UK you can still call Christmas, Christmas without getting a dirty look from someone.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Are you silently smiling and nodding about Burma and China these days too? Ultimately it's all about what's best for the current environmentalist inquisition?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, because there's no difference between carbon rationing and a military junta violently crushing its own people. :roll: I must've missed that bit in the Bill of Rights about the Right to Unlimited Consumption of Natural Resources. It's just a shame they never got to prosecute Churchill and Roosevelt. If not for them and their wartime rationing, there would have been steak and stockings all around! But hold on! We can still get Carter for rationing gas. Got to fight for those rights, no matter how ridiculous or imagined they may be!

[quote name='thrustbucket']OP, it just goes to show that the fanatical environmental movement has many easy comparisons to medieval religion.[/QUOTE]

I look forward to where this downward spiral of hyperbole and flawed comparison leads you next. Trying to topple the totalitarian regime of The Second Law of Thermodynamics, perhaps?
 
[quote name='trq']
I look forward to where this downward spiral of hyperbole and flawed comparison leads you next. Trying to topple the totalitarian regime of The Second Law of Thermodynamics, perhaps?[/QUOTE]

Might I direct your attention to this article, reviewing two recent books... Which I'm sure you'll hate.

An excerpt that applies to what I am talking about, and very well summarizes pretty much exactly what I feel:

All the books that I have seen about the science and economics of global warming, including the two books under review, miss the main point. The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world.

Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists—most of whom are not scientists—holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.

Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the be-lief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.
Click to expand...

Oh and as evidence continues to mount, that climate change extends beyond our own narcissistic monkey-sphere, perhaps our efforts would be better served in preperation instead of creating an entirely new religious-like movement hell bent on social stigma, punishment, and behavior changes.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It's the Kyoto treaty brilliantly redefined to be implemented at the consumer level. The "Left" is far more ambitious than bike racks and free parking, c'mon ![/quote]

I will admit - your first sentence is an intriguing interpretation.
 
I don't want to see regulations on quantity of children, I just think it's the only way to maintain humane treatment for everyone.

Like every species in every environment, when threats are eliminated (as we've done: no predators, less disease) and the essentials of life are more readily available (as we've done: food, shelter, water) the species thrives. Population grows. To a point; once the maximum population is reached, infant mortality and life expectancy drop due to fierce competition for life's essentials, and after a very long period of time we evolve to reproduce less.

Humans are smart enough, unlike any species before us, to avoid the long period of fierce competition by imposing regulations before we reach such a state.

It'll suck when it has to happen, but it will have to happen.
 
[quote name='Koggit']I don't want to see regulations on quantity of children, I just think it's the only way to maintain humane treatment for everyone.

Like every species in every environment, when threats are eliminated (as we've done: no predators, less disease) and the essentials of life are more readily available (as we've done: food, shelter, water) the species thrives. Population grows. To a point; once the maximum population is reached, infant mortality and life expectancy drop due to fierce competition for life's essentials, and after a very long period of time we evolve to reproduce less.

Humans are smart enough, unlike any species before us, to avoid the long period of fierce competition by imposing regulations before we reach such a state.

It'll suck when it has to happen, but it will have to happen.[/QUOTE]

Why must you think that we don't have the freedom to reproduce ourselves out of existence, fascist?
 
Population will probably regulate itself. American families are having less kids than in our parents or especially grand parents generations. I don't really want kids, several of my friends of both genders don't want kids (and we're all near or past 30). Time will tell if the trend of smaller families continues or reverses here, and whether it spreads to other countries.

As for carbon rations, seems a bad way to do it. Would be easier to just tax carbon emissions by corporations, put higher property tax on low MPG cars (or higher tax at purchase in states that don't have property tax on cars) etc.
 
There is no difference between rationing petrol based on its carbon footprint and the rationing of food. Food has it's own carbon footprint from the grain and water fed to the animals, to the trucks that sow, harvest, prepare, and deliver it to market. I'm telling you - this slope isn't just slippery, it's quicksand.

Who determines how much gasoline is necessary and how much food you need? The Health Minister? Some scientist? A committee? Do we really need someone to determine our own needs for us? I'm sure some of you are nodding your heads to the affirmative.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Population will probably regulate itself. American families are having less kids than in our parents or especially grand parents generations. I don't really want kids, several of my friends of both genders don't want kids (and we're all near or past 30). Time will tell if the trend of smaller families continues or reverses here, and whether it spreads to other countries.[/QUOTE]

This is exactly the sort of reasoning that made me wish we had an LSAT-esque entrance exam for CAG Vs. Arguments like this would totally fail. Hell, picking out what's wrong with your argument could actually be an LSAT question.


#24. Jill: I believe population growth will eventually become a problem for our species, as each person currently produces an average of 1.3 children.

Bill: I do not believe we will ever have to face the problem of overpopulation because the average number of children produced has been decreasing in recent years.

On what assumption does Bill base his fucked up argument?

(a) Jill is too stupid to see the gaping holes in his screwed up logic.

(b) Jill will be too fed up with Bill's ignorant BS to articulate a damaging rebuttal.

(c) A decrease in average reproduction indicates an eventual flat or negative population growth.

(d) Both B & C.


In summary, here's our population growth:

GRAPH.png


This is what the population growth of species allowed to thrive usually look like:

GRAPHPRED.jpg

(not to scale, of course, our max population for America is going to be waaaaay higher than the ~600,000,000 pictured here)
 
Time will tell.

I'd never support child rationing, and I'm a person who fucking hates kids. I'll never support that kind of governmental interference in people's freedoms.

If we overbreed ourselves out of existence, so be it. Species come and go. Humans are no different.
 
[quote name='Koggit']This is exactly the sort of reasoning that made me wish we had an LSAT-esque entrance exam for CAG Vs. Arguments like this would totally fail. Hell, picking out what's wrong with your argument could actually be an LSAT question.


#24. Jill: I believe population growth will eventually become a problem for our species, as each person currently produces an average of 1.3 children.

Bill: I do not believe we will ever have to face the problem of overpopulation because the average number of children produced has been decreasing in recent years.

On what assumption does Bill base his fucked up argument?

(a) Jill is too stupid to see the gaping holes in his screwed up logic.

(b) Jill will be too fed up with Bill's ignorant BS to articulate a damaging rebuttal.

(c) A decrease in average reproduction indicates an eventual flat or negative population growth.

(d) Both B & C.


In summary, here's our population growth:

GRAPH.png


This is what the population growth of species allowed to thrive usually look like:

GRAPHPRED.jpg

(not to scale, of course, our max population for America is going to be waaaaay higher than the ~600,000,000 pictured here)
[/quote]

*Looks up to the night sky*

Seems to be a lot of space up there.

Although this thread keeps reminding me of Blade Runner/Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Time will tell.

I'd never support child rationing, and I'm a person who fucking hates kids. I'll never support that kind of governmental interference in people's freedoms.

If we overbreed ourselves out of existence, so be it. Species come and go. Humans are no different.[/QUOTE]

Breed ourselves out of existence? Dude.. again.. what makes you come to that? That doesn't happen.

Exceeding the maximum population just means a portion will not be able to survive. The surviving population will be roughly equal to the maximum population. If the world can support 50 billion humans, we wouldn't all die if there were 60 billion of us. About 15 billion would die. But all of us would live shittier lives. Those 15 billion would be living inhumane lives before dying.
 
I don't know about child rationing, but i do have another idea that i would like to see put into place.

It's pretty simple really, we do what we already do with marriage and make people get birthing licenses. You couldn't just get one by applying for it either.

You'd have to prove that you can financially support a child, that you are a responsible enough person to even raise a child, I'd even like to see an IQ test, I'm sick of some of the idiots i meet having kids when I'm surprised they can even function themselves. You'd also have to be of a certain age, at least 18 I'd say.

My mother works at a school and there is a child in that school who has some sort of mental disability. The thing is though, his parents are also like him. All three of them have some sort of mental problems, the parents aren't even mentally capable of making sure the kid takes his medication. They really shouldn't have had a child, being unable to properly take care of one.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Breed ourselves out of existence? Dude.. again.. what makes you come to that? That doesn't happen.

Exceeding the maximum population just means a portion will not be able to survive. The surviving population will be roughly equal to the maximum population. If the world can support 50 billion humans, we wouldn't all die if there were 60 billion of us. About 15 billion would die. But all of us would live shittier lives. Those 15 billion would be living inhumane lives before dying.[/quote]

Shittier lives then... the govt taking control and regulating who can procreate and how much they can procreate?

I'll take my chances with the people.

I have to admit though - I am not a big fan of subsidizing idiots who think it's God's plan to spread their less-then-impressive DNA at taxpayer expense. Likewise with expectant parent(s) who can't manage/afford to support themselves. Keeping abortion legal, scientific sexual education, and supplying free condoms are all great first steps - but at some point society is going to have to tackle the ignorance spread by dogmatic Abrahamic religion. Continually fighting unnecessary wars is not an optimal plan nor a viable long-term strategy.

They say "you break it you buy it" - I'd like to add "you make it you buy it"
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I don't know about child rationing, but i do have another idea that i would like to see put into place.

It's pretty simple really, we do what we already do with marriage and make people get birthing licenses. You couldn't just get one by applying for it either.

You'd have to prove that you can financially support a child, that you are a responsible enough person to even raise a child, I'd even like to see an IQ test, I'm sick of some of the idiots i meet having kids when I'm surprised they can even function themselves. You'd also have to be of a certain age, at least 18 I'd say.

My mother works at a school and there is a child in that school who has some sort of mental disability. The thing is though, his parents are also like him. All three of them have some sort of mental problems, the parents aren't even mentally capable of making sure the kid takes his medication. They really shouldn't have had a child, being unable to properly take care of one.[/quote]

Did someone say eugenics?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Might I direct your attention to this article, reviewing two recent books... Which I'm sure you'll hate.[/QUOTE]

I deal with people researching and debating global warming on a semi-regular basis, so I have a pretty good idea what the evidence for and against consists of. I actually think Dyson has a number of good points on the subject (though try as he might, carbon sequestering in plants -- and quite probably any kind of carbon sequestering at all, really -- is a pretty unlikely solution). However, I also have a pretty good eye for what's little more than "policy first" argument posing as scientific debate, where people attempt to justify an opinion developed completely ahead of any knowledge of the facts.

Let's be clear: the number of proponents of an idea does not determine its validity. Just because a lot of people think something doesn't make it true. But that said, the number of people who can have a genuine, first-hand opinion of the research involved is pretty slim, so the majority of the population has to rely on scientific consensus. And the consensus is overwhelmingly convinced that global warming is happening, caused by humans, and a fairly severe problem. So really, if you have any kind of awareness of "evidence" as a factor, why is the comparatively slight amount of evidence "against" valid, while the mountains upon mountains of evidence "for" invalid? Wait, wait, don't tell me: somehow, 98% of working scientists are part of a liberal conspiracy?

And yes, more fool am I for actually attempting to have a rational discussion about one of your favorite dead horses (evolution, here we come), but hope springs eternal.

[quote name='camoor']... but at some point society is going to have to tackle the ignorance spread by dogmatic Abrahamic religion.[/QUOTE]

So ... how were those enlightened Buddhists over in China doing with that population control prior to 1949 again?
 
[quote name='trq']So ... how were those enlightened Buddhists over in China doing with that population control prior to 1949 again?[/quote]

People belonging to Abrahamic religions are the ones breeding like rabbits, the pie chart doesn't lie:

why_religion.jpg


I've never, ever heard anyone try to pin population explosions on Buddhism. If you look at uniformly Buddhist places like pre-invasion Tibet, it's not like people were spilling out over the mountains. Early 20th century China's affinity for big families was more cultural/economic then religious, and I'd wager those with big families tended to believe in a mix of Chiense folk religion, Confucianism, and Buddhism - I'll let you research those to figure out which ones contributed to the large family phenom before we continue this discussion.
 
[quote name='trq']I deal with people researching and debating global warming on a semi-regular basis, so I have a pretty good idea what the evidence for and against consists of. I actually think Dyson has a number of good points on the subject (though try as he might, carbon sequestering in plants -- and quite probably any kind of carbon sequestering at all, really -- is a pretty unlikely solution). However, I also have a pretty good eye for what's little more than "policy first" argument posing as scientific debate, where people attempt to justify an opinion developed completely ahead of any knowledge of the facts.

Let's be clear: the number of proponents of an idea does not determine its validity. Just because a lot of people think something doesn't make it true. But that said, the number of people who can have a genuine, first-hand opinion of the research involved is pretty slim, so the majority of the population has to rely on scientific consensus. And the consensus is overwhelmingly convinced that global warming is happening, caused by humans, and a fairly severe problem. So really, if you have any kind of awareness of "evidence" as a factor, why is the comparatively slight amount of evidence "against" valid, while the mountains upon mountains of evidence "for" invalid? Wait, wait, don't tell me: somehow, 98% of working scientists are part of a liberal conspiracy?

And yes, more fool am I for actually attempting to have a rational discussion about one of your favorite dead horses (evolution, here we come), but hope springs eternal.
[/QUOTE]

Fair enough.

I tell you what - you go ahead and embrace activism and attempting to breed a whole new generation of good "green" citizens that will try to create a new savior for for the coming apocalypse and save the human race. That's your choice. I really don't care. As long as the missionaries don't come knocking at my door trying to indoctrinate me or my family with enviro-guilt and inevitable enviro-Armageddon doctrine.

Meanwhile, I'll spend my energy on trying to keep my environment clean so I don't have to breath shit, as well as preparation, rather than activism.

You do what you like, I do what I like - everyone wins.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Breed ourselves out of existence? Dude.. again.. what makes you come to that? That doesn't happen.

Exceeding the maximum population just means a portion will not be able to survive. The surviving population will be roughly equal to the maximum population. If the world can support 50 billion humans, we wouldn't all die if there were 60 billion of us. About 15 billion would die. But all of us would live shittier lives. Those 15 billion would be living inhumane lives before dying.[/QUOTE]

I was just saying even in the extreme of extinction as a possibility I wouldn't support child rations as governments should have that kind of power. Much less just with the consequence being lower quality of life.

Humans will either adapt to lessen their breeding on their own to prevent things getting that bad, or we'll deal with the consequences--which won't be as dire as giving the goverment those kind of supreme powers to regulate things as fundamental as child bearing.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I was just saying even in the extreme of extinction as a possibility I wouldn't support child rations as governments should have that kind of power. Much less just with the consequence being lower quality of life.

Humans will either adapt to lessen their breeding on their own to prevent things getting that bad, or we'll deal with the consequences--which won't be as dire as giving the goverment those kind of supreme powers to regulate things as fundamental as child bearing.[/quote]

Considering that some govts are trying to get ppl to have more kids, I'd say we're a long way off from dire consequences in all but the poorest parts of the world (and even then it's business as usual for those areas, unfortunately).

I'm interested to see what happens in China with the lopsided male-female ratio worsening.
 
[quote name='camoor']People belonging to Abrahamic religions are the ones breeding like rabbits, the pie chart doesn't lie:[/QUOTE]

No, but the pie chart doesn't tell the whole truth, either. For one, those statistics are for 2005. A single point isn't valid data when attempting to map a trend. For another, you're just measuring the total size of the adherents of a religion, while ignoring things like the influence of conversion. There doesn't have to be a single child born in the religion for the religion to grow. Further, consider: the global population in 1950 was roughly 2.5 billion. The population of China in 1950 was 550,000,000 -- slightly more than 20%. Mahayana Buddhism has been the single largest organized religion in China since the first century -- the Communist government says there are currently only 100 million adherents, but the Buddhists themselves suggest the real number is much higher: 80%, and this is after the Cultural Revolution and half a century of religious suppression. All in all, not a small number of Buddhists, and that's just in China.

[quote name='camoor']I've never, ever heard anyone try to pin population explosions on Buddhism. If you look at uniformly Buddhist places like pre-invasion Tibet, it's not like people were spilling out over the mountains. Early 20th century China's affinity for big families was more cultural/economic then religious, and I'd wager those with big families tended to believe in a mix of Chiense folk religion, Confucianism, and Buddhism - I'll let you research those to figure out which ones contributed to the large family phenom before we continue this discussion.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't trying to "pin a population explosion on Buddhism," merely pointing out that traditionally Buddhist people were breeding just as quickly as anyone else. Hence, maybe it isn't a matter of the Abrahamic religions or even a matter of religion at all. Say what you like about the Catholic resistance to birth control, but most Catholics are in developed countries, and generally don't wager their quality of life standard against what is typically seen as a less-than-vital bit of dogma. Catholic Europe isn't overflowing with kids any more than Tibet, issues of affluence and geography aside.

Once again, it's interesting but unsurprising that you're quick to paint some religions with a broad brush, while looking for mitigating factors and exceptions when discussing others. Certainly there couldn't be any cultural or economic factors involved for Christians/Muslims/Jews; surely that's the private sanctuary of Buddhists.
 
I hate the idea of Carbon rationing myself. Why not do something more sensible like push self sustainability? Seriously showing people how they can be Green, save money and be energy independent would be the most sensible solution. Just showing them their Electric and Gas bill then telling them it could be entirely eliminated would be a huge push to make them Green(Electric car). Also showing them some of the cost savings they'd have growing some food would help as well.

I hate this frugal bs from environmentalists. I also hate the fact they NEVER sell cost savings to people or make it fashionable.
On the frugal tip I wouldn't have a problem with my lights being motion activated or water as well. Past that it depends. Like Compact Fluorescents I believe people should only buy the Full Spectrum kind. I also believe Mercury MUST be removed as the Filament in them.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']I hate the idea of Carbon rationing myself. Why not do something more sensible like push self sustainability? Seriously showing people how they can be Green, save money and be energy independent would be the most sensible solution. Just showing them their Electric and Gas bill then telling them it could be entirely eliminated would be a huge push to make them Green(Electric car). Also showing them some of the cost savings they'd have growing some food would help as well.

I hate this frugal bs from environmentalists. I also hate the fact they NEVER sell cost savings to people or make it fashionable.
On the frugal tip I wouldn't have a problem with my lights being motion activated or water as well. Past that it depends. Like Compact Fluorescents I believe people should only buy the Full Spectrum kind. I also believe Mercury MUST be removed as the Filament in them.[/QUOTE]

Are you kidding? At least half of environmental activism is about conservation. Funding PSAs that say "unplug your cell phone charger when you aren't charging" or whatever. Most food box programs heavily emphasize the savings vs. grocery store. One of the most marketed points of hybrids is save money on gas. The biggest selling point of CFLs is that you don't have to replace them as often and your electric bill will be lower. Many people buy water-conserving shower heads to use less water. PSAs tell people to turn the water off while brushing their teeth / shaving. PSAs tell people to reuse bags from stores as trash bags for your bathroom. Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. Seriously a near endless list.
 
[quote name='trq']No, but the pie chart doesn't tell the whole truth, either. For one, those statistics are for 2005. A single point isn't valid data when attempting to map a trend. For another, you're just measuring the total size of the adherents of a religion, while ignoring things like the influence of conversion. There doesn't have to be a single child born in the religion for the religion to grow. Further, consider: the global population in 1950 was roughly 2.5 billion. The population of China in 1950 was 550,000,000 -- slightly more than 20%. Mahayana Buddhism has been the single largest organized religion in China since the first century -- the Communist government says there are currently only 100 million adherents, but the Buddhists themselves suggest the real number is much higher: 80%, and this is after the Cultural Revolution and half a century of religious suppression. All in all, not a small number of Buddhists, and that's just in China.



I wasn't trying to "pin a population explosion on Buddhism," merely pointing out that traditionally Buddhist people were breeding just as quickly as anyone else. Hence, maybe it isn't a matter of the Abrahamic religions or even a matter of religion at all. Say what you like about the Catholic resistance to birth control, but most Catholics are in developed countries, and generally don't wager their quality of life standard against what is typically seen as a less-than-vital bit of dogma. Catholic Europe isn't overflowing with kids any more than Tibet, issues of affluence and geography aside.

Once again, it's interesting but unsurprising that you're quick to paint some religions with a broad brush, while looking for mitigating factors and exceptions when discussing others. Certainly there couldn't be any cultural or economic factors involved for Christians/Muslims/Jews; surely that's the private sanctuary of Buddhists.[/quote]

Hey - if Buddhists are really starting to breed that's all good in my book. Maybe we can cut down on the vicious cycle of crusades/jihads ;)
 
[quote name='Koggit']Are you kidding? At least half of environmental activism is about conservation. Funding PSAs that say "unplug your cell phone charger when you aren't charging" or whatever. Most food box programs heavily emphasize the savings vs. grocery store. One of the most marketed points of hybrids is save money on gas. The biggest selling point of CFLs is that you don't have to replace them as often and your electric bill will be lower. Many people buy water-conserving shower heads to use less water. PSAs tell people to turn the water off while brushing their teeth / shaving. PSAs tell people to reuse bags from stores as trash bags for your bathroom. Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. Seriously a near endless list.[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to disagree with you on the Fluorescent point. The Hybrid point isn't far enough. Getting people into Electric cars and self sustaining houses is what we need because then they're never dependent on an Electric utilities who will ALWAYS charge them more and have a figurative noose right above their head.
I'm sorry but I won't be happy until EVERYONE in the world is as close to being as financially independent as possible. The more financially independent you are, especially from established needs such as power and shelter, the more they're working for you not to screw you dealwise. If the Electric company knows most people don't need them so much it's going to be hard to charge said number for kilowatt hours. Water we have the city in charge of and rightfully so though I wouldn't be opposed to a not for profit Corporation handling it if they proved they could do the job as well or better and I suppose they could. Food I prefer local small businesses providing most of what we see in the produce isle as well as staples too most of the time. We have enough local brands around most of our community that we could probably fill a good deal of the store with them. We'd have to actually LOOK for them though.
Also I think a lot of times financial independence is tied to Democratic independence as well.

I would like to add I think telling someone if they put up a proper Solar Panel on their house the right size they wouldn't have to pay for any Electricity or Gas if they have an Electric car is VERY compelling as compared to blabbing on about Health Reasons. I'm for Health Reasons but trying to explain it to most and they'd zone out or it's just a harder mass media message, better for one on one with in depth explanation.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']I'm sorry but I won't be happy until EVERYONE in the world is as close to being as financially independent as possible. [/quote]

I sense a lot of sadness in your future.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']
I would like to add I think telling someone if they put up a proper Solar Panel on their house the right size they wouldn't have to pay for any Electricity or Gas if they have an Electric car is VERY compelling as compared to blabbing on about Health Reasons. I'm for Health Reasons but trying to explain it to most and they'd zone out or it's just a harder mass media message, better for one on one with in depth explanation.[/QUOTE]


Indeed. That's what it will take. Most people, myself included, aren't going to pay more and/or inconvenience ourselves to save the environment.

But we'll do it if it saves us money and isn't a hassle.
 
I don't feel like getting into it, but the fact of the matter is that going off the grid is generally more expensive than paying an electric company.

There's a 5-credit six-day class (two full weekends) at my school for the installation of solar hot water systems (using solar energy to heat the water directly, rather than creating electricity through photovoltaic cells and then using the electricity to heat the water). I took the class because I was only taking two real classes and needed to be full time to be covered by my health insurance. Anyway, even though the class wasn't about photovoltaic cells we did talk a lot about solar energy's practicality and even my professor conceded that going off the grid is generally not worth it financially.

I could elaborate as to why, or explain his idealized implementation of solar panel if anyone's interested. Either would be pretty lengthy and I'd rather not put them in this post because I don't want to detract from the main point: Sarang's statements are inaccurate in that going off the grid does not save money.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Indeed. That's what it will take. Most people, myself included, aren't going to pay more and/or inconvenience ourselves to save the environment.

But we'll do it if it saves us money and isn't a hassle.[/quote]

At first I was annoyed - then I realized you're one of the only honest conservatives I have heard from.

I wish others were as straightforward about their self-centered, short-term thinking. It would allow us to start a meaningful dialog on the topic.
 
[quote name='camoor']At first I was annoyed - then I realized you're one of the only honest conservatives I have heard from.

I wish others were as straightforward about their self-centered, short-term thinking. It would allow us to start a meaningful dialog on the topic.[/QUOTE]

What would start a meaningful dialog is if the government admitted they are over-taxing us to begin, then address that, so everyone could afford to be more green. fucking our wallet sideways while guilt-scaring us into being green is not the answer.

And I love how the pro-big government left always pins anyone trying to be fiscally responsible, while expecting/hoping the same from the Fed, as self-centered and a short-term thinker.

Scare and guilt tactics/propaganda from Washington to change people's behavior is getting really old. And it comes from both sides of the aisle depending on the issue.

If you really want to promote noble self sacrifice for the sake of the environment, maybe you should help start a program that encouraged suicide. We can call people selfish or a "short-term thinker" if they don't. That should do the trick. :roll:
Oh shit... then we would start losing tax payers though.....
 
[quote name='camoor']At first I was annoyed - then I realized you're one of the only honest conservatives I have heard from.

I wish others were as straightforward about their self-centered, short-term thinking. It would allow us to start a meaningful dialog on the topic.[/QUOTE]

I'll let the man speak for himself, but I think DMaul is actually liberal -- he was just being honest about his vulnerability to the "out of sight, out of mind" nature of the problem. Until people see birds spontaneously combusting or what have you, it's hard to muster support against something that's fundamentally invisible and long term; it's the "lobster in the pot" syndrome.

[quote name='thrustbucket']Scare and guilt tactics/propaganda from Washington to change people's behavior is getting really old. And it comes from both sides of the isle depending on the issue.[/QUOTE]

True enough. There's no substitute for education/awareness.
 
Yeah, I'm more liberal than conservative for sure. I'm just not super caring about environmental issues.

I recycle, use fluorescent light bulbs etc., but I'm not going to throw money away on hybrids cars, making a self sufficient house etc. as I'm not going to pay to save the environment. Recycling costs nothing. Fluorescent light bulbs pay for themselves in time.

Solar power, hybrid cars etc. currently cost more over traditional cars/electric that you'll never get back the extra cost of buying in initially. And I don't care enough to pay that premium, or inconvenience myself with a limited range electric car (if those come out again), or crappy public transit that for me currently takes 3x as long to get to and from work as driving etc.

I don't think the enviromental issues are that bad to make those sacrifices. As time goes on alternative power sources will become more viable, alternative fueled cars will be mainstream (or maybe it will be some long range electric car) etc. etc. and pollution will be reduced. So I don't feel super compelled to pay an assload or inconvenience myself to make minute differences now.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']What would start a meaningful dialog is if the government admitted they are over-taxing us to begin, then address that, so everyone could afford to be more green. fucking our wallet sideways while guilt-scaring us into being green is not the answer.

And I love how the pro-big government left always pins anyone trying to be fiscally responsible, while expecting/hoping the same from the Fed, as self-centered and a short-term thinker.

Scare and guilt tactics/propaganda from Washington to change people's behavior is getting really old. And it comes from both sides of the aisle depending on the issue.

If you really want to promote noble self sacrifice for the sake of the environment, maybe you should help start a program that encouraged suicide. We can call people selfish or a "short-term thinker" if they don't. That should do the trick. :roll:
Oh shit... then we would start losing tax payers though.....[/quote]

Who said going green involves more taxes? I'm pointing out the guy is a typical selfish American consumer who can't conceive of any concept outside his brainwashed materialistic perspective, I'm not saying he should be taxed more because of it.

And I see now that it's fiscally irresponsible to go green. Someone better call Experian on those damn hippies who dare to grow their own veg or drive a car that runs on french fry grease. How dare they try to better the environment, how dare they think of future generations. Why aren't they buying an SUV or boat with the money - big engines are fun and who gives an F?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, I'm more liberal than conservative for sure. I'm just not super caring about environmental issues.

I recycle, use fluorescent light bulbs etc., but I'm not going to throw money away on hybrids cars, making a self sufficient house etc. as I'm not going to pay to save the environment. Recycling costs nothing. Fluorescent light bulbs pay for themselves in time.

Solar power, hybrid cars etc. currently cost more over traditional cars/electric that you'll never get back the extra cost of buying in initially. And I don't care enough to pay that premium, or inconvenience myself with a limited range electric car (if those come out again), or crappy public transit that for me currently takes 3x as long to get to and from work as driving etc.

I don't think the enviromental issues are that bad to make those sacrifices. As time goes on alternative power sources will become more viable, alternative fueled cars will be mainstream (or maybe it will be some long range electric car) etc. etc. and pollution will be reduced. So I don't feel super compelled to pay an assload or inconvenience myself to make minute differences now.[/quote]

That's your choice man, but don't expect a pat on the back from me.

I'm really not sure why you choose to trumpet your "I'm sure the problem will work itself out, alt energy and all that, and if it doesn't whatever" philosophy but as I said before the honesty is somewhat refreshing if nothing else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top