Fuel Boycott on the 19th !!

OkeeDon · May 23, 2004

I think you've nailed it pretty well. The current standard of living in the developed nations is such that we consume most of the resources for a relatively small number of people. As other societies develop a better standard of living (China, for example), it's obvious that we will be increasingly competing for those resources -- there are not enough resources to sustain our standard across the board.

It should be fairly easy to predict where we will all end up -- simply determine the total resources, for example the existing and potential reserves of essential items like crude oil or iron ore, and divide these resources by the total number of potential users, i.e. the world's population.

The only answer I can see is the development of alternative resources and better methods of utilizing the resources we have. Things like alternative materials and alternative sources of energy, preferably in renewable or inexhaustible sources. Our Nation has done a remarkable job with food, for example, beating the Malthusiast Theory. It remains to be accomplished with other resources.

The only other answer I can see, and one that has worked effectively in the past, is to kill off some of the world's population, through disease or war, in order to preserve the existing resources for ourselves.

The rest of the world observes us unilaterally and preemptively attacking other nations; and see that we are not making any effective headway against things like Aids and starvation; and sees us propping up questionable characters when it's convenient for us, and has made their judgment about us. The good that we do cannot begin to balance the bad that we foster or allow to continue.

I think it is possible to break out of the cycle that you have outlined so well, if we have the collective will to forget about greedily protecting what we have and make a serious effort to create alternatives that will benefit everyone. But then, I always have been an optimistic, progressive, utopian idealist.

Bob_Skurka · May 23, 2004

The rest of the world observes us unilaterally and preemptively attacking other nations; and see that we are not making any effective headway against things like Aids and starvation 

OK, I admit to being a sarcastic jerk sometimes, and all too blunt other times, but . . . we could solve the starvation issue IF:

A) We don't feed them for a week, at the end of the week there will be considerably fewer starving people and consequently the food that exists will feed a higher % of the population.
-- or --
B) We send them some Greyhound busses and move the people to where the food actually is. They live in a desert - there is no food!

AMP762 · May 23, 2004

Well here 's an idea, maybe just for a short while people could stop adding people /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

My .02

Paul

OkeeDon · May 23, 2004

A) We don't feed them for a week, at the end of the week there will be considerably fewer starving people and consequently the food that exists will feed a higher % of the population. 

Notice I already mentioned that above: "The only other answer I can see, and one that has worked effectively in the past, is to kill off some of the world's population, through disease or war, in order to preserve the existing resources for ourselves."

 They live in a desert - there is no food!

Sure there is. They can eat the sand which is there. (Say it fast... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif)

I have been known to be a little cynical myself. During some of the past welfare debates, I proposed that we solve most our our internal problems by going back to about 1910. In that period, you depended on your family, your church or your community to help you out if you needed it. It worked like this: Suppose you are sick, disabled, handicapped, or otherwise able to support yourself. You turn to your family. If they decide you are worth having around, they support you. If they can't help, or decide you are worthless, you turn to your church. If they can't help, or decide you are worthless, you turn to your community. Every community had some sort of "poor house" where problems like this can be shuffled out of sight. However, if they decide you are not worth helping, then you die. Problem solved. "Ordinary" people don't have to be involved, and, since your family, your church and your community all decided you were worthless, you won't be missed.

Those are known to certain of our politicians as the "Good Old Days."

Junkman · May 23, 2004

( Well here 's an idea, maybe just for a short while people could stop adding people /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

My .02

Paul )

Our government doesn't like the idea of birth control and our President has signed an executive order prohibiting the dissemination of information about it at any clinics that receive Federal money. The same goes for the money that we send for aid to foreign countries. They can't use is for birth control education. Then on the other hand, when these "unwanted" children are born, the government turns a blind eye toward them and puts the burden on the States.
As for "killing them off" in other countries, this is happening in most of the 3rd world countries in the form of AIDS. The don't treat AIDS patients and for the most part, they don't teach AIDS prevention education, because it is going to be the "natural" eliminator of the over population of those countries. China also has a population problem and there is no discouragement by the government to smoking of tobacco. This is one of the fastest growing markets for the American tobacco companies. China knows that with the advent of smoking that the overall population will be dieing sooner than if they didn't smoke. If the US Government and the State Governments were not getting the amount of tax money out of the tobacco industry, they would do more to prevent smoking. On the one hand, they "say" that they want to discourage young people from smoking, but on the other hand, they also know that these "smokers" will live shorter lives and that they will never live long enough to collect Social Security.

California · May 24, 2004

Libertine, Paul, Don, Junkman, following up on your recent posts in this thread:

Today I attended older daughter's graduation from Berkeley, School of Natural Resources. (Proud pappa notes With Honors!)

The commencement speaker was Paul Hawken, who spoke on a proposed more accurate model of economics which considers the real cost impacts of industrial production.

I've just spent the evening rummaging through Google trying to define the essence of his philosophy to add to your thread here, and all I can say is Hawken is so bright that every essay I read expands on the others.

Here's an example he used today illustrating how business sometimes pushes legislation that is not in anyone's best interest: There is a bill in Congress proposing $180 million to Oldsmobile dealers to soften the impact of GM's decision to close that division. How could anyone carry that bill?

One of his points is that big business has now consolidated so much power that we are seeing the gap between rich and poor accelerate at a frightening rate. This causes people to become cast off and unneeded, which leads to the usual social problems. We see the traditional American work ethic, work hard and prosper etc, leading toward consequences we never anticipated and ultimately a significant number of the nation's citizens are excluded from economic life. I think we all know someone who was laid off as a cost cutting measure. Who reaped the corresponding gain?

Also the absence of accounting for full costs pushes those costs onto those who can't afford to resist the increased pollution, pesticide poisoning, etc that can happen when businesses can pass legislation protecting themselves from the consequences of their actions. A preferable alternate model is the recycling laws in Germany. Manufacturers there must accept back their own products when they are worn out which has led to drastic changes in the amount of toxic and non-renewable content in the products sold. This has a broad range of favorable consequences.

He notes that the proportion of the world's resources consumed in the developed nations, particularly the US, is so great that it is clearly impossible to bring other nations up to our standard of living. The only way to make a comfortable standard of living possible worldwide is to re-engineer industrial processes so that they are more like natural processes, with energy inputs and outputs balanced for any given system. This would include a greater reliance on using labor in place of natural resources to improve conditions for both. He proposes that our standard of living could be provided with 80% less energy and material input, after extensive re-engineering of production. The key is to define what we need, such as comfortable transportation, rather than continuing development on traditional products - example Oldsmobiles.

He is surprisingly optimistic that this re-engineering can be accomplished. One of his examples was a reformulation of printing ink that allows separation of paper and ink in the recycling process so that clean paper and new ink are the process outputs, with virtually nothing to discard or guard as hazardous waste. He thinks nearly everything could be reengineered if a broader accounting of costs and benefits highlighted the potential benefits.

This guy is a visionary; the value in studying him is to broaden our own imaginations. I strongly recommend a search through Google on 'Paul Hawken' to see the breadth of his vision. He's also a successful businessman, Smith & Hawken tools and several organic food brands are among the businesses he has founded. I'm not saying he's right on all points, but this visionary view of what these new graduates can apply themselves to, was just what they needed to hear today.

fivestring · May 24, 2004

"My conclusion is that roughly 60-70% of all the wealth that is created in the US is looted from those who produced it and given to those who did not." 

BINGO!

That's how votes are bought.

gws · May 24, 2004

THe only way this can work is NOT to use th gas, not just delay it to another tech. Techincally I participated. I filled up on the 18th instead of the 19th.

TresCrows · May 24, 2004

"He notes that the proportion of the world's resources consumed in the developed nations, particularly the US, is so great that it is clearly impossible to bring other nations up to our standard of living. The only way to make a comfortable standard of living possible worldwide is to re-engineer industrial processes so that they are more like natural processes, with energy inputs and outputs balanced for any given system. This would include a greater reliance on using labor in place of natural resources to improve conditions for both. He proposes that our standard of living could be provided with 80% less energy and material input, after extensive re-engineering of production. The key is to define what we need, such as comfortable transportation, rather than continuing development on traditional products - example Oldsmobiles."

I agree that we do have a growing problem in this country of the gap between rich and poor widening and the middle class shrinking. However, the views by your new found guru are the same old one world governemnt--the USA should give up all it's wealth to the 3rd world -elitist propaganda. Those people are seeking a feudal sytem with all of us serving the few at the top. What defines "comfortable"? I assume that might not include my Toyota Tundra or a certain persons huge diesel truck--right? Will it include airconditioning, private property, individual housing etc. Probably not. I will pass on his Visionary views for ME. I got my own views that don't include a single world government with the USA lowered to the lowest common denominator and all the worlds problems layed on the shoulders of America. Our ancestors came here and there was nothing here. Some of these have not countries were ancient before the Founding Father's father's fathers were born and yet they still live at the bottom of the economic pool. When THEY decide to cast off corruption, feudal systems and form a democratic process that rewards innovation and hard work I bet you and the "Visionary" that they could share in some of the wealth. J

OkeeDon · May 24, 2004

Translation: "I got what I want and the rest of the World can go suck an egg. If they want what I got, then let them work for it the same way I did."

Prediction: They do want some of what you got, and they're going to get it, one way or another. There's more of them than there is of us. We may have the best military in the World, but they can still take out 3,000 people in a few minutes. No amount of Homeland Security will protect us once they get better at it.

Solution: We're all in this, together. You may call it "one world government", but I call it, "We better figure out a way for everyone to get what they want, or someday, we're going to lose."

People like Paul Hawkins are suggesting ways that we can have our cake and let the whole world eat it, too. But, the first step in the process is to acknowledge that EVERYONE matters, not just ME.