Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

wildman · 07-19-2011, 03:46 AM

Curious about others opinion of this:

You Can't Kill a Planet and Live on It, Too | Truthout

Don't forget to take a look at the comments section also.

Last edited by wildman; 07-19-2011 at 05:15 AM.

**Oso** · 07-19-2011, 04:07 AM

Yes, you can destroy the planet while you live on it, and some people really do s**t where they eat.

Lets not forget, we need the planet, it doesn't need us! All this talk of "end of the world" is really just the end of us on the planet, not the end of the planet.

And it all seems to come back to the same old thing; greed. Greed used to be a bad thing, one of the seven deadly and all for the Christians among us, but now it is the driving force of our culture, that which sustains us.

I believe we could have a thriving, productive and healthy society, it would just take a bit of work, and less "profit" for those who now control the destiny of the world.

But how to wrest the power from those whose belief in the rapture will lead to the certain destruction of us all?

Clavius · 07-19-2011, 04:15 AM

I don't see how greed or profit making is destroying the planet. Everybody has the right to provide for themselves and their families in the best possible way. If we all did a step back, we would only delay the problem until our numbers have increased again.

It's our vast numbers that is choking the environment. If there were only 4 million of us, instead of 4 billion, then we could ALL drive hummers, eat whale and cut down every tree we stumble upon, without influencing the ecosystem in any way whatsoever.

**dadipentak** · 07-19-2011, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

It's our vast numbers that is choking the environment. If there were only 4 million of us, instead of 4 billion, then we could ALL drive hummers, eat whale and cut down every tree we stumble upon, without influencing the ecosystem in any way whatsoever.

I agree this is the fundamental problem: the human infestation of planet Earth is out of control and, more than likely, unsustainable. I'm doing my part: I stopped procreating (although I still enjoy going through the motions ;~)

pxpaulx · 07-19-2011, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

It's our vast numbers that is choking the environment. If there were only 4 million of us, instead of 4 billion, then we could ALL drive hummers, eat whale and cut down every tree we stumble upon, without influencing the ecosystem in any way whatsoever.

So rather than be practical and look for solutions you'd prefer to just kill off 599,600,000 people from the population then...

What exactly is the point of your perspective?!

Clavius · 07-19-2011, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by pxpaulx

So rather than be practical and look for solutions you'd prefer to just kill off 599,600,000 people from the population then...

What exactly is the point of your perspective?!

Why always with the killing? Look at China, their birth reduction program is doing its work. The population is slowly, but steadily, decreasing.

redrockcoulee · 07-19-2011, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

I don't see how greed or profit making is destroying the planet. Everybody has the right to provide for themselves and their families in the best possible way. If we all did a step back, we would only delay the problem until our numbers have increased again.

It's our vast numbers that is choking the environment. If there were only 4 million of us, instead of 4 billion, then we could ALL drive hummers, eat whale and cut down every tree we stumble upon, without influencing the ecosystem in any way whatsoever.

Have you read Jared's Collapse where he describes at least half a dozen societies that did destroy their ecosystems and therefore themselves and none of them had anywhere near the populations that we do?

There seems to be the concept by some that those of us who care about the planet and the environment must make the choice between living with all of our current excesses or to totally stop using any resource at all. Your last statement has been proven totally wrong even using examples within North American where many of our ecosystems have been severely altered in the past when the Earth's population was only 4 billion.

We need to live smarter lives and use our resources in a more manageable way. And yes the population needs to be curbed and then reduced. All historical evidence shows that when a society becomes more affluent the number of children each family produces drastically falls. In the developed world we need to accelerate the belief within the family that large number of children are not necessary for their survival. But we cannot ignore our responsibility as compare the amount of resources the average North American uses compared to entire families in Africa or parts of Asia and I think it shows very clearly that we are part of the problem and there is no reason that we need to be part of the solution and with our relative wealth and historical use of the resources we have a larger responsibility that those of the third world. It is not up to them to solve our problems for us.

But the choices are not between driving a Hummer or having to walk or having a house that is not occupied during the day but the ac is running making it so cold that when people come home they need to wear sweaters or not living in a house at all. Those are excuses for those who either do not care about the environment or the future of people on this earth or those who think that only poorer people than themselves should fix the problem.

**dadipentak** · 07-19-2011, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by redrockcoulee

Those are excuses for those who either do not care about the environment or the future of people on this earth or those who think that only poorer people than themselves should fix the problem.

Citing out-of-control population growth as a problem doesn't mean that we don't need to "to live smarter lives and use our resources in a more manageable way." On the contrary, it makes it more urgent.

redrockcoulee · 07-19-2011, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by dadipentak

Citing out-of-control population growth as a problem doesn't mean that we don't need to "to live smarter lives and use our resources in a more manageable way." On the contrary, it makes it more urgent.

Yes two separate problems with different solutions that need to be addressed at the same time as both affect our futures in more than simply the environment (health, security and affordabilty as well). Surely we are smart enough to do two things at the same time (as long as we do so not while driving

)

07-19-2011, 03:46 AM	#1
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	You Can't Kill a Planet and Live on It, Too Curious about others opinion of this: You Can't Kill a Planet and Live on It, Too \| Truthout Don't forget to take a look at the comments section also. Last edited by wildman; 07-19-2011 at 05:15 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Save the Planet: the Nissan Leaf is now available !	jpzk	General Talk	42	01-19-2011 09:02 AM
The saddest group of f/1.2 lenses on the planet	G_Money	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	35	01-13-2011 10:21 PM
People DON'T KILL LIVE MUSIC	fractal	Post Your Photos!	18	02-28-2010 07:53 PM
Abstract Photos from the red planet	dankuno	Post Your Photos!	7	10-07-2009 09:51 PM
Post Your Little Planet	Edicon	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	2	07-31-2009 07:19 PM

07-19-2011, 04:07 AM	#2
Oso Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Vermont Photos: Albums Posts: 128	Yes, you can destroy the planet while you live on it, and some people really do s**t where they eat. Lets not forget, we need the planet, it doesn't need us! All this talk of "end of the world" is really just the end of us on the planet, not the end of the planet. And it all seems to come back to the same old thing; greed. Greed used to be a bad thing, one of the seven deadly and all for the Christians among us, but now it is the driving force of our culture, that which sustains us. I believe we could have a thriving, productive and healthy society, it would just take a bit of work, and less "profit" for those who now control the destiny of the world. But how to wrest the power from those whose belief in the rapture will lead to the certain destruction of us all?

07-19-2011, 04:15 AM	#3
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	I don't see how greed or profit making is destroying the planet. Everybody has the right to provide for themselves and their families in the best possible way. If we all did a step back, we would only delay the problem until our numbers have increased again. It's our vast numbers that is choking the environment. If there were only 4 million of us, instead of 4 billion, then we could ALL drive hummers, eat whale and cut down every tree we stumble upon, without influencing the ecosystem in any way whatsoever.

07-19-2011, 04:43 AM	#4
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Originally posted by Clavius It's our vast numbers that is choking the environment. If there were only 4 million of us, instead of 4 billion, then we could ALL drive hummers, eat whale and cut down every tree we stumble upon, without influencing the ecosystem in any way whatsoever. I agree this is the fundamental problem: the human infestation of planet Earth is out of control and, more than likely, unsustainable. I'm doing my part: I stopped procreating (although I still enjoy going through the motions ;~)

07-19-2011, 05:12 AM	#5
pxpaulx Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Twin Cities, MN Posts: 2,867	Originally posted by Clavius It's our vast numbers that is choking the environment. If there were only 4 million of us, instead of 4 billion, then we could ALL drive hummers, eat whale and cut down every tree we stumble upon, without influencing the ecosystem in any way whatsoever. So rather than be practical and look for solutions you'd prefer to just kill off 599,600,000 people from the population then... What exactly is the point of your perspective?!

07-19-2011, 05:29 AM	#6
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by pxpaulx So rather than be practical and look for solutions you'd prefer to just kill off 599,600,000 people from the population then... What exactly is the point of your perspective?! Why always with the killing? Look at China, their birth reduction program is doing its work. The population is slowly, but steadily, decreasing.

07-19-2011, 05:31 AM	#7
redrockcoulee Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Medicine Hat Posts: 2,306	Originally posted by Clavius I don't see how greed or profit making is destroying the planet. Everybody has the right to provide for themselves and their families in the best possible way. If we all did a step back, we would only delay the problem until our numbers have increased again. It's our vast numbers that is choking the environment. If there were only 4 million of us, instead of 4 billion, then we could ALL drive hummers, eat whale and cut down every tree we stumble upon, without influencing the ecosystem in any way whatsoever. Have you read Jared's Collapse where he describes at least half a dozen societies that did destroy their ecosystems and therefore themselves and none of them had anywhere near the populations that we do? There seems to be the concept by some that those of us who care about the planet and the environment must make the choice between living with all of our current excesses or to totally stop using any resource at all. Your last statement has been proven totally wrong even using examples within North American where many of our ecosystems have been severely altered in the past when the Earth's population was only 4 billion. We need to live smarter lives and use our resources in a more manageable way. And yes the population needs to be curbed and then reduced. All historical evidence shows that when a society becomes more affluent the number of children each family produces drastically falls. In the developed world we need to accelerate the belief within the family that large number of children are not necessary for their survival. But we cannot ignore our responsibility as compare the amount of resources the average North American uses compared to entire families in Africa or parts of Asia and I think it shows very clearly that we are part of the problem and there is no reason that we need to be part of the solution and with our relative wealth and historical use of the resources we have a larger responsibility that those of the third world. It is not up to them to solve our problems for us. But the choices are not between driving a Hummer or having to walk or having a house that is not occupied during the day but the ac is running making it so cold that when people come home they need to wear sweaters or not living in a house at all. Those are excuses for those who either do not care about the environment or the future of people on this earth or those who think that only poorer people than themselves should fix the problem.

07-19-2011, 05:58 AM	#8
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Originally posted by redrockcoulee Those are excuses for those who either do not care about the environment or the future of people on this earth or those who think that only poorer people than themselves should fix the problem. Citing out-of-control population growth as a problem doesn't mean that we don't need to "to live smarter lives and use our resources in a more manageable way." On the contrary, it makes it more urgent.

07-19-2011, 09:26 AM	#9
redrockcoulee Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Medicine Hat Posts: 2,306	Originally posted by dadipentak Citing out-of-control population growth as a problem doesn't mean that we don't need to "to live smarter lives and use our resources in a more manageable way." On the contrary, it makes it more urgent. Yes two separate problems with different solutions that need to be addressed at the same time as both affect our futures in more than simply the environment (health, security and affordabilty as well). Surely we are smart enough to do two things at the same time (as long as we do so not while driving )