I sympathize with the writer, and I agree that a reckoning is coming with growth
colliding with biological reality. But as the Keynesians demonstrated to
economics, a capitalist economy must grow continually to stay out of trouble.Savings accumulated do not induce investment. So unless there is
constant new investment (not just equipment replacement) the system can come
into equilibrium at less than full employment. So it has to be full bore
peddle-to-the-metal.At some point though we need to learn some new
tricks. China, the new #1 economy, which has been through multiple
transformations, and is a major polluter, may show the way.
Do people even understand that this planet can survive without us.Humans
will be wiped off the face of the earth and life will begin anew without us.Also, if humans are the most intellectually advance form of life on earth,
then why are we destroying our home? You don't find those other
"sub-human" animals doing the damage.
Humans have no control over the climate, Way to control us, and the earth was
built for man we were not built for the earth.
Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without=== Having travel this vast world, I have found countries who have been
around for thousands of years live by this rule.It was not uncommon
to find buildings 600 years old still being used daily, profitable, and very
much sought for.Utah is a 30 year disposable, moving, train wreck.
Out here, we're told there is always infinitely more to consume.
We definitely need Democrats to take the reins in Utah. We could then become a
progressive and sustainable state, say, like Michigan.
hivg, I am positive your maker does not approve of our abuse. I wonder if He
approves of the high man caused levels of methane in the Uinta Basin or in the
Denver area. I personally believe He doesn't approve of our ignoring the
opportunity to improve our living conditions throughout the world. I believe
there are few sins greater than not trying.
Everyone should read Richard Heinberg's "The End of Growth." Very
Not sure what the author was really trying to say here as there was a lot of
assumptions on unrelated items. If the author really wants to convey a message
then that message must be identified and an argument made for their point of
view.As best as I can tell, this is just several random thoughts bunched
together with no coherent argument backing it up.
Perhaps not, VST. But how about if we continue trying to educate the voters who
put them there?The biggest problem we face in doing that is finding
some way to get them to unplug their ears and begin listening to something
besides big money, right wing propaganda.
@Embarrased Utahn The earth is the only planet or moon in our solar system that
can sustain life. Other planets and moons of course survive but they cannot
sustain life. And humans are not destroying the planet. Our survival and
comfort is dependent on Agriculture, drilling, mining, and use of electricity
and cars that is what our Creator gave us to use wisely. You obviously use
electricity, I am sure drive and live in climate controlled houses. No other
apeceies uses rational thought or learns new things and passes them on. They
eat the food that is there and rely on mostly instinct and some learned behavior
by experience. Can't compare what other creatures do. Human survival and
feeding the world is dependent on what you criticize.
The author said:“We are now facing severe environmental,
population...”Actually, we’re not.The
Warmers and their “scientists” have not only been dead wrong in
their predictions concerning global warming, but they’ve also
misrepresented the data, and outright lied to push this myth. The Warmers are
the true “deniers.”Once again the Left is pushing
population control. Any wonder these ghouls love abortions.Just
like their bogus predictions concerning AGW, the Left also got it woefully wrong
in their predictions concerning over-population. Consider the
"predictions" of liberal icon, and Stanford University biology
professor, Paul Ehrlich, from his 1968 book, “The Population
Bomb”:* In the 1970s, hundreds of millions of people would
starve to death.* In the 1980s, food riots would cause the president
to dissolve the US Congress, and 65 million Americans would die of starvation
and disease. * By 1999 the US population would be reduced to only 22
million, and India and Great Britain would cease to exist.The left
do not deal in science or facts, they deal in fear mongering. These two issues
are simply the means by which they can control and suppress the people. These
people are nothing but oppressive statists.
high school fan said.... "Not sure what the author was really trying to say
here as there was a lot of assumptions on unrelated items."Allow
me to help you understand the author who, as I am, is a highly educated
University professor trying to pound the reality of global (including Utah) doom
into heads full of mush.Vastness is no more. We are cramming too
many people into the world (and Utah). Global warming in conjunction with
overpopulation has caused unprecedented drought, is destroying our environment
and has robbed us of our vastness. Governor Herbert and his "hard wired"
ilk have caused this catastrophe. Even though Utah currently has one of the most
prosperous economies in the country, unless we elect new leaders, who care more
deeply about the climate (e.g. President Obama), we will face cataclysmic loss
of all the things we cherish.I hope this helps.
If we truly have all these problems,then shouldn't we be using
science to solve them,and not use the "excuse of science"
just to control others and make few on the left wealthyAnd
let's not kid ourselves, climate science is just an excuse science, used by
the left for control over others also for gaining of wealth of the few.
Why do we stilll isten to the alarmists who have been wrong so many times?
I'm sorry Eli Tesecular PHD, but I still don't get it. You and your
buddy are highly educated college teachers and I am just a fairly good educated
college degreed athlete so I don't understand how the population is teaming
up with your version of global warming to eliminate our vastness. And
apparently Governor Herbert has enough power to push over the limit in his six
years of being governor but if we elected somebody else like you this would all
go away.But then I maybe have a head full of mush so that probably makes
me incapable of a full understanding if your logic but I know the earth has not
warmed in a very long time, like close to fifty years or so, and that people are
having less babies today than anytime in recent history and for everywhere there
is drought there is somewhere else getting a lot of rain since we don't
lose water off of this planet.I'm sorry but vastness still has me
buffaloed by exactly what you mean.
You would think the vicious ideas spawned in the first part of the twentieth
century would go away. Margaret Sanger and here followers felt the poor and
undesirables should be placed in interment camps, they should be sterilized to
prevent the poor and undesirables from breading. Cared for by the elite
progressives. This was the concept of the Third Reich, they just wanted to
control the population. This was Wilson force sterilization policies. This was
the plan of planned parenthood, genocide of a race. Eli Tesecular
PhD “as I am, is a highly educated University professor trying to pound
the reality of global (including Utah) doom into heads full of mush” like
a true progressive elitist, knows that he has to eradicate the poor and racially
inferior from the earth to provide the garden of Eden for the Elites. This guy is only moments away from reestablishing the final solution to save
the air, the water, the planet. Eugenics is alive and well here in Salt Lake
City. Got to eliminate all that mush headedness.
vastadjective1. of very great extent or quantity; immense.Last time I checked, the earth is the same size it's always been. So if
it was vast before... it's probably still vast today.The
POPULATION has changed. But the actual size of the earth has not changed.=====You can say we have now officially
"Over-populated" the earth. But over-population was a popular topic
back in the 60s and 70s as well. And the predictions of doom and gloom were
rampant, but they never happened. In fact, we learned that there are many
things that would probably wipe man out before over-population.To
the over-population folks still left over from the 60's... I would ask you
to board a plane and fly over Utah, the United States, or any continent, or just
watch video feeds from vehicles orbiting the earth... Look for man, and his
impact.... you will see that we (collectively, meaning all of humanity)
constitute a few specks on the face of this earth. It's still
"vast".Now that doesn't mean we waste it.... but
it's still just as "vast" as it ever was...
jsf said:"You would think the vicious ideas spawned in the first
part of the twentieth century would go away. Margaret Sanger and her followers
felt the poor and undesirables should be placed in internment camps, they should
be sterilized to prevent the poor and undesirables from breading. Cared for by
the elite progressives. This was the concept of the Third Reich, they just
wanted to control the population. This was Wilson force sterilization policies.
This was the plan of planned parenthood, genocide of a race."=====Let me just add to your excellent post:Margaret
Sanger is a Liberal Icon and founder of Planned Parenthood. In her 1939
"Negro Project", she had as her goal, the desire to greatly reduce the
Black population, or as she referred to them, "human weeds." Ever
wonder why so many Planned Parenthood Centers are in the inner-city? Thanks to white liberals, and bought and paid for race baiters like Jesse
Jackson and Al Sharpton, 13 million Black babies have aborted since 1973.Marxists and totalitarians MUST always eradicate segments of their
population...always! The environment is nothing more than the repackaging of
Communism. After-all, who could be against the environment...right?
I've always found leftwing science and theory, (which is actually their
religion) to be very useful. It's kind of like listening to my brother in
laws advice and philosophies. Whatever they say, do the opposite, you will be
better of and rewarded nicely, 90% of the time.
That's funny, I "liked" Eli's first comment because I thought
he was being sarcastic. Yes, we want to be sustainable like Michigan, especially
Detroit. Not.Here's another perspective. You know the tar sands
mining in Canada? That's our way of cleaning up Mother Nature's
biggest natural oil spill. We ought to clean up the tar shale here in Utah, too.
You know how we burn coal, oil, and natural gas? That's our way of
returning CO2 to the atmosphere, to the great delight of plant life everywhere,
which would prefer CO2 levels of, say, 2000 ppm instead of the starvation diet
of 400 ppm it gets today.If you would like to hear or read some
really sound reasoning about the environment, check out Dr. Patrick Moore,
co-founder of GreenPeace and climate change skeptic. I especially like his idea
that we should grow more trees and use more wood for construction and products.
That's real sustainability. Given that trees grow so much better with
elevated levels of CO2, we are either going to go broke fighting wildfires or we
are going to learn to use this great gift.
To "Eli Tesecular PhD" if you are half as smart as you claim, then
explain why we should be listening to the conclusions and theories of the
climatologists that are based on faulty models?The NOAA has stated
that if there was more than 15 years without warming, that would prove that the
models are wrong. We are now at year 17 with no warming, which more than meets
the criteria for proving the models wrong.Would you accept a
student's thesis if it was based on a mathematical model that was
incomplete or wrong? If you wouldn't accept a thesis based on a bad
mathematical model, why do you blindly accept the conclusions based on bad
HaHaHaHa,"Over-Population", Global-Warming, etc, are
"Religion" to some folks.Science's motto is...
"Question EVERYTHING". Religion is the opposite (don't question
your beliefs).To GW faithful... you are a "Denier" or a
Heretic, if you question their beliefs or present evidence it's a
false-faith. It's how people respond when someone questions their
Religion/beliefs.Scientists aren't offended when you question
them. They EXPECT to be questioned and WANT to have people to try to disprove
their theory (because IF the theory is true... you can't). Science/Natural-laws (math, kinematics, physics, chemistry, etc), can be
tested, predicted, and mathematically proven (you don't take it on faith,
or a consensus vote). Scientists WANT people to test and try to disprove their
theories (because "Science" involves proofs, not beliefs)... and if
their is something that disproves your theory... you WANT to know, because that
would indicate your theory is NOT CORRECT. Scientists accept their theory being
questioned and tested, they WANT mathematical proof (not pious belief).GW/Over-Population... is a man/science-based religion to believers who
won't tolerate it being questioned. It's "Science" to those
who encourage questioning it...
I'm not a "Neo-Malthusian", nor am I a "Denier" -- reality
seems to lie somewhere in the middle, supporting the idea that there are climate
and natural resource issues that need to be addressed sooner, rather than later,
but not supporting the idea that global climatological cataclysm is imminent.Is the earth overpopulated? Compared to what? There certainly exists
regional overpopulation, relative to the regionally available natural resources,
but global carrying capacity and overpopulation is much more difficult to
reliably ascertain. There are simply too many complex variables involved. For
example, according to FAO-UN data, per capita food production trends have
remained very stable for the past 50 years or so (Europe has declined, Asia has
increased, and everyone else has stayed pretty flat). But before the Deniers
start shouting, "I told you so!!” it should be noted that the data
doesn't address the increase in GMOs and energy inputs that have occurred
to maintain stable per capita food production (for now).However,
regardless of whether you are a Believer or Denier, it is hard to argue against
being a better steward of our planet, and using our natural resources more
wisely and efficiently.
Sven,Denial doesn't do anything but make the situation worse.
Denial isn't a solution. It's just avoidance and avoidance is
jcr103 said:"Denial doesn't do anything but make the
situation worse. Denial isn't a solution. It's just avoidance and
avoidance is counter-productive."=====So, are you calling
me an AGW denier, or are you agreeing with me that the true deniers are the
"Warmers"? I'm honestly not sure what angle you're taking
here?If per chance you're referring to me as a denier, we can
discuss the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, and the University of East Anglia in detail.