by KaiserJeep » Sat 25 May 2019, 00:38:02
The real issue is the whole "killing the planet" meme. I mean, if the choice is between "X" numbers of people killing the planet by consuming resources, or "2X" the number of people killing the planet while making themselves miserable by being frugal in everything they do, in the process consuming half the resources per person, then it is completely obvious that the optimum and more preferable and more manageable alternative is #1, because half the number of people will suffer the consequences of insufficient resources.
I mean, there are 7.7+ Billion people on this Earth. If they were all perfect and greedy and careless bastards who consumed 7X the resources necessary to live, we would have about 1.1 Billion humans, within the capacity of the planet, who could all live happily and renewably forever.
However, because we have some multiple of the number of humans the Earth can tolerate, we ARE killing the planet. Thoughtfull and considerate and wise thinkers would do everything they can do to avoid further growth in human numbers, which is hastening TEOTWAWKI, and endorse activity that "killls the planet" quicker and with less cumulative damage.
We have discussed this same point many times. dohboi does not want to have this discussion, and (judging by previous actions) will ignore this observation and simply not discuss it. Days or weeks later, he will revive the thread with some other sillly link.
(personal observations about dohboi and his reasoning removed by me, they were ad hominems.}
dohboi, please confront this conumdrum about human overshoot. We HAVE asked you more than once.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001
Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.
Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0