Italy to ban plastic bags

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem.  China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.

Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue.  The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.

[Adios]

ZPG ITT

[The Good Reverend Roger]

ZPG ITT

[Adios]

ZPG ITT

Yeah, it was a dumb movie. Do not be critical of my twisted thinking process at this time, it doesn't care. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

ZPG ITT

Yeah, it was a dumb movie. Do not be critical of my twisted thinking process at this time, it doesn't care. 

Wait.

Zero Population Growth ITT?

[Adios]

Yeah.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yeah.

I can get behind that.  Population control = necessary.  Population reduction = Horrorfun involving removing humans from the planet en masse.

[Adios]

Yeah.

I can get behind that.  Population control = necessary.  Population reduction = Horrorfun involving removing humans from the planet en masse.

Excellent analysis of the difference between the two.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yeah.

I can get behind that.  Population control = necessary.  Population reduction = Horrorfun involving removing humans from the planet en masse.

Excellent analysis of the difference between the two.

Since BH is in favor of reduction, I think he should lead by example.

[Adios]

Yeah.

I can get behind that.  Population control = necessary.  Population reduction = Horrorfun involving removing humans from the planet en masse.

Excellent analysis of the difference between the two.

Since BH is in favor of reduction, I think he should lead by example.

Did he mean reduction by attrition or reduction by throwing peeps off the planet?

[BabylonHoruv]

Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem.  China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.

Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue.  The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.

Americans consume far more, per capita, than Indians, Africans or Chinese.  If we were actually producing locally and not part of a globally interconnected economy then I'd agree with you, but since we are actually a globally interconnected economy every extra American is about as bad as 15 extra Africans.

[Adios]

Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem.  China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.

Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue.  The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.

Americans consume far more, per capita, than Indians, Africans or Chinese.  If we were actually producing locally and not part of a globally interconnected economy then I'd agree with you, but since we are actually a globally interconnected economy every extra American is about as bad as 15 extra Africans.

Um, double check your info about the Chinese. They have been making great strides recently.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem.  China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.

Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue.  The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.

Americans consume far more, per capita, than Indians, Africans or Chinese.  If we were actually producing locally and not part of a globally interconnected economy then I'd agree with you, but since we are actually a globally interconnected economy every extra American is about as bad as 15 extra Africans.

Well, then, we're still ahead of the game because we're only 5% of the world's population, and we have a birthrate less than 2 (meaning there aren't any extra Americans.  There are less...Only immigration is keeping our population stable/mildly increasing (300 Mn in 2000, 301 Mn today).

Now, let's talk about what "consume" means.  Do we eat more, have more, etc?  Yes.  Do we burn each other's crops, cut down every forest we have, and overfarm the fuck out of our land?  No.

Just what percentage of food consumed in America is imported, BH?  How much do we export?  Are you suggesting we're eating all the food grown in the Congo?

[BabylonHoruv]

Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem.  China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.

Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue.  The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.

Americans consume far more, per capita, than Indians, Africans or Chinese.  If we were actually producing locally and not part of a globally interconnected economy then I'd agree with you, but since we are actually a globally interconnected economy every extra American is about as bad as 15 extra Africans.

Um, double check your info about the Chinese. They have been making great strides recently.

That's part of why I wasn't specific. I don't think we consume as much as 15 Chinese any more, I know we don't consume as much as 15 average Indians, I just know we consume a lot more than they do.  The Africans are still living in shitholes so I figured 15 to 1 was a safe ratio when it came to them even if the info is a bit old.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem.  China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.

Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue.  The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.

Americans consume far more, per capita, than Indians, Africans or Chinese.  If we were actually producing locally and not part of a globally interconnected economy then I'd agree with you, but since we are actually a globally interconnected economy every extra American is about as bad as 15 extra Africans.

Um, double check your info about the Chinese. They have been making great strides recently.

Such great strides that Beijing will be under sand in 17 years.

Americans have more, but that's largely because we are both underpopulated and sitting on the best farmland/mineral deposits (overall) in the world.  Not because we go steal all the crops from Bangladesh, as BH seems to be implying.