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.

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.

So you made your figures up, just like every other argument you take part in.

You fucking fraud.

[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.

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.

We are also pretty good at managing such assets instead of simply using them until they are depleted.

[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.

We are also pretty good at managing such assets instead of simply using them until they are depleted.

Having a low population grants you that luxury.

[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.

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.

So you made your figures up, just like every other argument you take part in.

You fucking fraud.

Beat me to it. "I think, I know" are not substantial arguments.

[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.

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.

So you made your figures up, just like every other argument you take part in.

You fucking fraud.

Beat me to it. "I think, I know" are not substantial arguments.

Unless you're talking about Mammon.   

[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.

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?

Overfarm, yes we do, although not as badly as we used to and nowhere near as badly as the aforementioned impoverished nations.  I don't think we're importing food from Africa, I know that we do import a fair amount from Central and South America.

There's more than food at stake though, we're importing vast quantities of oil as well as burning a huge amount of oil, we import diamonds from Africa, which is not a good thing at all as far as the environment or society goes due to the ways in which they are harvested.  We consume more of everything than anyone else and that is contributing to environmental degredation all over the world.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Overfarm, yes we do,

Post link or shut the fuck up.

[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.

So you made your figures up, just like every other argument you take part in.

You fucking fraud.

Are you seriously disputing that we consume a lot more per capita than Chinese people,Indian people or Africans?  I can source if I have to, but I know there's no way you're going to read the sources.

[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.

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.

So you made your figures up, just like every other argument you take part in.

You fucking fraud.

Are you seriously disputing that we consume a lot more per capita than Chinese people,Indian people or Africans?  I can source if I have to, but I know there's no way you're going to read the sources.

Link to the figures you posted.  I want to see proof that one American does more harm to the environment than 15 Africans.  Thanks.

[Epimetheus]

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.

So you made your figures up, just like every other argument you take part in.

You fucking fraud.

Are you seriously disputing that we consume a lot more per capita than Chinese people,Indian people or Africans?  I can source if I have to, but I know there's no way you're going to read the sources.

Link to the figures you posted.  I want to see proof that one American does more harm to the environment than 15 Africans.  Thanks.

Ditto. (lurking )

[Phox]

Ditto. (lurking )

Hey, I'm the only one allowed to lurk! 

[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.

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?

Overfarm, yes we do, although not as badly as we used to and nowhere near as badly as the aforementioned impoverished nations.  I don't think we're importing food from Africa, I know that we do import a fair amount from Central and South America.

There's more than food at stake though, we're importing vast quantities of oil as well as burning a huge amount of oil, we import diamonds from Africa, which is not a good thing at all as far as the environment or society goes due to the ways in which they are harvested.  We consume more of everything than anyone else and that is contributing to environmental degredation all over the world.

Bullshit. farmers know exactly when and how to manage land. Some areas are left fallow, crops are rotated to rebuild the soil. I live in farm country, and I see the fallow land, I drive right by it. Overfarmed my fucking ass.

[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.

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.

So you made your figures up, just like every other argument you take part in.

You fucking fraud.

Are you seriously disputing that we consume a lot more per capita than Chinese people,Indian people or Africans?  I can source if I have to, but I know there's no way you're going to read the sources.

Link to the figures you posted.  I want to see proof that one American does more harm to the environment than 15 Africans.  Thanks.

Ditto. (lurking )

I love the arguments so far.  "We use more oil", while neglecting to add, "we also use a hell of a lot more pollution control technology", which is why our cities aren't covered in horrible clouds of death, like they were from 1860-1970, and like Mexico City and Beijing are now.

More people + little or no pollution control (scrubbers, baghouses, catalytic converters, etc) = WAY more damage than we produce, even with us using the lion's share of the oil.

[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?

Overfarm, yes we do, although not as badly as we used to and nowhere near as badly as the aforementioned impoverished nations.  I don't think we're importing food from Africa, I know that we do import a fair amount from Central and South America.

There's more than food at stake though, we're importing vast quantities of oil as well as burning a huge amount of oil, we import diamonds from Africa, which is not a good thing at all as far as the environment or society goes due to the ways in which they are harvested.  We consume more of everything than anyone else and that is contributing to environmental degredation all over the world.

Bullshit. farmers know exactly when and how to manage land. Some areas are left fallow, crops are rotated to rebuild the soil. I live in farm country, and I see the fallow land, I drive right by it. Overfarmed my fucking ass.

You're wasting your time.  He's just making shit up again.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Yeah.

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

Negative population growth is a potential solution, but it would have to be a very slow and controlled decline because currently every economy on Earth is not only dependent on growth, but based on the assumption of growth.

The only reason the US population is currently growing is because of immigration. I don't think Tea Partiers understand what would happen to our economy if we ended immigration. But then, there's a lot they don't understand.