quincy;3297222]So you are saying you are a fringe lunatic?
it sounds so much more hip than eccentric. Being eccentric makes me sound old.
Waiting for those in need to die, though, so there is more (oil, food, water, whatever) for everyone else hardly seems a solution that is acceptable.
now that's not what I said. I said cause them to revolt. You aren't going to do it by feeding them. You aren't going to do it by providing the basic needs. People that are provided for have no reason to change things.
Nor is using up the available resources (like oil) in an effort to spur the creation of newer technologies or the acceptance of existing technologies (like wind power or solar energy) a solution that seems to make much sense to me.
really? Ever consider why we have the alternative sources we now have? The "we're running out of oil" scare. If somebody didn't yell that once in awhile nobody would have even started on those alternative sources. Humanity is a lazy lazy group in general. We want everything handed to us and life made as easy as possible. Conservation is nothing more than a delay of the inevitable and it stifles innovation in alternate sources of energy. Use that crap up. Then you will find alternatives, I guarantee it.
Only when the resources currently used as our main source of power, food, water, and anything else are near to actually being used up will society in general take a replacement seriously. You must realize that electric cars were here before gas powered cars, right? by about 50 years even.
so, answer me this: can we run out of electricity? Can we run out of gasoline? why did we end up with gasoline? There are myriad ways to produce electricity. There is one way to procure oil.
so why did we end up with gas powered cars instead of electric? If as much effort was put into electric cars as there has been into gas engines over the last 130 years (roughly the time gas powered cars have been around), can you imagine where they might be today? Hell, Nik Tesla was tossing out theory that is still not understood today, and sadly to say he died in poverty due to a political battle with a man who is held so high in society one would think he was Jesus' brother yet if you know the truth behind the man, there is a bit of smell of rot. ($50,000 worth of rot)
Oh, why we ended up with gas cars instead of electric:
money. Not the money of the masses but the money one man envisioned, for himself. Upon the discovery of oil there was a cheap source of energy available, Mr Rockefeller saw what the future held though so he cornered the market and became the third wealthiest man ever to live and everybody involved with oil has been in it for the buck since then. It is one of the dirtiest sources of energy available. It is the source of pollution exceeding probably any other single source of pollution yet here we are, praying to the mighty oil well that it give us just a little bit more of it's precious fluid.
when the oil runs out, those with the influence, power, money will decide what our next source of energy is. We will not make that determination.
In other words, I applaud those who are working to improve life for those whose lives need the most improving, even if these improvements work to increase the world's population.
an increase in population will lead to a increase on a demand for all resources which will result in a reduction available to any one. That is why we fight wars. I guess that gets me back to the same result since that too will result in a population adjustment although I loathe war so it is not the way I would prefer to see it go.
while it may sound crude but answer me this;
can we turn the Sahara into a lush green source of food? Not without massive amounts of money so tell me; why do we provide sustenance that allows the inhabitants to continue to live in an area that will never sustain them beyond a life of near starvation? How about we airlift all of them and drop them into the middle of the USA? Oh, nobody wants to do that? Why?
we love to look like we are saving the world but in reality, at best we are delaying the inevitable death of the people we claim to be saving. In fact, we may be making it worse. Ever wonder why it is typical to have a huge number of children in that area of the world? How about because the mortality rate is so high, if the family wishes to continue, they must account for that. So, what happens when you reduce the mortality rate? You have more people. More people mean it takes more resources to maintain them. Then as the population increases, so does the annual birthrate. How long can anybody sustain providing for them? All it takes is a political shift in any country that is providing support to cause the support of those peoples to end. Now, rather what do you do? You have a higher rate of starvation than you ever did.
My brother often made the comment;
why do we help them live where the lifestyle we are creating is not sustainable without outside resources? Remember the dust bowl in our country? What happened to the people affected by that? They moved to where they could live. Maybe that might be considered for all those we are attempting to provide food and water for in areas that simply cannot be self sustaining.
we want to feel good thinking we are helping but in the long run, I think it is making it worse for those people.
the funny thing about the world, and life in general; it imposes limits. If there isn't enough food, population growth slows or even declines. If there isn't water; same thing. Providing food and water for those in areas that will never be self sustaining is not providing a net benefit to anybody. All it does is give the current benefactors a big case of the warm fuzzies.
and that website is down the hall to your right.
that might be enough ramblings from me tonight.