The world is not overpopulated take 3

[twin2]

Oh good, I lurv trivia. I have the following guesses (and I think it is something gross, or else what would even be the point in asking?):

A) Dead bees

B) Bee pee

C) Bee feces

D) Some sort of icky bacteria

E) Enough water to make all the world's deserts into usable and sustainable farmland

D) Ionizing microwave radiation that will kill people and make them dehydrated.

[debrand]

New houses in the south are not built for the weather any longer. At one time, southern houses all had porches and were built to allow air flow. This helped people stay cool in the heat. I'm not saying that these methods were perfect, but they helped.

During the hottest part of the year, I have to close my curtains to prevent the heat form coming in through the windows. That makes the house dark and depressing.

My brother's house is so much better. He has a porch in the front and a screened in one out back. The porches shade the windows. He also has trees to offer shade. When the builders put in the houses in my neighborhood, they tore down the trees!

[xDreamerx]

I find certain "green" types annoying for the same reason that many people find fundie Christians annoying. Around here we have a lot of people who seem to believe it is their personal mission to save the earth and if you are not every bit as devoted to it as they are, you are horrible, awful, earth-hating scum, no matter what your circumstances might be. For example, my apartment has no recycling. You can either throw it in the garbage or I guess go take it to the recycling center yourself. I'm a college student trying to stay awake while I write five papers at once. I don't have time to be hauling shit all over town. But the green nazis won't even listen to that. It also irritates me that they put all the blame on the individual. No one ever gets upset at the powers that be who decide whether or not there will be recycling at my apartment. No, it's all my fault for not trying harder to recycle.

It's not that I disagree with their cause, but in this area there are a lot of people who are single-mindedly devoted to some cause or another and they won't give the time of day to anyone who's not. I get annoyed with all these people. In my mind it's just another way of dressing up judgment of people who don't want to live exactly like you.

Edited to fix a typo.

This times infinity +1. I hate the sort of "college activism" type of attitude that surrounds this issue and by that I mean the kind of ferver for a cause that seems to be unique to colleges. I'm all for college people turning people on and making them aware, but sometimes people take it to the extreme and consider it in circumstances that just do not consider practicality in any way. My college has recycling and I recycle there (as I do at home) but they only recycle certain plastics at the University not all. I live about 30 mins by car away from the recycling and I don't have a car so I'd have to take a taxi (about 15-20 per way), which is expensive to a student for something not essential. I recycle at home and I do recycle what is available. I use reuseable bags when I go shopping etc. But one of my friends birated me for not using solid shampoos and certain herbal products. She's all into that kind of thing and thinks it's some kind of moral outrage that people have differing opinons to hers. I like bottled shampoo and I don't mind sulfates in it, get over it. They also seem to think if you're not "green" enough you can't possibly be a real feminist. I consider myself a feminist but she told me I ought to give up meat and that she was attening a lecture on "the politics of meat" and how "women are sexualized much like meat". What? So I should become a vegan because women are often objectified?! How does that even make sense?

I also wonder if people are just green because it's the politics or trend of the moment. It's the new black. It's cool. I wonder if people would eagerly drop it whenever the next thing came along. I also think there has to be happy medium between green ideas and the economy. There has been a big push in Ontario to shut down coal plants all one go. But we can't feasibly do that, a great number of people would end up unemployed. There needs to be a phasing out of old methods and only when there are things to fill the void.

[jaelh]

This times infinity +1. I hate the sort of "college activism" type of attitude that surrounds this issue and by that I mean the kind of ferver for a cause that seems to be unique to colleges.

Most people grow out of it. Most. Not all. You have been duly warned.

[Cassandra]

I think that if you need something for your health and it is available, and you are making some kind of meaningful contribution to the world by having it, then fine. I have to have a serving or two of meat every week. I need it. That doesn't mean I need steak every day, or even hamburger.

I have friends (a lot of them) who apparently physically nneeeedddd to have their houses kept below 70 in the summer, and they also nnneeeddd to have their homes kept at almost 80 in the winter. They would swear that their health hits the fan if things are not kept at their ideal temperature, but if they can live with 80 in the winter wearing a sweater and slippers, I don't see why it becomes unbearable in the summer with a tank top on.

You get used to living at natural temperatures. I'm not saying we should all sleep in 25 degree homes in winter or 115 in the summer. And of course some people really need a cool home or a warm one--but most people who swear that they do, absolutely do not. When we refuse to evaluate perceived needs, we are hurting people. We are making people do without. The world only has so many resources and we need to start considering what our fair share might be.

If we don't learn to do it by choice, we will eventually have to do it by necessity.

Poverty is the best answer to heating/cooling issues : )

As a poor college student I was way too tight on money to keep my apartment very warm in the winter. I did 'No Heat November' which wasn't too bad until around thanksgiving, and then kept my thermostat between 50-65 and used a lot of blankets.

Now, in the summer my apartment is not air conditioned, but it does have a built in window unit. However, again, I would rather spend ( or save) my money on things other than electric, so I only use the a/c on days like today with a heat index of 105 :shock: Also, I used to work as an outdoor lifeguard, and grew up in a house that was too old for a/c to have been put in originally and for cheap installation, so I'm used to the heat :D I'm more worried about my pitiful long haired cat.

[Oddeverything]

Here is the thing - why is your need to be cooled any the more important than someone else's need for light or running water; or for someone in the Rajasthan desert to have access to a fan to prevent the same symptoms? Why is any given old man's need to be air conditioned to live more important than an other old man in East Timor's need to be air conditioned to live, or than a hospital in Zambia's need for power to run or a nursing centre in Guatemala to have the power to run equipment to save children's lived?

Most defiantly- any given individual in the west might suffer/have to do without comforts we currently enjoy with a redistribution of resources.

However, there are any number of given individuals in the world who are are already suffering/going without. That we currently have a claim on air con and the like doesn't make the claim free from charge against it .

I think it is esp important to remember this because it's the existence of that claim itself [ie] that's resulting in depravations amongst others that we say would make relinquishing the claim impossible [ie].

I can understand anything like the above really deeply bugs those who don't think there is an issue with resource consumption. And even many of those who do

Agree with camdendayton that it can be seen as a threat against a way of life. Why shouldn't every person in China and India have access to electric heating and cooling - and the same consumption patterns- as we do? In our current state the world would be on its knees if such a thing happened. That we had this pattern of consumption first etc.. first doesn't mean that we have a right to it. If we don't want China and India to scale our heady heights of consumption, the only we can level such a claim to to adjust our own power use etc... Otherwise we're hypocritical as hell.

Finally - I hope Science can work out how to make nuclear waste safe, I really do. And I love lentils. :)

So, just in the interests of open and rational debate, how do you propose that theologygeek get the energy and resources she uses to prevent extreme physical discomfort and debilitating illness to those who don't have access to such technology and resources in developing nations?

This is a facile argument on your end because there is no way for Westerners with a high standard of living to reallocate our resources. Not running my air conditioning will reduce the impact on the grid in Central Texas, but even if there were a direct causation between me reducing my energy consumption and a person in Sudan, Colombia or Nepal having access to the resources I did not use, there would be no way for me to get those resources to that person without first finding a way to circumvent the political machines, social mores and religious mania that directly cause suffering. Until we change the foreign policies in the West and enforce basic human rights in developing nations via the barrel of a gun, there is no way for me to make sure anyone anywhere else is not suffering.

Moreover, your argument is specious as well because simply reducing energy consumption or curbing consumption is not going to help prevent developing nations from desiring a developed nation standard of living. The cat is out of the bag. The genie is out of the bottle. If half of America gave up electricity, began homesteading for all food and clothing needs, crushed their cars, lived communally and engaged in the bare minimum consumption that is needed in order to reverse the global impact of the first world, it not only would not be enough to address resource scarcity, but it also would not impact consumer desires in other nations. I haven't seen a single sociological survey that indicates that if theologygeek gave up her A/C and endured her headaches that it would result in people in developing nations no longer aspiring to Western styles of living, but if there is one, I would be very interested.

All the finger pointing about who should give up what does is make those who compost and use solar power feel better. It is a bandaid on a mortal wound. I hate to rain on anyone's sense of improving the world, and we should all try to do what we can, but the genie really is out of the bottle. Human beings are venal, stupid and greedy, even the best of us. Westerners are not willing to go back to a medieval way of life and people all over the world are unwilling to stop reproducing. People are going to keep having children and continuing to use Western standards of living as a benchmark until there is a Malthusian event that will clean this planet's clock. And then it will begin all over again if any of us survive.

So I think theologygeek should keep running her A/C. I transfer to her all the resources I didn't use when I didn't have children.

[O Latin]

This times infinity +1. I hate the sort of "college activism" type of attitude that surrounds this issue and by that I mean the kind of ferver for a cause that seems to be unique to colleges. I'm all for college people turning people on and making them aware, but sometimes people take it to the extreme and consider it in circumstances that just do not consider practicality in any way. My college has recycling and I recycle there (as I do at home) but they only recycle certain plastics at the University not all. I live about 30 mins by car away from the recycling and I don't have a car so I'd have to take a taxi (about 15-20 per way), which is expensive to a student for something not essential. I recycle at home and I do recycle what is available. I use reuseable bags when I go shopping etc. But one of my friends birated me for not using solid shampoos and certain herbal products. She's all into that kind of thing and thinks it's some kind of moral outrage that people have differing opinons to hers. I like bottled shampoo and I don't mind sulfates in it, get over it. They also seem to think if you're not "green" enough you can't possibly be a real feminist. I consider myself a feminist but she told me I ought to give up meat and that she was attening a lecture on "the politics of meat" and how "women are sexualized much like meat". What? So I should become a vegan because women are often objectified?! How does that even make sense?

I also wonder if people are just green because it's the politics or trend of the moment. It's the new black. It's cool. I wonder if people would eagerly drop it whenever the next thing came along. I also think there has to be happy medium between green ideas and the economy. There has been a big push in Ontario to shut down coal plants all one go. But we can't feasibly do that, a great number of people would end up unemployed. There needs to be a phasing out of old methods and only when there are things to fill the void.

Yes, this too. I absolutely hate it when women's magazines run features on things like "eco-friendly" jeans that cost $250, because the average Jane can totally afford that. :roll: It just irritates me to no end the way consumerist culture has taken over the environmental movement, so now we're supposed to be "green" by buying stuff. I find that almost as annoying as the "I'm the greenest greenie of all" nuts.

[Childless]

Sorry, but the heat index where I live is currently 110 degrees during the day. I will run my air conditioner. I need to run my air conditioner because I have a 9 month old son. Is his life more important than a 9 month old in Sri Lanka or Uganda? To me it is. And it's my job as a parent to ensure that he does not die from heat exhaustion. I feel bad for those kids in third world countries. It upsets me that they do not have adequate resources. But that is not an excuse to put my own child in danger.

[Boogalou]

. They also seem to think if you're not "green" enough you can't possibly be a real feminist. I consider myself a feminist but she told me I ought to give up meat and that she was attening a lecture on "the politics of meat" and how "women are sexualized much like meat". What? So I should become a vegan because women are often objectified?! How does that even make sense?

Ecofeminism. They definately make some interesting arguments and it is worth looking into because it is kind of interesting. I read one article (and I am completely paraphrasing here) that said animals, much like women, are thought of as lesser beings than human males so people should not kill and eat them. The argument is that the middle class in the west does not really need animals to live so they should be vegetarian/veagan otherwise they are just being exploitive for the sake of it. The problem with this argument (I think) is that they are drawing some arbitrary line about the worth of life. It is bad to kill animals but just fine to kill plants. Sorry if this is lecture-y. While I don't really consider myself an ecofeminist I still like to read about it as some of their other arguments are definately food for thought.

[Cassandra]

Sorry, but the heat index where I live is currently 110 degrees during the day. I will run my air conditioner. I need to run my air conditioner because I have a 9 month old son. Is his life more important than a 9 month old in Sri Lanka or Uganda? To me it is. And it's my job as a parent to ensure that he does not die from heat exhaustion. I feel bad for those kids in third world countries. It upsets me that they do not have adequate resources. But that is not an excuse to put my own child in danger.

:clap: :clap:

[emmiedahl]

I was raised a dirty hippie, so I don't think this is a fad for me. I was cloth diapering and using a clothes line when we were firmly at the upper end of middle class.

While one person using less electric does not affect the third world, there would be more resources for the third world if we all were being more careful. Moreover, I think the availability of energy and food is going to hit a crisis level of shortage in my lifetime. It used to be that just people in North America and Europe were living comfy, inefficient lives. Now people in China and India can afford the same, and on top of it we have gotten even more wasteful in our consumption in the US.

If I needed to keep the house at 78 for health reasons, I would. But I would look at other areas to cut back, to make up for that one bit of over-consumption. Right now I cannot hang out clothing. It is ironically against the rules here in subsidized housing. So I cut back in other areas. I live in Central Washington, where it can get in the 100s in summer and below 0 in the winter. I am not going to compromise my children's health, but if they are comfortable playing outside on a 90 degree day then I don't know why their health would demand cooler temperatures while they are sitting. Before this, I lived in Redding, CA and saw like 6 months of the year with high heat, sometimes up to 120. We did use air conditioning then when needed of course.

I don't want to be the Green Nazi and I don't think I take it that far at all. I just think we have a responsibility to evaluate our lifestyles as far as how they are affecting others, to think 'if everyone made this decision, then...'. I have a large family; that's not eco-friendly. I have a minivan that I use occasionally. I have a roof and a refrigerator and a hot water tank just waiting to give me a long bath, which would put me in the upper 5% of the world as far as lifestyle goes despite being one of the poorest people in the US.

[SquirrelySquirrel]

I don't want to be the Green Nazi and I don't think I take it that far at all. I just think we have a responsibility to evaluate our lifestyles as far as how they are affecting others, to think 'if everyone made this decision, then...'.

This is how I feel, and it most certainly isn't a fad to me. I'm nowhere near as green as I could be, but I do my best. My a/c is on right now and will be the rest of the week, as we are having a helluva heat wave with a heat index of 100+ and very high humidity expected every day, and my daughter's (and mine, for that matter) allergies are making her miserable and she has a cold. She needs to be able to sleep.

But I do a lot of simple things, such as using vinegar and baking soda for most of my cleaning needs (there is no need to waste $$ on expensive "green" cleaning supplies), using my clothesline whenever possible, using reusable shopping bags (this is a huge one, and frankly, I think it's inexcusable not to. I wish everywhere would outlaw plastic bags like some larger cities have done. I give reusable bags as gifts as often as possible.), recycling, buying secondhand items, local produce, local meat, etc. And I'm always open to new ideas. I'm never rude to others about their choices, but I do always try to offer tips and I won't apologize for it.

[xDreamerx]

Ecofeminism. They definately make some interesting arguments and it is worth looking into because it is kind of interesting. I read one article (and I am completely paraphrasing here) that said animals, much like women, are thought of as lesser beings than human males so people should not kill and eat them. The argument is that the middle class in the west does not really need animals to live so they should be vegetarian/veagan otherwise they are just being exploitive for the sake of it. The problem with this argument (I think) is that they are drawing some arbitrary line about the worth of life. It is bad to kill animals but just fine to kill plants. Sorry if this is lecture-y. While I don't really consider myself an ecofeminist I still like to read about it as some of their other arguments are definately food for thought.

No I understand. It isn't lecture-y. I suppose I just disagree. I'm all for eco friendly-ness and feminism. I just like them to be considered separately. I realise they have a history. Suffragettes were often vegetarian. But I think feminism needs to be a big tent. I just think eco feminism is a bit silly and I might get flamed for this, but whatever. Animals are animals. They are not people. I'm not saying that they should be treated unfairly or abused, but the notion that I should hold them to be on the same level as a human being capable of reasoning and complex thought is just ridiculous. What do these ecofeminists propose we do to test medicines, test them entirely on humans? I'm of the opinion that there is a hierarchy to the natural world and if humans can use animals to make advances, we ought to. Again, not to the level of abuse, but they are still animals. The idea that I should treat an animal as a person because my sex was once treated as chattle is ridiculous.

[browncoatslytherin]

i wish i could have ac, i have asthma that has been aggravated ever since i had pnemonia earlier this year, and it is very difficult living. i can barely do any housework because i have to be in front of a fan most of the time. i'll be so glad when summer is over.

[Brainsample]

i wish i could have ac, i have asthma that has been aggravated ever since i had pnemonia earlier this year, and it is very difficult living. i can barely do any housework because i have to be in front of a fan most of the time. i'll be so glad when summer is over.

{{{{hugs}}}} Am awake - can't breathe well but have AC, and I'd share if I could. I think I used my inh 30 times today while I was out. Weeds are bad here, and ragweed soon will start.

Rest and sleep well and breathe well tonight! (And for the rest of the summer!)

[Brainsample]

I didn't read the whole thread, and I don't know if anyone's interested. This pertains to the first page of comments.

I heard the "everyone with an acre of land in Texas" line before, and then I lived there with the vermin scorpions dropping in bed at night. Ick vomit shudder

I can tell you why the numbers are off today, at least. They may not have been initially.

I first heard this same quote and stats in a lecture by Josh McDowell that was recorded circa '81. So I don't know what world population was in '81 or likely before, but it may have been closer to some accurate figure within that general time frame or before.

People keep quoting this to say that there is no overpopulation problem, ignoring population growth, the decrease in farming land and crops, the decrease in drinkable water and surface water in many places, etc. So McDowell may have been right when he taught this decades ago, and he may have quoted someone's info who used statistics that were also much older.

Brilliant. My husband pulled this with me a couple of years ago, and I spouted off a list of stuff that countered these ideas. He stuck by the idea that there's not a problem, but he stopped talking about it when I reminded him that we owned acreage in Texas and couldn't wait to leave!

[jaelh]

So, just in the interests of open and rational debate, how do you propose that theologygeek get the energy and resources she uses to prevent extreme physical discomfort and debilitating illness to those who don't have access to such technology and resources in developing nations?

Sorry, I don't think I've explained myself well. Personally, I don't give a rats ass if theologygeek uses aircon; or if Childless' child (damn, that's amusing to write :) ) needs to be kept cool. Fire away.

But don't jump up and down and say over populated, no resources to support more people!

It's got nothing to do with over population. It's to do with wanting to protect a personal situation of advantage. Which is fine and all, but not an argument about why the world needs less people.

This is a facile argument on your end because there is no way for Westerners with a high standard of living to reallocate our resources. Not running my air conditioning will reduce the impact on the grid in Central Texas, but even if there were a direct causation between me reducing my energy consumption and a person in Sudan, Colombia or Nepal having access to the resources I did not use, there would be no way for me to get those resources to that person without first finding a way to circumvent the political machines, social mores and religious mania that directly cause suffering. Until we change the foreign policies in the West and enforce basic human rights in developing nations via the barrel of a gun, there is no way for me to make sure anyone anywhere else is not suffering.

You don't seem to be attributing any value to reducing the pressure on the grid in Texas? but anyhow....

I do think if "the west" used less, there would be more for others. But, again - this was a thread about over population and resource use relative to. Not anything to do with environmental activism.

I take it no one is actually disagreeing with the proposition that if we better allocated resources (and this includes reducing the need for particular resources eg: use of eves of the type debrand mentioned earlier to reduce the need for cooling; building design; etc..) we could support a larger number of people in a comfortable manner than is presently the case? Why must we have extreme comfort on one hand and depravation on the other? "Quality of life" =/= western living standards.

That any individual lifestyle choice doesn't change the balance isn't an argument against changing the balance.

yes, "the horse is out the door" and everyone wants what the west has. But again - it's not actually possible to achieve that. That's a given - the world has finite resources. We either make the shift to nuclear or inevitably, at some point, the end game has to change. What any individual person, or humanity together, *wants* means, in the grand scheme of the universe, remarkably little.

So I think theologygeek should keep running her A/C. I transfer to her all the resources I didn't use when I didn't have children.

Sorry. Those resources were never yours. They might have belonged to the children you didn't have. But they never, ever were yours to give to anyone else.

This is the thing I don't get - sure, don't give anything up you don't want. No problems people. But for our children's children - what gives for them? The question of population isn't a here and now question; it's one that's about tomorrow, and a decade away, and a hundred years hence. That *you personally* need air con, or your baby needs aircon - go for it. You, personally, can do so. But do we all think we can continue on this path? If you think the horse has bolted on expected standards - the world has near enough to 7 BILLION people. 7 billion. <-- one giant horse if ever I saw one. If the strategy is waiting for plague or famine or whatever to cut that number down to half (re oddeverything's Malthus comment)... Yeah. I don't know, seems to me that's a pretty poor strategy for continued human existence.

[Shoobydoo]

Obviously the real answer is that someone needs to pay me for my plan to build nuclear power plants all over the place, make use of their efficient power (dangerous? naaaaah!), and once all the juice has been sucked out, launch the radioactive leftovers into the sun. I mean, think about it, we'd have to launch five Jupiters into the sun before it'd make a damn difference to it, and for obvious reasons that's physically impossible for us earthlings to achieve.

Energy crisis solved!

In all seriousness, the "use less resources so they will go to the poor people in country X!!!!!" has never made sense to me. You know what will happen if you do not eat the beef on that shelf? Either someone else will buy it or it will sit until it goes bad and is thrown out. It will not magically teleport itself to third world Africa. Neither will the electricity you don't use by not running your AC. If you really, really want to improve the standard of living for people in third world countries, find a good charity that works on genuinely improving standards of living and provides not just food, but the tools people need to grow their OWN food in future. If you're worried about overpopulation, sponsor programs that will improve women's education and reproductive rights in countries where it's sorely needed. What you eat for dinner isn't going to help people in other countries, it will only help you. The best way to get those resources to those people is to build their standard of living to the point where people ALREADY have some measure of luxury. Let's face it, that beef is not going to go to a market where nobody can afford to buy it, no matter how desperately it may be needed. It's paradoxical, but you must improve the region form the inside out before high-level resources will be eagerly delivered to it by corporations. By all means, eat less meat and use less power, it's good for you and good for the environment. Just don't pretend that by eating vegetarian every Monday, Wednesday and Friday you're helping the impoverished peoples of the world.

I never intend to become a vegetarian, just like I never intend to stop using climate control (and I actually DO have a disease that requires I stay out of cold temperatures for prolonged periods of time). But I do believe that the world would be a better place if people would exercise better control over what we do use. Whether or not I think that's ever going to happen is another question entirely.....

[jaelh]

In all seriousness, the "use less resources so they will go to the poor people in country X!!!!!" has never made sense to me.

That wasn't the argument made earlier.

Rather is was the none of us (in the west) have *any more moral claim* on said resources than anyone else.

does anyone disagree with that? Or is that also somehow contentious?

[Patsy]

In all seriousness, the "use less resources so they will go to the poor people in country X!!!!!" has never made sense to me. You know what will happen if you do not eat the beef on that shelf? Either someone else will buy it or it will sit until it goes bad and is thrown out. It will not magically teleport itself to third world Africa.

Yes, but if less rainforests in South America were deforested for grazing land, this would have an effect on climate change (which is going to fuck over poor people and poor areas first). Ways for this to happen - different agricultural practice, less meat consumption. What we consume does have an effect on the market. I don't think my vegetarianism has had a huge effect on animals' lives, but I do think it is actively environmental.

If you really, really want to improve the standard of living for people in third world countries, find a good charity that works on genuinely improving standards of living and provides not just food, but the tools people need to grow their OWN food in future.

Poverty isn't caused just by ignorance. Corrupt governments in Africa, environmental problems, land that isn't easily farmable (and so needs special technology), health crises... yes, there are good charities, and yes, education goes a very, very long way. But.

Right now we have entire systems and industries based on the fact that there are poor workers, and there are rich consumers. I'm not just talking about slave labour producing goods (although those prices do have an effect on the rest of the system) - I'm saying the stuff we have IS part of the system. Not directly, no, me forgoing meat does not make it magically pop into the plate of a starving kid - but the choices we make as consumers can change how our society consumes (to what extent, I am very cynical on...) and that does have an effect on how our countries interact.

[jaelh]

- I'm saying the stuff we have IS part of the system.

Yes. 100%

[Shoobydoo]

That wasn't the argument made earlier.

Rather is was the none of us (in the west) have *any more moral claim* on said resources than anyone else.

does anyone disagree with that? Or is that also somehow contentious?

Ah, I see.

That question works both ways. Because someone else is not comfortable, does that mean I don't deserve to be comfortable either? It reminds me of when I was a tween and threw hissy fits because god dammit, if I was pissed off everyone else damn well was going to be too. Western society needs to cut back, but I don't think that means eliminating ALL our comforts, just figuring out how to incorporate them into our lives more efficiently. There's nothing inherently wrong or villainous with wanting to be comfortable, or have a good quality of life. I would put my pennies toward creating a world where AC is efficient enough that EVERYONE who wants it can use it. I'm not sure if that's what you were getting at or not. Basically, if we have no moral claim on something, then nobody does, therefore it's not actually bad for me to live a comfortable life while others don't. Someone else's poverty is not automatically the fault of everyone who'se better off.

Which sort of ties back into the point I was trying to make earlier, but I don't want to type that much again. It's getting kind of late and I'm not sure if I got my point across here at all. :/

[Shoobydoo]

Poverty isn't caused just by ignorance. Corrupt governments in Africa, environmental problems, land that isn't easily farmable (and so needs special technology), health crises... yes, there are good charities, and yes, education goes a very, very long way. But.

Right now we have entire systems and industries based on the fact that there are poor workers, and there are rich consumers. I'm not just talking about slave labour producing goods (although those prices do have an effect on the rest of the system) - I'm saying the stuff we have IS part of the system. Not directly, no, me forgoing meat does not make it magically pop into the plate of a starving kid - but the choices we make as consumers can change how our society consumes (to what extent, I am very cynical on...) and that does have an effect on how our countries interact.

Phrasing it this way makes me understand what you're saying better, and I agree with out on a lot of this. I am extremely concerned with out society's dependence on petroleum based products (which is pretty much everything but organic food these days) and finding a way to lessen our use of plastics, CDs, etc. is probably even more important to ending world dependance on oil than finding alternative energy sources are. Lessening the value of oil would in at least some cases release the stranglehold on some poor countries. Perhaps some science type person could say more about whether plastics and such can be formulated from other things.

Yes, things need to change, but to what extent? How far would you have people simplify? Where do you put the divide between excess and something it's okay to have? If buying a new computer or car every year is wasteful (which it most certainly is), does that make owning one at all criminal? In an ideal world, we could say that only people who live in suburbs, small cities, or rural areas have cars, and larger city people use public transit or rent cars when needed. What about possessions like books? Plastic toys for children, etc? What would your redesigned world look like? (This is a genuine question, it's not intended to be snarky or anything.)

[Patsy]

I don't know all that much about what's realistic and what would make a real difference, and I'm speaking as someone who orders books from the United States, eats processed foods, and is currently typing on an electrically-powered computer using my electrically-powered ceiling light for visibility... but frankly, I think it needs to be radical, quite radical. I doubt I could do it, and if there aren't enough people willing to do it, there won't be any societal support for others to follow.

[apple1]

I was raised a dirty hippie, so I don't think this is a fad for me. I was cloth diapering and using a clothes line when we were firmly at the upper end of middle class.

... Right now I cannot hang out clothing. It is ironically against the rules here in subsidized housing...

(warning) Thread hijack

Housing policies that prohibit line-drying make me incredibly angry- and these policies are oh so prevalent in the US (and probably elsewhere, too). In addition to the energy factors, I have a real problem with someone telling me that the house and yard that I spend my own money on, they have a right to tell me that I cannot have a clothesline (I have one, BTW...) HOAs are notorious for this.

And who decided that laundry hanging out was ugly anyway? I kinda like it.