Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Humans living far beyond planet's means: WWF
(Reuters) ^ | Tue Oct 24, 6:29 AM ET | Ben Blanchard

Posted on 10/24/2006 7:13:15 PM PDT by flyingtabby

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 last
To: flyingtabby
support a consumptive lifestyle

OK, time out!

Someone in the WWF please define this-obviously highly charged--term "consumptive lifestyle".

Please show me a life form that does not consume?

61 posted on 10/25/2006 8:22:51 AM PDT by TChris (The United Nations is suffering from delusions of relevance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChris
...the next one:

The average Australian used 6.6 "global" hectares...

What the heck is a "global hectare"? This term positively reeks of hidden agenda and deception.

62 posted on 10/25/2006 8:26:18 AM PDT by TChris (The United Nations is suffering from delusions of relevance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: flyingtabby

The "basis"of all these"studies"is the same thing!And that is that human beings are the greatest threat to the survival of mother earth!!Everything was hunkey dorey before we got here!!!It's the same old SH*T!!!!!!!!!

63 posted on 10/25/2006 8:33:58 AM PDT by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChris
I'm guessing it's some sort of estimate of the total space "needed" to support a person's lifestyle. The amount of land lives in, worked, a share of land for roads, and the land needed to raise crops and livestock, manufacture clothes, autos, etc. That sort of thing.
64 posted on 10/25/2006 8:36:39 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: BlazingArizona

Good observation!

Plus, the deforestation is being done by backward cultures who are living the lifestyles touted by the left. Our lib friends forget that London was a cesspool under blackened skies in the "good old days." Only modern technology has enabled mankind to clean up the atmosphere. Literally thousands of examples bear this out.

The Yahoo article (and the position of the WWF) is pure, unadulterated, B.S.

65 posted on 10/25/2006 8:49:18 AM PDT by mywholebodyisaweapon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
Well, common sense tells you that there is only so much land for vegetation and raising cows. At some point we will reach saturation.

Do you have a point? If so, you did not make it.

Would you mind explaining at just what point we will run out of (a) land, (b) vegatation, or (c) cows?

Personally I do not believe we will ever run out of land. I have driven across this nation, and I know for a fact there are places you can drive for hundreds of miles and not see anything but the road ahead and the road behind you. We have the technological means to turn this land into productive land, if we needed to. At this time there is no need to.

Growing food for the world is not the problem, it will never be the problem. Distribution of the food remains the problem. There are too many governments that use food as a weapon.

Too many people are not the problem either. There are places in this world (look at Tokyo) where large number of people can and do live, work and play in a very small space.

The problem is that there are some that think they knew how you and I should live. They want to restrict what you and I can do. One way of doing this is to scare us into thinking if we do not put them in charge, the world would end at some future date.

Well having seen how well the old Soviet Union did, and how Cuba and North Korea are working, I can only say, if we turn our selves over to these doom and gloomers, the world may very well end as they say, since they will take what is working and destroy it.

66 posted on 10/25/2006 8:49:50 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun

Or maybe they could pull their lower lips over their respective heads and swallow..........

67 posted on 10/25/2006 10:44:27 AM PDT by flyingtabby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BlazingArizona

Yeah, and don't you just LOVE how this article happened to be published from Beijing???? I'll bet the ChiComs funded the so-called study, and of course mandated it had to be done to their guidelines, accepting only the results that they wanted to see........

68 posted on 10/25/2006 10:54:00 AM PDT by flyingtabby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: kingu

GREAT ideas - all the way thru! LOVE your thought process! Can we get rid of the ChiComs along with the Muslims? And maybe include Kim Jung Il and his band??? Hillary (oh God I hope so...) could also be thrown off the planet....

69 posted on 10/25/2006 10:56:00 AM PDT by flyingtabby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

I was on the farm until 20 years ago. I was 38 when I left.

I tend to agree with your farmer friend. Good soil is a gift God gave to America, and to a few other places on the planet. We need to treat it carefully.

Farmers have been stewards of the soil since the country was founded, and to see it turn into a highway or mall is a little disturbing. I'm not suggesting stopping development, but the loss of such a limited resource shouldn't be treated lightly.

I grew up seeing first hand the difference between good soil and poor soil. Corn is $2.50 in the midwest today, mostly grown on good soil. If it was mostly grown on poorer soil, like a good share of our farm had, corn would easily be $10 a bushel, and your grocery bill would probably be 2 or 3 or 4 times what it is today. A lot less red meat too.

We've come a long ways, but your bread and butter is highly dependant on that top 6 inches of soil in the midwest.

70 posted on 10/25/2006 4:19:40 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (God has blessed Republicans with political enemies who are going senile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Calling the earth a planet is a clever use of words....

The truth is clever?

71 posted on 10/25/2006 6:31:01 PM PDT by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: BlazingArizona

I think we would all agree the planet earth has a finite "carrying capacity." Is it 10 billion people? 20 billion? 100 billion? The book's authors stressed they were not making specific time-based forecasts, just that there is a finite capacity. I recall the authors later admitted that they did not take full account of the capabilities of technological innovation to stretch out the time horizons over which the earth would be exhausted.

I find the great irony to be that Western nations and Japan have largely implemented the recommendations in the book with regards to limiting population growth, improved energy efficiency, improvements in agricultural efficiency and reduction of pollution. Yet, in the end, what will we have to show for it? Probably the end of Western Civ and the hand-over of the planet to the muzzies are totally disregarding the population control recommendations made by the Club of Rome.

72 posted on 10/25/2006 7:14:07 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: flyingtabby
The radical left tries to foist this same lie on every generation. Namely: We're all DOOMED, unless we accept socialism.

Yet on average the world is a little more free, capitalist and prosperous each generation. (Excepting of course the years of the Carter administration.)

This is what really bothers the left. More and more societies on the globe are developing a level of prosperity that allows individuals to make effective choices about how to order their own lives, and provides them the resources and motivation to defend that freedom. So the doomsday lie becomes more desperate and fanatically inflated with each iteration.

73 posted on 10/25/2006 8:33:02 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

You miss my point. We only need as much farm land as needed. It might be good for farming, but land has other many cases development. It is not automatically and in perpetuity farm land. If we needed more farm land to grow crops, we would be doing so.

74 posted on 10/26/2006 1:12:54 AM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

My point was that as a practical matter, we are already using all the good farmland. From here on out we will be using second choice land.

Yes, there's much more land out there, but all the good stuff is already in production. When mall and highways and new developments are built, especially in the Midwest, they are being built on prime farmland.

I'm satisfied with the capitalistic method of determining the best use for land, it just gives a little pain every time I see good land being covered up.

75 posted on 10/26/2006 5:02:19 AM PDT by Balding_Eagle (God has blessed Republicans with political enemies who are going senile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson