What would you do to save the earth?

[beowulf437]

What would you be willing to do to save the earth from ecological disaster? Many people feel that one is just around the corner. First a little background.

Most of the electricity in the world is generated with fossil fuels (mostly coal). Fossil fuels produce greenhouse gasses. Hydroelectric power is the cheapest and cleanest, but has a huge impact on the enviroment. Nuclear is the most expensive, and produces waste that is dangerous for thousands of years. Solar and wind both have their own problems, plus the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow.

Some 40% of all oil is consumed for transportation. Even if cars are eliminated that would only reduce consumption for transportation by 1/4.

The population of the world is expected to double in the next 20 with the greatest increase in third world countries. The WHO predicts there is only enough aerable land to feed 12 billion.


All refrigerents, lubricants, pesticides, hebicides, fertilizers, cleaners, and protectorants are harmful to the enviroment. In fact all chemicals are harmful to the enviroment.

[Scumbag]

I wouldnt do shit.


Id nuke the earth to hell to save my own life! (provided I had a space ship to take me elsewhere)

[BlueBoy]

To put it in better perspective, it's not the Earth that is headed for disaster, just the Human race. We are destroying the very thing we need to survive.
90% of the planet's life is made up of simple organisms that can adapt to various ecologies. Complex organisms like otherselves have a lot of trouble doing that.

Getting back to beowulf's question, if we want to keep this ecology going then we need to get away from being a "throw away society". If it's broken, fix it. Don't go and buy a new one.
We need to change the industries so that it's actually better value to repair something that to get it replaced.

[Asmodeus]

first thing, (to sti up an old arguement somewhat) is to create a short lived virus to slash teh population roughly down to half

Reasoning - less stress on teh ecology due to tansportation, energy, food, water, mineral resource needs, etc. less of a need for all knda of extra chemicals etc to grow more food faster, and so on added benefit, with decreaded population and thus less chemical additives in food, cancer occourances will hopefully drop within a few generations

establishment of larger area based governments to facilitate travel between various zones and such, when there is more freedom to relocate due to local economic conditions, etc holding down business and thus people to a certain locale, the population may disperse sone, thus creating less concentrated pockets of pollution

reasoning - spread it out so what we are creating wastewise will disperse easier and be more manageable to the ecosystem


research into seeing if those open ocean generator thingies can be made viable. thus much cleaner energy. and also mineral and food harvesting. of which local farming and livestock and supplement the diets

reasoning - free up some of the land and put some of the load on teh ocean in a hopefully less impactfl way.


systemetic tearing down of structures no longer being used or needed and recycle the materials.

reasoning - duh.. and free up the land so some of that green stuff can grow unimpeded


implementation of laws and social engineering towards a bias for small families. lets face it, this isnt the middle ages where survival was anumbers game, we have technology to save and care for peopel much better now, you dont need 10 kids. 1-2 is the most.

reasoning : more people = more environmental stress

movement to a cleaner transportation system . hydrogen possibly, or some other commonly avaialble element.

reasoning - cleaner air and duh!

the overall conceot is to reduce the spread, then grow outwards, instead of upwards (large villages vs sky scrapers)


yes, utopian, idealistic and no possible, but its a start

[pleed]

So asmo, your pretty much saying "kill half the world" Hitler already tried this, and no one "got" him.

What needs to happen is large corporations need to shut down she there is room for the smaller farmers. Instead of harvest / stock being distrobuted Australia wide, like they currently are, we need local and rural farmers supplying for their own area. This would make a lot of people move to the country and spread out the population more.
Also Australia should start eating more kangaroo. There are heaps of them, but we still prefer beef. It would make more work for local farmers.
I think this would make a great difference by:
1) spreading the population inland and
2) reduce polution from corporate factories.

Also the world should have a "maximum wage" limit to stop greediness.

[Asmodeus]

Originally posted by pleed
So asmo, your pretty much saying "kill half the world" Hitler already tried this, and no one "got" him.

Also the world should have a "maximum wage" limit to stop greediness.

obviously you never 'got it' either in regards to hitler. go read a book, i don't have time to explain him to you.

maximum wage while sounding liek a good idea, wher ewould the line be, and would that case a stifling effect on the will to push the boundries and excel. i mean, if you can make teh same max wage as a plumber as a doctor, what encouragement is there to be a doctor now?

[BlueBoy]

Move away for monetary rewards for service then.
Take Hank Scorpio for example: "Nice work, Homer...When you go home tonight, there's gonna be another storey on your house. "

[Asmodeus]

isnt that just a monetary reward that cuts out the middle man?

[Drakin]

Viral spread to wipe out north america (i couldnt give a fuck about this seeming anti-american so piss off now if your going down that path)
That removes the biggest waste of resources on this planet.
Now lets wipe out china, simply due to population.
Ok so now we have a smaller population.

Now lets implement the removal of borders, nation states etc and roll the whole world into one big country and install a world government.

Now to make sure the government keeps doing things correctly lets put a small charge inside their heads. This can be linked to policys, election promises etc.

Ok now implement DNA voting and make it compulsory.
Now the infrastructure is there lets remove the fiction that is money.
People now work for the benefit of mankind not the profit of one man and everybody is required to work 15-20hours a week.
Education is free and equal, with courses available to anyone who shows a reason for doing the course.
Food is free. No fast food without meeting the healthy food act.
Public transport is also free.
Private transport in the form of alternative energy vehicles.

Facilities are built as required as there is no profit etc.

Meh, some bugger would ruin it.

[Nalixor]

what would I do to save the world?
Nothing. Let it burn. Let it die. I just hope we'll have technology capable of taking us to another habitable planet before we burn it all.

[BlueBoy]

Originally posted by Asmodeus
isnt that just a monetary reward that cuts out the middle man?

Explain.

[Asmodeus]

Originally posted by BlueBoy
Explain.

you do something great, you get a pile of cash, you add another story to your house

you do something good, you get another story to your house.

wheres the difference?

[no_dice]

I don't think that we'll need to create a virus that will wipe out half the world's population. I think that before our days are up, we'll most likely see an epidemic like the black plague, etc..

Kind of like SARS or Ebola, but spreads much faster.

This will happen providing that GW Bush doesn't wipe out the earth before his term is up:P

[oracle]

Some ideas that have been mentioned sound a lot like what conspiracy theorists fear the most: Sustainable Development, One World Government (ie. New World Order) etc.

Personally I also believe that money is a big problem. It's basically paper (or plastic polymer) that the government denotes a certain value to, when really it isn't worth that much at all. Although I think a society based on a monetary system will only lead to greed and coruption... the human race, as it currently exists, couldn't have it any other way.

Unless the human race as a whole can become more spiritually enlightened, and forget about these borders that we think make us so different, then this race will surely fail.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

I dont think Hitler killed 60 million people, either directly or indirectly, to make sure that humans dont run out of resources. I think it was because he was a deranged fool that people were too happy to listen to, a genius in some aspects such as economic policy but mostly a fuckwit in others.

What id do:

Firstly......making the US and Australia enforce Kyoto, or the UN/WTO should put massive tarrifs on any exported goods from those countries.

Then....getting rid of nukes. Making ALL nations lose their nuclear arsenals.

Then....getting those water-powered car engines up and running, and putting the oil companies out of business, and their executives behind bars.

Then....ceasing the breeding of bovines, which cause a considerable percentage of global methane gas pollution.

Then....imposing a ration on everything....how much you can earn, how much per person you can waste in terms of resources. If people in 2nd world countries like Portugal and Greece can manage, the westerners can afford it too. Gluttony would disappear, as well as heart disease and alot of smoking-related cancers. There wouldnt be rich cunts in one part of the world and starving peasants in another.

And finally....making sure Pig Fucker Bush and Dog Blower Blair are launched into the Sun with a SCUD, hereby ensuring that any further "global warming" is avoided as their rhetoric and hot air will no longer exist.

I might get a start :D

[beowulf437]

Some of you have recomended killing off half the worlds population. You do realize that would require killing a million people a day for 15 to 20 years. The flu pandemic of 1919-1920 killed about 21 million, WWII killed about 54 million, your talking about killing somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 billion.

Some of you have hoped for technology to go to another planet before things go completely to hell. Right now we do have the technology to go to Mars, but at 50 thousand dollars a kilo the cost is way restrictive. Not only would you have to transport yourself, but all your food water and oxygen for the voyage, plus the machinery to keep you alive.

Getting rid of money would do little to help the world. Money is there for comparitive value, so everyone can agree on what something is worth. Back when everyone actually produced something money was less important (I'll trade a chicken for that axe), but now only a small portion of the population actually produce anything, and very few of them produce a complete product. Just exactly how many hours of answering phones is a pair of shoes worth? Economies don't grow from the top down or the bottom up. They grow from the middle out, an idea Marx failed to grasp.

A one world goverment/economy may be our salvation in the end but look at all the people protesting globalization. People don't want unlimited free trade or freedom of movement between countries. The US currently has a problem with over 200,000 illegal immigrants a year, many have no job skills and most don't speak english. Imagine if you will that countries such as the UK and Australia had immigration like that.

[Bostonmess]

Not all people add another storey to their house, some just put the credits in the bank.

I bet there is still quite a lot of unpopulated fertile? land on this planet.

You don't need shoes when you're sat on your ass all day.

When you set yourself up to be the land of milk and honey you're going to get immigrants.

Unless the human race as a whole can become more spiritually enlightened, and forget about these borders that we think make us so different, then this race will surely fail.

Hmmmm.

[beowulf437]

Most people given some sort of cash windfall waste it.

One of the major causes of deforestation in the world today comes from subsitance farmers. Nearly as much rainforest is cleared by poor people trying to grow food as nearly any other reason. The trouble lies in that areas cleared can only grow crops for a couple of seasons until the soil is depleted then they move on to somewhere new.

I can see that Bostonmess doesn't consider tech support or receptionist as real work.

Part of the reason the US gets so many illegal immigrants (and immigrants in general) is that it is so easy to get here. We have long realitively open borders. A majority of our illegal aliens just walk into the country. I'm sure if they could just hop on a boat or plane they would go to other industrialized nations as well.

[the fisherman]

Originally posted by beowulf437
I'm sure if they could just hop on a boat or plane they would go to other industrialized nations as well.

Oh they do, but we catch'em and stick them in camps.

As for how to save the world, eliminate greed. I liked the get rid of money bit but as pointed out it is impractical. However I think that there should be a win zone were anyone who gets say 100 million dollars get to "win" at life and retire on their interest. All business properties return to the state for resale after goal is reached.

We must stop polluting the Oceans. Chemicals and effluient are just not on. It is the Ocean that produces most of our oxegen through algae and it is the oceans that holds most of the water.

Evidence of Aliens must be shown to the public so the Earth's inhabitants can become one as they realise they are not alone.

[Bostonmess]

Originally posted by beowulf437
I can see that Bostonmess doesn't consider tech support or receptionist as real work.


I consider a lot of things "Not real work" Including what I do :) but don't hold that against me. I know it is work, you get up, you serve a purpose and go home, so there you go, I contradict myself. The "real" factor is probably impossible for me to pin down. I suppose it involves something with more meaning/purpose, so many of us (me included) settle for the easy path?

I was just trying to be funny with the "shoes and ass" comment, I suppose I should have used a smiley. I agree money has a convenient necessity about it and it's not money that's "evil" but rather the blind pursuit of it over almost everything else.

I suppose you can look at other things too, like "power." Leadership is ok, some people (probably quite a few) might need it, I'm probably one of them too. It's just when you look at people offering this leadership, you tend to find flaws in their "honesty."

Let's take Iraq. After running out of other excuses, our leaders might say: "We want to create a better life for the people of Iraq." Very nice of you, but why don't you try harder to create a better life for people in your own countries? Ok, so people in our own countries aren't normally tortured, but we could do a hell of a lot better with regards to health, education and housing.

But instead it's just accepted as the norm, there's nothing that can be done, you get your two choices. Do most people look at it as the "lesser of two evils" or do they think the candidate will actually improve their own quality of living?

It's quite obvious (well at least to me) that most of the power and riches are owned by a few. I see that as being very wrong and believe that more sharing (a lessening of the gap between rich and poor, weak and powerful) is required to stabilise our turmoils.

Of course how to do that is what the threads all about.

Fucked if I know! :D

[oracle]

Originally posted by Bostonmess
Hmmmm. Hmm, indeed. I'm not sure what you mean by that, but you obviously missed my point. People of thousands of years ago (and some small cultures today) didn't need money to live. The focus was on life, and family.

My point is that, for me personally (and I realise that this is next to impossible) I think that we need to move to a more ascetic way of life to truly "save" the world (from my persepctive, anyway.)

[Bostonmess]

I don't know if I missed the point, I just thought it was something to think about. Not sure if I agree entirely with it, but I certainly do with some of it.

[oracle]

My bad :)

... being ZGeek and all, I sometime read everything as sarcasm. :D

[Colonel Kurtz]

I will give up baked beans. :D

(pretty easy as I hate the little fuckers anyway)

No seriously, do as much recycling as humanly reasonable, and not do much nasty shit to the environment.

[beowulf437]

I was opposed to the US military action in Iraq. I was also opposed to the type of military action in Afganistan. Some sort of universally accepted way of dealing with countries like Iraq needs to be found (sanctions don't work).

Oracle it sounds like you are harken back to the good old days but society is too complex for that. It is easy when a community can produce all that it needs but what community can produce all of its needs today. I suppose people can live without electricity, metal tools, dyed cotton fabrics, or myriad of other conviences. What do you do when your sick? Or in case of natural disaster. Yes people can live quite well on a diet of potatoes and corn (it would provide all the vitamins, minerals, and protien) but would you really want to.

Many of the cultures that live like this today are in areas with a low DPD what about areas with a high DPD. If you took the people in the US and spead them out evenly there would be over 29 people per square kilometre. The trouble is some of this ground is unihabitable. Its in the mountains, or desert, or under water, or frozen all year long.

[Bostonmess]

Originally posted by beowulf437
Oracle it sounds like you are harken back to the good old days but society is too complex for that. It is easy when a community can produce all that it needs but what community can produce all of its needs today. I suppose people can live without electricity, metal tools, dyed cotton fabrics, or myriad of other conviences. What do you do when your sick? Or in case of natural disaster. Yes people can live quite well on a diet of potatoes and corn (it would provide all the vitamins, minerals, and protien) but would you really want to.


I don't think he means go back to the stone age :)

[oracle]

Bostonmess is right, I don't mean THAT far back. Obviously we would need the basics of advanced society to live (ie. agriculture, metallurgy, animal domestication, etc.) but I do think I am a pretty OLD fashioned guy.

As far as electricity, well... http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~joshua.y/smiley/shrug.gif

I work with computers daily, so it's obviously something i would currently have a problem with if it was all gone in a day. The problem I have with electricity goes back to beowulf437's first post: polution. If we can find an efficient, completely clean energy, that would make me happy.

BTW, how clean/efficient is Hydrogen energy. I think there's a country (Finland, or Iceland, or Greenland or sumfing) that has switched all their power to hydrogen enery. AFAIK it's only waste would be air, and water.... Does anyone know more about it. Is it a viable energy source?

[beer_cAN]

Just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons, have you read about that statistician who is now at Oxford who claims that we may not be on the verge of ecological disaster (and in fact may already be in the throes of recovery)? I should actually go and find details again, but he has a scandanavian name that is difficult to remember (coupled with the fact that I read his article in the Economist back in 2001). I know that is sure to piss a lot of people off, which is not really the intent; this casts genuine doubt though, and to that end should be explored.

Oh yeah, and listen to TISM - Garbage for light releif

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Originally posted by beer_cAN
Have you read about that statistician who is now at Oxford who claims that we may not be on the verge of ecological disaster (and in fact may already be in the throes of recovery)?

The theory is called the Feedback effect....it has pissed alot of environmentalists off, however it is a scientifically sound argument.

[beowulf437]

Personally I think hydrogen is an excellent source of energy. I also think that it is a way to overcome some of the shortcommings of solar and wind power. If instead of using those energy sources directly connected to the grid they should be used to produce hydrogen.

We also really need to look at GM food crops. They require fewer pesticides to flurish. They also have a higher yield per acre. I think that worries the europeans more than anything is that they grow so cheaply.

Irradiation of food is also a good deal. Think about it no chemical preservitives and the food keeps for years. The technology has been in place for more than 40 years and still people are opposed to it.

Something has to be done about population though. In most industrialized nations population increases are fueled by immigration not birth rate. It is the poorer nations that are still experiencing unsustainable birth rates. Many of these people are spilling over into the industrialized nations. I know that some europeans countries are experiencing illegal immigration problems comparable to the US.

How much would you tighten your belt so that some other country would match your standard of living?

As far as 'spiritual awakening' most of you were raised judeo/christian I was raised Chi'n Buddist. Is your idea of spirituality even close to mine. In my particular beliefs we are now as we have always have been never reaching heaven never descending to damnation.

[oracle]

Damnit I wrote my whole reply, and then accidently closed wrong tab! Hence, this post was a bit rushed, and doesn't have the same impact my original one did, but hopefully my point still gets across
--
What I wanted to find out was if Hydrogen energy had any negatives. After doing a little reading, there doesn't seem to be, so why haven't we switched to it? Oil=Money=Greed. One reason why conspiracists fear a NWO is corruption because of greed. This is why money is a major problem, and the age old adage "Money is the root of all evil" holds more than a grain truth.

Population control, beo's statement about tightening our belt, and my statement about borders defining us and spirituality are linked. Religion draws as apart, rather than bringing us together; look at Ireland and Israel as two prevalent examples. A "NWO" won't work unless we begin to see ourselves as a one people, and money is abolished. If everyone in the world shared all the "wealth" things would be better.

My "spirituality" comment is a little vague. You don't need to believe in God (I don't, at least in the classical sense) to be spiritual. I certainly wasn't raied as Judeo-Christian, or anything for that matter... I was a hardened athiest up until age 20. I have since looked into many esoteric texts, including Buddism (and other on the same linage of thought: Hinduism, Taoism, etc) and believe it be one of the soundest religions out there, but a structured religion cannot be all good. We need to take the ideals, and throw out the structure.

Obviously this thread is not about religion, but I think religion has about as much to do with the world today as money does. I will say this, though... If you believe what the Hindus, Egyptians, Incans, Aztecz, et al said in thier texts, then this current age of man is also the most evil age of man.

One final thought that just popped into my head was humans. Obviously I realise that what were talking about has about a nothin' percent chance of happening because humans, by nature, are bad. Another adage: "Guns don't kill people... People do." Technology also is not bad, but the way in which we often implement it is. We must realise this will destroy us and work to correct it, and that, in part, is what I mean when I said "spiritually enlightened."

Edit: Fixed grammar

[beowulf437]

Back in the 1920's & 30's there was a lot of research into hydrogen fuel but it all ended with the Hindenburg. Suddenly hydrogen was bad, to dangerous to be used for anything. There are people still today that think that hydrogen is way to dangerous.

Most of the hydrogen schemes today revolve around chemical extraction of hydrogen from hydrocarbons because in is the cheapest. I have always thought that solar and wind power would be a good way to extract hydrogen because of the inherent advantages a disadvantages in those two power sources.

Population control is still a very tricky thing. Many cultures are opposed to any kind of birth control. The catholic church is one of the biggest impedements to population control in the world. In the industrialized nations, where people tend to be more secular, population control has occured without any intervention. People themselves have limited their family sizes through various methods of contraception and sterilization.

I don't think religion will ever be gone from the world. I don't remember who said it but there is a quote "In the absense of god people will create one." There are always new religions popping up. There are those who believe that their religion is the only way and that all others must be crushed, but there are others that think their religion is only a small part of the grand scheme and they could never know what god thinks.

You can never get people to agree on everything because different people have different priorities. Few people actually want fundamental change in their society. If you listen to some of the globalization protesters what they are actually asking for is stasis or even a roll back to when they were on top.

[cherry]

Abolish money, no. But abolish forms of money that do not represent their true value, yes. This includes paper money, cheques, etc etc. Then you are dealing with tangible items, similar to barter.

And just my 2c as a wanna be capitalist to all you wanna be socialists who want everyone to share the wealth and have an income cap, go read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and be done with you.

[angel_b]

Originally posted by cherry
Abolish money, no. But abolish forms of money that do not represent their true value, yes. This includes paper money, cheques, etc etc. Then you are dealing with tangible items, similar to barter.
:confused:

[beowulf437]

Access to easy credit has driven inflation and has caused economic hardships for people, companies, and goverments, but giving up paper money would seem a little sever.

The quarter is probably the most common coin is circulation in the US, a $1000 in quarters weighs over 37kg. There was a guy a few years ago who bought a new car with dollar coins, he needed a wheel barrow to haul them in.

There have been a lot of post dealing with spreading the wealth or capping how much someone can have, but how many here would give half of what they have to someone who has nothing. The average Austalian makes about $26,000 US a year while the average person in Burundi only makes some $600 US a year. If each Australian would give up a third of all he has to a Burundian, they would have the same standard of living as Australia. Or would they? The IMF gave Burundi $800 million in grants (about $120 per person) but it has done little to improve their standard of living.

Russia is a good example of why wage caps and collectivism doesn't work. By all rights Russia should be the richest most powerful nation on earth. They have a high literacy rate. A large number of scientist, engineers, skilled laborers, and professional people. They have a great deal of industrial capacity and abundant resources. To top it off they have more aerable land than any other country. Yet Russia is at the bottom of the G8 countries. They produce less than the UK. Why is this? Could it be that for 70 years there was no incentive to get better. Could it also be that large corporations (Russia had some of the largest) can not sustain an economy. People knowing they can never really improve their own standard of living won't really try. If their is no reward for hard work why work hard?

I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but in the US a great percentage of the people work for companies that employ fewer than 120. The place my wife works only has 4 full time employees and about 20 part timers (she's a part timer). The huge multi-national goverment contractor I work for only has some 350 employees, and we were bought out by a company that had less than 50.

Another thing that has been said is to take the money from the rich. Though a think some people are way over paid (some sport figures, entertainers, and certain CEOs) if you were to take all the money from the 500 richest americans you wouldn't even make the interest payment on our national debt. You also wouldn't even make a payment on the debts owed just by African countries. Though think about it if you came up with a new product and it sold 100 million units wouldn't you like to have $100 million for it.

[beer_cAN]

A barter system would increase poverty, not prevent it. The reason fira money has come about is to increase trade. The same goes for credit. If both advancements are cut out, society will have no trade, and as such will become unproductive, meaning that fewer and fewer people will be fed, increasing poverty and vastly increasing the likelihood of general anarchy, which suffice to say would certainly spell the end of society, and most probably the end of humanity and the destruction of many ecosystems.

The existence of fira money and credit is not the issue here. If we really want to eliminate poverty, we must firstly let the poor be able to help themselves. Most third world countries are stifled not only because of oppressive debt conditions, but because they simply are shut out of trade with the west by trade barriers set up to 'protect' the farmers and workers within their respective countries.

As for money not representing true value, how is barter going to be any different? It is still based on how much an individual is willing to sacrifice for another good or service, which is exactly how barter works. All paper money does is provides a medium for the exchange.

[beer_cAN]

It should be noted that the United States is one of the worst antagonists in shutting down free trade. One must only look at how heavily they subsidise their farmers (who, I might add, are terribly inefficient and output the worst produce) to realise that they are breeding a generation of counter-productive workers, being led in the wrong direction by their government. The more open markets become, the more productive industry and agriculture becomes, thus producing more wealth and a greater capability to feed and clothe the population.

[beowulf437]

So The EU doesn't subsidize it's farmers.

EU. About half of the EU's budget is spent on agriculture, some E45 billion of the EU's E98 billion a year budget.

http://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/archive_rmn/jul_2002-19rmn.html
Or Australia

AWB National Pool payment options give you access to cashflow certainty through a non-recourse loan or payment. A non-recourse loan or payment means that if the distributions from the AWB National Pool do not repay the loan or cover the payment, you will not be required to make up the difference.

http://www.awb.com.au/AWB/user/grainMarketing/grainm_poolpayoptions.asp


Or Japan

The review of trade policy in Japan said there are "important distortions to competition" in agriculture and noted that there have been few changes to policy since the WTO's last study of the country in 2000. "Provisional estimates by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development indicate that total transfers to agriculture amounted to 1.4 percent of gross domestic product in 2000, compared to the sector's 1.1 percent share of GDP," it said. At the same time, food prices in Tokyo were on average 25 percent to 100 percent higher than in other major cities in the world,

http://www.wtothailand.or.th/hot_issues.php?trans_id=110

The 2002 Farm Bill reverses 8 years of lowering subsidies to American farmers in light of the increasing subsidies in other agricultural exporting nations. In the past 10 years many countries have banned US agricultural products or imposed stiff tariffs against them. Why because the US exports 25 to 40% of its farm production and these countries can't keep pace. Now with the US playing the same game they have for years their scared. It's "Oh yeah, farm subsidies are bad. The US is bad for subsidizing farmers. Pay no mind to the fact that we have been doing it for years." Why does everyone jump on the US when we try to play the same game they do.

[Fuzzy Dice]

Originally posted by beowulf437
One of the major causes of deforestation in the world today comes from subsitance farmers. Nearly as much rainforest is cleared by poor people trying to grow food as nearly any other reason. The trouble lies in that areas cleared can only grow crops for a couple of seasons until the soil is depleted then they move on to somewhere new.

This is a half-truth. Meaning that while it is true they abandon plots of land after a few seasons, it's a fallacy that this is a major cause of deforestation. Subsistence farming, done my the small groups of people who actually live in the rainforests is a fully sustainable way of life. Yes, they slash down an area of the jungle and grow crops in it for only a few years before moving on to a new one. However, the areas cleaned out are very small, enough to provide a reliable supply of food in case the foragers and hunters are not successful in their endeavors.

They tend to return to areas that they used before, after the jungle has grown back. Cycle though, letting the old gardens lie fallow, as it were, until the jungle restores them.

They've been doing this for millenia, and the rain forests were doing just fine until corporate interest in them was expressed. The real culprit is forest cleared with modern technology to try to create pasture land for cattle. This land also only produces for some few years before losing viability. The difference here lies in the amount of land cleared. The jungle easily absorbs the small plots used by villagers. It does not absorb thousand acre swaths cut through it for cattle to graze.

[beowulf437]

The major causes of deforestation are :

Logging
Clearing land for cattle
Agriculture
Mining
Fuel

They've been doing this for millenia, and the rain forests were doing just fine

In the past 40 years the pupulation of the earth has doubled, the greatest increases have been in third world countries. Some countries such as Brazil and Malaysia have had policies of offering land grants to the poor to create farms. These are not native populations to the rain forest but displaced urban dwellers.

Edit: more reading

http://www.osearth.com/resources/recall/deforest.shtml

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/coolplanet/ontheline/explore/nature/rainforest/deforest.htm

[beowulf437]

You know I started this thread with an idea but no one seemed to take to it.

Everyone seemed to want to blame something or somebody for the state of the world. No one thought about where the real problems lie. The problem is with people themselves. If you want to save the world you have to start with yourself.

There are very few problems that can't be solved within a generation, but everyone has to take it upon themselves to solve them. You can always sit and bitch that they do this and they caused that. Think though how many times a week do you personally contribute to global warming, deforestation, or the exploitation of third world countries.

[Bifrost]

What would I do to save the world...Hmmmm...

I would pump as many dollars as we could into finding resources in space...Mining other, uninhabited, planets for gasses, minerals etc...I would stop doing any of that shit - AT ALL - on Earth...

I would pumup every spare cent into turning the Earth into a forested wonderland, because it would be a LOOOOOOOONG time before we found another live-sustaining atmosphere, so we need to do some maintenance on our own...

I am not talking science fiction here, just simple exploration...

All of this would be accomplished by introducing planetary taxes on individuals...If people want to live on the planet, they pay their taxes, if they don't pay their taxes, we launch them into space. Simple. :D

Oh yeah - and this system would not be run by any government, it would be run by the UN or some new world-represented group. If you think it's all to hard - just imagine how hard it seemed when governments of million-plus countries started implementing tax systems...We're smart creatures, we'd work it out.

[Bostonmess]

Put it in a big plastic bag and shrink wrap it.

[Aphrodite]

Oracle - slight correction in the old adage.
"The LOVE of money is the root of all evil"

If I were to attempt to solve the world's problems I would start with the things which use the most resources but contribute the least to society.

Abolish:
All motor racing sports.
The entire fashion industry.
The entire makeup industry - including cosmetic surgery.
All fast food joints starting with McDonalds (sorry Pirate)
Fireworks
Domestic pets

and to make people more aware of their excessive consumption, introduce a user pays system:

hike the cost of water and electricity by 300%... people all across the nation would be flicking off lightbulbs and installing water tanks when it hit them hard in the pocket.

give everyone a bicycle and make petrol $20 a litre - you'd soon think twice about driving to the corner shop.

make the cost of food relative to its nutritional value ie. apples would be cheap and Coke would be $10 a bottle.

make plastic supermarket bags $2 each - take a calico bag ya lazy mongrels...

make paper $100 a ream - then see how many weekly reports your boss wants you to produce.

and finally to clean up some of our ecological disasters:
pay $1 for every cane toad, rabbit, feral cat and fox collected and killed.

[berserk]

Originally posted by beowulf437
One of the major causes of deforestation in the world today comes from subsistance farmers. Nearly as much rainforest is cleared by poor people trying to grow food as nearly any other reason. The trouble lies in that areas cleared can only grow crops for a couple of seasons until the soil is depleted then they move on to somewhere new.


Thats a common myth spread by big agriculture & forestry interests. Lets look at some main areas of deforestation (that i'm somewhat familiar with):
Amazon: Logging & big commercial pastoralists
Sahel: Subsistence farming & firewood collection
India: Subsistence farming & firewood collection
Russian Far east: Logging
Indonesia: Logging & oil palm plantation
PNG: Logging

At best subsistence methods can only be accounted for some of the deforestation, & only if it is accompanied with population pressures. In tropical forest areas such as the Amazon & South East Asia, subsistence farming has been shown to be sustainable use of relatively poor soil if population density is reasonable, even such ostensibly destructive methods as shifting cultivation. After all, Amazon Indians have been doing slash & burn for at least thousands of years, & the Amazon didn't suffer any ill effects till the Europeans arrived.

As to solving the population problem, economic advancement seems to be the best way. The next question would be, whats the best way to increase the living standards in LDCs?

[Scythe]

Originally posted by berserk
As to solving the population problem, economic advancement seems to be the best way. The next question would be, whats the best way to increase the living standards in LDCs?


How about encouraging education programs about contraception that don't stress abstinence as the preferred method?

Or perhaps forcing the big drug companies to manufacture the generic forms of HIV and AIDS medication for sale in LDC's, instead of the brand name versions they can make more money on?

[dredz]

ultimately, the human race will end. not to be utterly pessimistic or anything, but it does seem inevitable...despite whatever superb technological or humanisitc advances we may accomplish...even if the idea of "individual nations" becomes a thing of the past and the earth is just that, the earth...we will destroy ourselves and most of the organisms we know.....( but not in some wartime holocaust (provided all suicide bombers and whatnot exhaust their supply) because most folks know that any modern (whatever time we're talking) unconventional weapon will kill everybody...and we all have that level of self-preservation...but only for the short term....i think we will kill ourselves in a slow suffocating manner,...we won't really know it's happening,...scientists may warn us, but the masses won't believe it...but again,...ultimately the human race will end..more than likely it won't "go down" until the internet is something thought of as archaic and useless...and yet i can feel a small level of comfort...because of this,...the earth was around before us,..life was existing before us...we didn't invent it...therefore, we can't truly end it...if you want to argue that nuclear holocaust would fry everything,..i doubt it...nature adapts,..molecules shift,..the sun (as long as it's lit ), wind, water, and turf...will remain in place...i'm sorry i blathered on for so long...but if you skipped to the end of this post, the point is,.(and "Earth" to me, means a living planet, so i automatically mean that "Earth" won't be a dead rock,...just to clear that up.)..the Earth existed, the Earth exists, and after we're done killing ourselves, the Earth will exist.

[Lujan]

What would I do to save the world?

I would be prepared to install a rainwater tank, and additional solar / wind panels on my house. I already have solar hotwater. And I live at the top of a rather large hill, so it is often quite windy. I havent done this yet for 2 reasons. 1. I dont have the money, it is extremely expensive to setup, and the govt rebates are pitifully small. and 2. I rent.

I would be prepared to only use my pushbike and public transport to get around. Oh wait, I do that already.

I would be prepared to grow a large vege patch in my backyard. I would have done this already, but as I rent. I hate seeing a lot of effort go into something I could be forced to leave.

An interesting fact about the USSR that most people don't realise, is that whilst, all the collective farms did poorly in regards to food output, the farmers were also given small plots (1/4 acre or so I believe) to use for themselves. These 1/4 acre plots provided more food than the 1000 acre collective farms...

I know from experience, that a 1/4 acre vege patch is approximately 5hrs work a week once it is setup, the setup is a weekend or so for 2 strong backed people. Once spring arrives in all its glory, said 1/4 acre patch, could provide all the carrots, corn, pumpkins, peas, beans, tomatoes & similar vegetables / fruits a family needed for almost half the year. The only plant not worth growing is potatoes, as the average family would need about 2acres of them :)

Whilst I would not willingly relenquish luxuries like tv/radio/internet, I firmly believe these can be powered from renewable sources & have minimum impact on the enviroment.

[rickbitch]

Originally posted by beowulf437
Nuclear is the most expensive, and produces waste that is dangerous for thousands of years.


Ok, first I'll deal with this. I'm very glad that you didn't include "dangerous" when talking about nuclear power. Many people freak out about nuclear power stations cause the first thing they think of is the bomb.

Nuclear power is actually one of the cleanest ways of producing energy. The only immediate by-product of it is steam. As for the waste, we should be making breeder reactors. These are the ones that people whinge about, because they make weapons grade plutonium. Big deal. Make it all part of the process. Constantly refine the the waste products and reuse it. Less waste! A good nuclear reactor with the right facilities and management will happily chug along for many years with no problems at all, and probably be able to run on say, a ton of uranium.

As for other things, I'm of the same opinion as Lujan. When I build a house, there will be solar panels on the roof, with a complete battery system. I'll even investigate the possibility of a wind-powered generator. Hopefully, I'll be selling power back to the grid. As for the garden, I will have a large greenhouse, so that I can have year-round production of all my fruits and vegetables. Water for the garden and for flushing will be bore water, and drinking water (dependant on the area) will be from a rain water tank. Mains water will be a backup only.

Most lighting inside the house will be from discrete dimmable flouro's, but there will be a few halogen lights. Of course the computers will all have a UPS, and will be connected to the solar system for running, much like the rest of the house. Gas will be used for cooking and heating, but there will also be a solar hot water system with a recirculating pipe system spread over the roof and under the bathroom floor (heated bathroom floor=uber). Where possible, all pumps will be low maintenence with little or no moving parts.

As for my occupation, and transport, I already use one of the most efficient forms of motorised motion. I ride a bike :) When it comes to stage and site lighting, I'm going with a less is more attitude. On a big stage, I believe that say, 24 intelligent lights (ones that move and change colour) at 575watts a peice is far better looking and much more economical than 100 conventional lights (that don't do anything but turn on and off) at 1000 watts a piece. Also, much of the newer technology is more efficient, with a conventional 600watt fixture outputting the equal of an old 2000watt fixture. I'd be mad not to use em.