Save the Planet!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Why not.. quite a few countries have used them with varying degrees of success.. then the bludi liberals came along...

You lovable troll you.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

This is a somewhat fact-free thread, like most non-sailing CF rambles, so the case for or against the population numbers hasn't been successfully made here. As they say, politics is the art of the possible. Death-camps, sterilization, zero population growth

So, what's possible now?

Come on LE, we know how to reduce population numbers without resorting to coercive techniques. Get people out of poverty, and educate them, especially the women. There's lots of available evident (facts) to show this works. Of course, to do this we need to raise the standard of living for most people on this planet. And the only way we can do this, and not accelerate the destruction of our biosphere, is by lowering ours.

Ta da! Problem solved.

... did I mention how likely I think it is that we're going to do any of this?

[Blue Crab]

Thanks L-E. I have been in lust with Geraldine Chaplin since I saw Dr. Zhivago, back before the planet needed saving. And there she was wanting to have (my?) a baby! Dang.

Also, I'd like to comment on that "lowly cruising Bozo" bit: I resemble that remark! And I vote! (Jes never for the winner.)

Finally, a reminder that the early masterminds set up the planet to be unable to end today, or any day, here in Merica because it's already tomorrow somewheres west o' here.

[robert sailor]

And just who is going to educate women in Muslim countries??

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Come on LE, we know how to reduce population numbers without resorting to coercive techniques. Get people out of poverty, and educate them, especially the women. There's lots of available evident (facts) to show this works.

Exactly. I never disagreed with that part. I'm only saying that population isn't the sole, or the most important issue. The factors you mention are going to be happy by-products of any effective solutions to thoughtful growth and development.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Exactly. I never disagreed with that part. I'm only saying that population isn't the sole, or the most important issue. The factors you mention are going to be happy by-products of any effective solutions to thoughtful growth and development.

Damn ... I think we agree .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

And just who is going to educate women in Muslim countries??

Hooray - Another stereotype to be bashed down.

Many hard-core fundamentalist or fringe branches of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism all have some backwards ideas about women. Fortunately, they aren't mainstream.

Not all Muslim countries oppress their women, nor is it a mandatory part of Islam. Some the smartest engineers I've worked with are hijab-wearing geniuses from Morocco, Tunisia, Iran.

(Oops I lie. My Iranian friend doesn't wear a hijab. No, she isn't marked for stoning.)

[SV THIRD DAY]

The Irony of this issue is that my environmental and carbon footprint, as someone living on a mooring ball off the grid, is dramatically smaller than those lecturing us that we must do something to save the planet. So in the conventional measurement, I'm a better person for caring more than "you".

It's the classic Al Gore, "do as I say, not as I do". It also shows me that even those that claim to be true believes arn't. Because if they were, they wouldn't be supporting the "system" that they claim is killing the planet.

So why post here about what needs to be done to save the planet, when even those posting it are not walking the talk? Well in my experience the answer varries and we have seen about all of them on display in this thread. From pseudointellectuals to masterminds everyone likes to take the high road in talk, but then in action burn that carbon fuel in their yuppy sports car and McMansion homes while posting about saving the planet online. A thread which by the way is using energy from their laptop to continue, energy that in the USA comes 40% from Dirty Coal...

If you really want to "Save the Planet", stop talking about it and go do it! Get that Cruising Boat Ready and cast off! Because the longer you wait, the less time you will have to enjoy what's left of the Planet you are killing by living.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

It's the classic Al Gore, "do as I say, not as I do".

Let's pop this under a microscope. What IS Al Gore's carbon footprint? Would it be fair to say his footprint is the net result of the energy expended as he goes about living on the planet?

OK, let's start the count:

Energy consumption:
- 20+ room mansion
- cars
- frequent flyer
- private jet? I dunno, let's assume yes.

Oooh looks pretty bad, doesn't it? Typical rich guy, amirite?

But wait, we're not done;

Energy conservation:
- publicizes the issue of AGW and energy usage
- in-demand speaker for schools and colleges
- speaks to corporations and governments

... during which time he has the following effects:
- educates, leads people to consider their personal energy usage
- inspires students to learn more about the issue
- helps goad companies into implementing energy-conserving measures (and garnering a shareholder-pleasing photo-op with Gore, as well as reducing the bottom line)

If Sen Gore minimally influences any ONE of the following modest changes:
- 1% of people who see/hear him actually implement changes in their home
- one school eliminates incandescent lighting, or maybe lowers their thermostat
- one company adds heat-recovery to a process

... any of these gains would more than wipe out his own energy consumption. His carbon footprint is POSITIVE. The world's carbon load would be WORSE without Al Gore.

And we know that Sen. Gore's influence has been far greater then the minimal examples above. So, basically, Rich, he's kicking your ass. He's kicking everyone's ass when it comes to carbon footprint. You could live in a damp cave with no power, eating only cave moss, and Al Gore is still the better environmental steward than you. Especially when you tell people there's no need to change.

Change requires political action. Not a bunch of cruisers bragging about how frugal they are.

[senormechanico]

So algore saying don't do what I do, do what I SAY is ok?
Not in my book.

Set a good example is more like it.
Have a glass of Koolaid...

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... any of these gains would more than wipe out his own energy consumption. His carbon footprint is POSITIVE. The world's carbon load would be WORSE without Al Gore.

It doesn't work that way in a Life and Death Crisis, which is exactly what Al Gore and his types say we are in.

If the life raft is short on water, one guy doesn't get a bigger water ration because he is telling everyone else to conserve water. To have ANY credibility on the matter, HE is the one that should be conserving the most water, not showering while others die of dehydration.

The argument you seem to be advancing is that the Masterminds, experts, smarter-than-thou folks can have their set of rules while the folks can have theirs. That is the Classic Progressive argument and rationalization. It's ok for Al Gore to use more resources because he is is using those resources to a better end than the other slobs.
The 1%-ers get to buy an endulgence from the Church of MMGW and be free of sin, yet the poor folks...well if Eugenics isn't used to control their population and they are lucky enough to be allowed to breed...well they have to life with the rules and regs that the Elilte buy their way out of.

My point about how the elite think, has just been confirmed.
"Can I buy a Carbon credit or Raise Awareness to offset my Private Jet"
or from one of Lake's favorite books
"some Animals are more equal than others"

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Funny how a few numbers killed the population discussion.

Moved to a less disturbing topic.

I also noticed that Hypeer.

I even offered Camp 1 New Planets and the opportunity to step up to the plate and explain HOW, with continued medical advancements in prolonging life to over 100yrs and cheating death….. we can somehow manage to reverse the trend towards overpopulation (even if you don’t accept that we are there already)

Camp 2 seems to be in denial and the only common argument I have heard from both Camps 1 and 2 is a non-specific, self-fulfilling prophecy that “Change” will eventually happen to rearrange the numbers… (but they don’t want to call it genocide).

Now back to the challenge which is to “Save the Planet”.

To me that does not imply that we transform the planet into an artificial ball of genetically engineered solutions…. housing ever denser layers of humanity in cement monoliths while accepting that the indigenous plant and animal life can only be viewed in museums.

I want us to accept that our beautiful planet and all the species within are worth saving and we have to dial back our un-natural advantage that ramped into high gear with the industrial revolution.

Anyone still wanting to try?

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I want us to accept that our beautiful planet and all the species within are worth saving and we have to dial back our un-natural advantage that ramped into high gear with the industrial revolution. Anyone still wanting to try?

Can I ask a question:
What "un-natural advantage" have humans used.
Isn't that like saying the spider used an un-natural advantage over the fly?

[Pelagic]

Take a look Rich
https://www.google.com.ph/search?q=P...w=1366&bih=681

[SV THIRD DAY]

Some sad looking photos, for sure but to call the acts of man "un-natural" doesn't that imply that man is not part of nature but outside of it?

Floating next to my boat at the moment is a Sea Otter family and I can watch and hear them smacking open clams on their chests with rocks all day long. It's cool to watch and see and my kids have given them all names. It's great. Now if/when the sea otter population grows to a point where all the Clams here in Morro Bay are gone, their population dies down to support a stable level of Sea Otters. This is down by "nature". There are no Sea Otter Claming restructions, no permits to clam, or Clam inspectors. Their population is controled by nature.

If Nature can control the Sea Otter's are you saying it won't control Man in the same ways? And if so why?

It seems to me, as a scientist, that we are either products of Darwinian Evolution with the same foces acting on us as the Sea Otter or we are not. Stick with me now since this thread is all about thought experiments. How can our normal natural evolutionary process be "bad or wrong"? Evolution doesn't care if a baby Sea Otter dies, so why do we?
Evolution doesn't have a Bad or Wrong outcome, it just has outcomes.

As a Scientist myself, these are hard questions to answer and I'm interested in seeing how some of my CF friends would answer these questions.