Tighten your belts, scientists tell the world's rich

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
The world's wealthiest people must urgently reduce their consumption to save the Earth from a "vortex of economic, socio-political and environmental ills", a major report by Britain's leading scientific academy concludes.


The global population, which has reached seven billion, is growing at about 80 million a year. Developing countries will need to build the equivalent of a city of a million people every five days for the next 40 years because of urban migration.

"Human impact on the Earth raises serious concerns, and in the richest parts of the world per capita, material consumption is far above the level that can be sustained for everyone in a population of seven billion or more," the report says.

The increased demands this will place on the Earth's limited resources means that people living in rich countries will need to consume fewer natural resources so that poorer nations can consume more, the scientists say.

It recommends a "decoupling" of economic activity from the natural resources of the global environment so that economic growth and human wellbeing are no longer linked with the increased utilisation of the finite goods and services provided by nature.

Expanding the availability of contraceptives to the poorest people in the world will not on its own solve some of the most difficult problems associated with an increase in human numbers and a depleted natural environment, the report concludes.

The Independent


I'm not sure how this could work. If rich countries have to stop using resources so that poor countries can, wouldn't that mean a major shift in economic, political and military power?



edit on 2-5-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
How dare these socialist communist terrorists tell the rich what to do! We don't live in a nanny-world, if the poor want resources they can sail over across the ocean on their little rafts and just try to take them from our cold, dead hands.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Resource scarcity will only get worse, its why we have things like pink slime to cut the meat.

Increased demand will only drive prices up, they are already hiding the price increases with things like smaller quantity's and fillers like pink slime.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
They'll just increase their investment in destroying the lower class .. the more the lower class die off, the less the lower class will consume..

May be a bit of an exaggeration, maybe not.. but if you kill off the lower class.. the middle class becomes the lower class and the obvious next target..



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
How dare these socialist communist terrorists tell the rich what to do! We don't live in a nanny-world, if the poor want resources they can sail over across the ocean on their little rafts and just try to take them from our cold, dead hands.


When the report talks about the 'rich' they mean everyone who lives in a developed country.

The report writers could lead by example by swapping their car for a bicycle, never switching on the heating and refusing to eat resource intensive beef.

I won't hold my breath...



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Tighten your belts, scientists tell the world's rich

they actually mean, 'tighten their belts around their fat wastes, before the people tighten the belts around their fat sweaty necks.

Now they know their days are numbered. Roll out the guillotines.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino


I'm not sure how this could work. If rich countries have to stop using resources so that poor countries can, wouldn't that mean a major shift in economic, political and military power?


More or less, yes. Of course, the alternative is the Rich can continue to live a life of opulence for a little while, until entire continents begin to starve and dehydrate, causing even greater upheaval.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy
 


Are you aware that we buy the resources from underneath those countries? We should sail over there! I like that these "scientists" are telling us what we already know, but this thread is almost kaput. I mean complaining without a solution offers nothing. How do we get the "rich" or over consumers to stop consuming so much; How do we make them understand that in their own country, people are being used as fodder for times sake. Vitamin C defficiencies, upper respiratory infections, FDA not following rules??? Tomorrow will come and something else is gonna merge unless we stop right now, and take a second to pray, or think aloud, whatever you do to pray, and pray and hope and love. Push the fear out and ask the consciousness of the universe to help us all out. Not just you, but everyone. The rich, the poor, the hated, and the loved. So we may have children to inherit the earth from their children.
edit on 2-5-2012 by Mythfury because: (no reason given)


And I don't want someone to pull an article or something about a plan, everything in our current way of thinking is for our system. We need a way for the noble to triumph, and the greedy to be put in their place.
edit on 2-5-2012 by Mythfury because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by ollncasino


I'm not sure how this could work. If rich countries have to stop using resources so that poor countries can, wouldn't that mean a major shift in economic, political and military power?


More or less, yes. Of course, the alternative is the Rich can continue to live a life of opulence for a little while, until entire continents begin to starve and dehydrate, causing even greater upheaval.
No, there are other options. Like agenda 21 for example.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I hate to be scathingly honest about it, but if the poor want their resources, then they should probably just, um, take it. The poorest places in the world tend to also be resource rich. Sub-Saharan is rife with poverty, but they've got resources that'll make you drool if only half the stories I've heard are true.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Besides the obvious communist tones, feeding poor people makes them more fit to have even more children. Then those children have more children. Not that I'm all for letting starving people starve, but from a biological perspective, feeding them doesn't make any sense at all. It just exacerbates the problem.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Derp...this is what I have been saying.

Sharing is a spiritual aspect, and we've been too focused on the materialistic aspect... "Gotta have, gotta have, gotta have."

It's time to take it easy on the consumption. No one is taking it away from you...you're taking it away from them. You don't need those 5 cars in the garage, you don't need a fully stocked wine cellar, and you sure as hell don't need those 12 ending machines in your hall way. You don't even need that figure-8 swimming pool.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
The world's wealthiest people must urgently reduce their consumption to save the Earth from a "vortex of economic, socio-political and environmental ills", a major report by Britain's leading scientific academy concludes.


The global population, which has reached seven billion, is growing at about 80 million a year. Developing countries will need to build the equivalent of a city of a million people every five days for the next 40 years because of urban migration.

"Human impact on the Earth raises serious concerns, and in the richest parts of the world per capita, material consumption is far above the level that can be sustained for everyone in a population of seven billion or more," the report says.

The increased demands this will place on the Earth's limited resources means that people living in rich countries will need to consume fewer natural resources so that poorer nations can consume more, the scientists say.

It recommends a "decoupling" of economic activity from the natural resources of the global environment so that economic growth and human wellbeing are no longer linked with the increased utilisation of the finite goods and services provided by nature.

Expanding the availability of contraceptives to the poorest people in the world will not on its own solve some of the most difficult problems associated with an increase in human numbers and a depleted natural environment, the report concludes.

The Independent


I'm not sure how this could work. If rich countries have to stop using resources so that poor countries can, wouldn't that mean a major shift in economic, political and military power?



edit on 2-5-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)


Simple...

Developing countries need to set up a centralized bank of their own, plunging them into debt, but allowing them the means of funding such growth in infrastructure.

Developed countries need to start using green tech and green energy in order to lower their use of natural resources.
Already in place'

Such things as mycellium can be used to replace plastics, engineered proteins and bacterias can be used in the creation of biofuels, methane from animal waste for gas... and so on, and so on....

lets not forget about the ghost cities of China, in which the infrastructure is already in place to house millions of people...

All in all, with all the work and innovation necessary in the near future... it would seem to me, that there is absolutely no problem with the future for economies. Just some necessary revelations needed to take place, in order for some of the red tape to be removed. This will undoubtedly come into fruition over time, as to how long, I would suggest in the very near future.

This is no, "tighten your belts", this is... change your targets and your means. If a world of 7 Billion with 80 million new every year, this is the only way.

Ya know, how some people claimed that the financial collapse was done on purpose?
Well maybe, just maybe.... it was. Knowing that it would slow down the consumption of developed countries as to the consumption of natural resources.
Now that this is being accomplished, free's up room for developing countries to use these resources, for their economies are prime for a kick start.
Also, the developed countries at the same time are ready for a kick start in their economies through innovation of technologies and energy.

All in all... the future looks bright, if the cards are played right. This I'm sure is something considered in all those build-a-burger backdoor meetings. Those who think that this is not the initiative behind many of the events and actions that we've seen taken place... I think you're wrong. These people are evil genius, accepting the fact that money is their root. But that does not mean that they are out to kill everyone, and allow humanity to suffer for eternity.

One could say.. they sold their soul, in hopes for god to see this as martyrdom. You can hate the elites and all that fun stuff... but look in the mirror, look around, look at your fancy computer. All of which you would have never had, if it were not for them(well, yeah.... human nature is fairly destructive, and as a collective, is usually never all that innovative with out the power of greed and money). These are some of the smartest people on the planet, I'm sure they are all well aware of this.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
It's time to take it easy on the consumption. No one is taking it away from you...you're taking it away from them. You don't need those 5 cars in the garage, you don't need a fully stocked wine cellar, and you sure as hell don't need those 12 ending machines in your hall way. You don't even need that figure-8 swimming pool.


I don't have 5 cars and can't even replace the one that's really due for replacement. I usually buy cheapest wine in cartons. In fact, you are addressing in your post (which I find a little pompous if well meant) a very scarce group of people. Why bother then.

What's more important, there is no real way to defeat the exponential growth. We in the West can cut "linearly" on consumption, such as eat 50% less meat or upgrade our computers twice less frequently, but in truth that would be a drop in a bucket when you look at the tempo of the population growth. OK it will delay the arrival of really severe problems by a year or two. Again, that's not a solution.

I find all of that ridiculous. The lot is full, and if people have 9 kids, they do that at their own peril.

Like it or not, the nature will run its course. There will be terrible living conditions in countries where people multiply like rabbits. An exponential is an exponential, and no warm and fuzzy feeling will fix that fact.
edit on 2-5-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by fictitious
 


I would love for my children to have children! I'm not immortal and neither are you. Starchild has the best explanation, it's a spiritual aspect of looking over the material to see that the material is made right, so the spirit can be made right. And currently, I'm scared to eat and processed foods, drink coca cola. I stick to water and I eat a filling meal about once a day, and all I have is a bad cough due to cigarettes and bronchitis I can't afford medicine for. Had bronchitis for like 6 months now, and might have some horrible reprecautions due to lack of funding. Imagine that, in every underdeveloped place and them slap that criticism at them again. I thought it says deny ignorance, not ignore them and tell them to come here. Try to be interested not interesting.
edit on 2-5-2012 by Mythfury because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
You don't need those 5 cars in the garage


Just realized I can answer this in a much shorter way:

you don't need 9 cribs in your nursery. How's that?



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by fictitious
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Besides the obvious communist tones, feeding poor people makes them more fit to have even more children. Then those children have more children. Not that I'm all for letting starving people starve, but from a biological perspective, feeding them doesn't make any sense at all. It just exacerbates the problem.


People in the west are well-fed, and yet they have, on average, a very low birth rate.

Providing people with options and opportunities lowers birth rates. Poverty raises them. It's more than just feeding people. It's allowing them to thrive.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
Providing people with options and opportunities lowers birth rates. Poverty raises them. It's more than just feeding people. It's allowing them to thrive.


You are skipping various religious, tribal and entrenched culture aspects here, plus you can't magically "upgrade" 6 billion people to Western living standards overnight. And without that, this suggestion is really worthless, because the clock is ticking and people are.... Well, procreating.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Nice ideas. I know there is a hard core school of philosophy that says there is no population problem and this planet can comfortably facilitate up to 10 billion people....oh really?

So...do we rush to see how fast we can get there or do we slow it down a notch? What happens when we get to 10 billion? Do we start killing the elderly and infirm? Lotteries to have kids? Or...will parenthood be dependent on your income? Do you buy a license to have a kid?

I too am concerned with the rising demands of things, the scarcity (often created for profit) of necessary resources and the decline of civility and social structure.

But hey...I don't have any answers at all. I look out my office window some days and hope it isn't too painful when it comes. But don't be mistaken..."something wicked this way comes"....I don't know what it is or who caused it, but I'm afraid my "hope" for our futures wanes a little bit every day.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Mythfury
 

reply to post by Mythfury

Originally posted by fictitious
reply to post by ollncasino
 

Besides the obvious communist tones, feeding poor people makes them more fit to have even more children. Then those children have more children. Not that I'm all for letting starving people starve, but from a biological perspective, feeding them doesn't make any sense at all. It just exacerbates the problem.
 


Originally posted by Mythfury
reply to post by fictitious
 

I would love for my children to have children! I'm not immortal and neither are you. Starchild has the best explanation, it's a spiritual aspect of looking over the material to see that the material is made right, so the spirit can be made right. And currently, I'm scared to eat and processed foods, drink coca cola. I stick to water and I eat a filling meal about once a day, and all I have is a bad cough due to cigarettes and bronchitis I can't afford medicine for. Had bronchitis for like 6 months now, and might have some horrible reprecautions due to lack of funding. Imagine that, in every underdeveloped place and them slap that criticism at them again. I thought it says deny ignorance, not ignore them and tell them to come here. Try to be interested not interesting.
edit on 2-5-2012 by Mythfury because: (no reason given)

I'm really not sure what you are trying to convey here, but my post was in direct response to the op. The op states someones opinion on how to remedy food shortages due to overpopulation. In short, by so called rich countries tightening their belt and sharing, we are only sustaining the current population needs. It does nothing beneficial in the long run. Feeding people ensures they are healthy enough to produce more offspring. This is biology 101.

I know it doesn't seem ethical, but sometimes we should leave it up to Darwin and his survival of the fittest. We all want the world to be a better place, but sharing isn't always the answer.

I'm conflicted, yes. From a biological perpective, depopulation is necessary. Of course, that could include me. My evolutionary instinct is to survive. My brain tells me that its not the individual, its the good of the species. And yes, I totally disagree with all the governments methods of depopulation.

If it were up to me, I would go back to a time before technology allowed us to get here. Then, mother earth was able to sustain herself without our heavy manipulation.





 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join