How big is your footprint on the Earth?

[Anahita]

Re: How big is your footprint on the Earth?

If you don't want to "tamper" with "Mother Nature" you might as well die. Also, calling it "miracle of life" just shows a rather simplistic mind that is confused and amazed by complexity rather than curious to learn and expand its knowledge. There is no miracles in life ... not even life itself.

What do you suggest we call magic and 'miracles.'

I am for example FOR maximizing cattle life to be used as food in order to increase our quality of life .. but that's besides the point.

Beef DOES NOT increase the quality of life. It is a major cause of: Impotence, heart disease, diabetes, cancer... ecological destruction... animal suffering. ETC.

In other words, I do not think life (and by extension increasing/expanding/lengthening life) is a goal. However, I do believe maximizing the quality of life is a valid goal. And yes I am fully aware that you think quality of life will be maximized by everyone embracing and saving mother nature ... but that's your view and not mine.

I still do not understand why that is not your view. Don't you understand that view is in your best interest?

[Sip]

Re: How big is your footprint on the Earth?

What do you suggest we call magic and 'miracles.'

Nothing.

Beef DOES NOT increase the quality of life. It is a major cause of: Impotence, heart disease, diabetes, cancer... ecological destruction... animal suffering. ETC.

Once again, you are projecting YOUR fantasy on to me. I enjoy a great steak and hamburger just as any other guy. I definitely do NOT suffer from any of those items you listed. May it decrease my length of life? Perhaps. But again, that is not a goal for me. Does it increae "animal suffering"? Probably but again, I couldn't care less about how the cows feel when I'm hungry.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: How big is your footprint on the Earth?

"Increased population is not the cause of landlessness, it is the result of it. If a traditional culture, its values, and its sense of identity are destroyed, population growth rates increase dramatically. As in 17th- and 18th-century Britain, peasants in the Third World are kicked off their land by the local ruling elite, who then use the land to produce cash crops for export while their fellow country people starve. Like Ireland during the Potato Famine, the Third World nations most affected by famine have also been exporters of food to the advanced nations.[B] Malthusianism is handy for the wealthy, giving them a "scientific" excuse for the misery they cause so they can enjoy their blood-money without remorse.

Population growth, far from being the cause of poverty, is in fact a result of it. There is an inverse relationship between per capita income and the fertility rate -- as poverty decreases, so do the population rates...

Honestly Anahita, the above is total nonsense! Landlessness is the main result of overpopulation. Subsistance farmers need to have many children to work on the land, but only one child to succeed them as the owners of that land. In the past, famine war and disease would have killed-off most of their offspring but now the excess landless population simply leaves and swells the population of the cities (and continues to breed at the same rate as their rural cousins). The alternative results in even more rural poverty - the subdivision of farms into smaller and smaller plots.
100 million pregnant Indians will do far more damage to the World than 100 million American cars. At least cars can be scrapped and not replaced.
But of course the World's current economic systems needs those poor, needs their continued production and consumption, and needs their unrealistic belief that they or their children can all become middle-class consumers themselves one day.

The Irish famine occured because Ireland had a large rural population entirely dependant on a single crop. The potato blight also affected Wales and Scotland but because there there was diversity in agriculture, a less-dense rural population (partially as a result of clearing people from the land), greater social cohesion, and towns with industries able to absorb refugees from the rural population, very few died. And while it is true that Irish grain was being exported to Britain at the time the famine was at its height, those grain-crops would not have been produced at all if they were not for export so their export did not cause the famine.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: How big is your footprint on the Earth?

There are no miracles in life ... not even life itself.

I suspect that only a man could say that.

Anahita has a daughter she just has to look at to prove you wrong.

[Quarteria]

Re: How big is your footprint on the Earth?

The Earth could EASILY sustain ten times its current population.

A number of countries in Europe are scared because they have a diminishing population and aren't repopulating at a steady rate. ...Let me rephrase, the people from THAT country aren't repopulating at a steady rate. Muslims coming in from the Middle East are filling in the difference.

China, under communism, was promised one man to every wife (as opposed to the poor men getting none if the wealthy wanted the woman). That has not happened. That WILL not happen as long as "one child per couple" (two for farming families) is the norm, ESPECIALLY since males outnumber females three to one. They are either going to have to race mix, or, have a good number of themselves die off in the future.

[Anahita]

Re: How big is your footprint on the Earth?

The Earth could EASILY sustain ten times its current population.

That might be true, if all human beings lived on nuts and berries in 'mud huts.' I'm looking for a bit more balance. I like having electricity, running water and toilet paper. Rich nations' people helping others get basic human needs met, while also giving up some of the more gluttonous things: like air conditioning, eating animals, and excessive driving and excessive consumption in order to keep the previous (e.g., electricity) will prevent all of us from all going to 'mud-hut-living.' If you don't understand what I am saying, ask me.

"It is DIFFICULT to get a man to understand something when his SALARY depends on him not understanding it." --Upton Sinclair quote, on the opening page for

An Inconvenient Truth -- coming to a theatre near you

http://climatecrisis.org/

Honestly Anahita, the above is total nonsense! Landlessness is the main result of overpopulation. Subsistance farmers need to have many children to work on the land, but only one child to succeed them as the owners of that land. In the past, famine war and disease would have killed-off most of their offspring but now the excess landless population simply leaves and swells the population of the cities (and continues to breed at the same rate as their rural cousins). The alternative results in even more rural poverty - the subdivision of farms into smaller and smaller plots.
100 million pregnant Indians will do far more damage to the World than 100 million American cars. At least cars can be scrapped and not replaced.
But of course the World's current economic systems needs those poor, needs their continued production and consumption, and needs their unrealistic belief that they or their children can all become middle-class consumers themselves one day.

The Irish famine occured because Ireland had a large rural population entirely dependant on a single crop. The potato blight also affected Wales and Scotland but because there there was diversity in agriculture, a less-dense rural population (partially as a result of clearing people from the land), greater social cohesion, and towns with industries able to absorb refugees from the rural population, very few died. And while it is true that Irish grain was being exported to Britain at the time the famine was at its height, those grain-crops would not have been produced at all if they were not for export so their export did not cause the famine.

First, that is true that the Potato famine resulted from dependence on a single variety of potato. We are headed the same direction right now in the US with agricultural transnationals taking over production and creating not only monocultures, but monocultures with no within-species genetic diversity (e.g, GM, genetic engineered, corn.) That is even more dangerous than depending on a single variety of corn...

The political ecology of population issues and landlessness is more complex than either of these analyses and differs depending on the (political, economic, cultural, social, etc) contexts.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: How big is your footprint on the Earth?

A number of countries in Europe are scared because they have a diminishing population and aren't repopulating at a steady rate. ...Let me rephrase, the people from THAT country aren't repopulating at a steady rate. Muslims coming in from the Middle East are filling in the difference.

Wrong. The ruling industrial and political class in Europe are scared that they won't have enough workers who will accept slave-labour wages, so they want cheap migrant labour from outside Europe (which also stops the native workers demanding better wages and conditions).

[Quarteria]

Re: How big is your footprint on the Earth?

Wrong. The ruling industrial and political class in Europe are scared that they won't have enough workers who will accept slave-labour wages, so they want cheap migrant labour from outside Europe (which also stops the native workers demanding better wages and conditions).

That may be true, BUT, that doesn't mean that European nations aren't repopulating at an increasing, if even STEADY, rate.

Anahita, that's not true, the mud huts statement. Man was given this Earth to have dominion and subdue it. It was created just for us, there's no way we can destroy something we did not create. We don't even have the ability.

[Anahita]

Re: How big is your footprint on the Earth?

Anahita, that's not true, the mud huts statement. Man was given this Earth to have dominion and subdue it. It was created just for us, there's no way we can destroy something we did not create. We don't even have the ability.

If you are justifying your ideas by theology, I’d suggest that you interpret those words very different than you do. Humans are supposed to be responsible stewards and live in reverence, not live as destroyers and dominators (which is very offensive to the creator).


This issue is being talked about on Air America radio right now on State of Belief

http://www.airamericaradio.com/stateofbelief/

http://www.stateofbelief.com/

This show: Faith and the Environment.

[Otto3]

Re: The Ankap Thread

Which do you prefer?



or

while using all advantages of technology (and ofcourse logging) it is hypocratical showing us some pics about trees... first switch of your electricity... does anybody knows daily heavy fuel oil consumption of a middle size container vessel?... 50 tons per day..think about the pollution.. so anahita if you are living in united states you should stop using all exported material ( that means nearly everything)... will you do that?