Show of HandsShow of Hands

skinner August 8th, 2016 7:54pm

Today, just seven months into 2016, humanity has used up more natural resources than can be replenished in one year, the fastest rate ever. Do you believe that more needs to be done to preserve natural resources even if it constrains economic growth?

11 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

ladyniner81 Embrace your inner dork
08/10/16 5:45 am

Go after these goddamned litterbugs. I don't know how many times I've seen half eaten food laying in parking lots, empty boxes, food containers, condoms, beer bottles, etc. And a garbage can is nearby. Lazy motherfuckers (scuse the cussing)

dominiclandry
08/09/16 8:41 pm

Why is this looked at as either/or?

17millionTwats Leeds, UK
08/09/16 4:11 pm

China, India, Indonesia and the West really need to sort their act out fast

ezh2o Texas hill country
08/09/16 12:22 pm

War seems to have been the best way to control population in history. I am not in favor of war . . . Just saying . . . Consider what the population would be if there was never war.

PeopleAreDumb Nursing School
08/09/16 8:37 am

The United States is not the problem. Nasty places like China and India are. I know we like to be egocentric, and that everything in the world revolves around us, but environmental issues are hardly a cause of the United States. China and India habitually ignore UN environmental laws. If you don't believe me, google "smog over Chinese cities". Personally, I will not care about environmental issues until China and India literally clean up their act.

Reply
kspells TheOtherOtherside
08/09/16 3:11 pm

We are 5th on the list of top resource users.

Obsideon Orbiting Earth
08/09/16 5:09 pm

We are really only number 5? That seems to be much improved, as we used to be #2 behind China (or so I have heard)

Obsideon Orbiting Earth
08/09/16 5:10 pm

Also, how large are the gaps between #4 and U.S.?

kspells TheOtherOtherside
08/09/16 11:37 pm

Ok, that number was from my memory, but I looked it up, again and as of 2012, we were #5. It's based on per capita so the top 1-4 would have to be small. I'm guessing. So I looked for 1-4 and I came across a nicely done top ten list by National Geographic. I hate giving links because any source can be deemed worthless but it's start.
environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/sustainable-earth/pictures-ten-countries-with-the-biggest-footprints/#/rio-20-united-nations-country-footprints-kuwait_53579_600x450.jpg

kspells TheOtherOtherside
08/09/16 11:56 pm

I think our natural resources, non renewable, resources, used for producing energy,
Are always going to be high for USA. And I think must statistics add in how much is used minus how much is produced.
www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/consumption-statistics.html

Diogenes PARDON STONE NOW
08/08/16 11:10 pm

Nature will take care of that if we don't kill each other first.

EquaISideEcon more conservative than u
08/08/16 8:52 pm

No. The resources within the solar system are far too abundant to use the lack of resources on the earth as an excuse to slow the progress of humanity. Never stop innovating. Never stop growing.

badattitude no place like home
08/08/16 1:59 pm

Can you post the article you saw this in?

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
08/08/16 11:01 pm

I love France24, I watch them to learn about international news and practice my French.

arctostaphylos Ankh Morpork, New York
08/08/16 1:09 pm

Very well posited question, and I'm curious to see how the results pan out with more responses.

Reply
suppressedID I cant breathe
08/08/16 8:00 pm

The no's won't elaborate. They know it's wrong and they still do it.

Nemacyst Registered Text Offender
08/09/16 6:06 am

No, we shouldn't fight to curb natural resource use. Instead we should curb overpopulation. We as a species are growing like a virus, and our numbers need to be slowed. No amount of Natural Resource Conservation is going to matter if you have a population that continues to grow and expand without consequence.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
08/09/16 7:21 am

Nemy, I agree. But what's your position on abortion?

Nemacyst Registered Text Offender
08/09/16 7:47 am

I'm not only for it, I think the Government nerds to restrict who can be parents. I know it sounds totalitarian but with the birth rate on the rise, natural resources on the decline, I'm not sure of any other way of doing this.

PeopleAreDumb Nursing School
08/09/16 8:25 am

Nemacyst- That sounds an awful lot like eugenics. Woodrow Wilson openly wanted that 100 years ago. He wanted only intelligent white people to reproduce, that way minorities could ultimately go extinct in this country. Assuming you're not racist, who do you propose should be allowed to parent?

Nemacyst Registered Text Offender
08/09/16 8:37 am

It does sound a lot like eugenics... Who should be a parent? Perhaps we should do it like liberals want to do with guns, to have a child you need to apply for a license. If you have a child without said license, both parents are terminated and the child goes to foster care. Seems legit.

dfish at home
08/09/16 4:32 pm

Yeah that doesn't sound totalitarian, it is totalitarian. I'm glad ideas like yours will never reach reality here in the home of the free

veritas1 Panda
08/08/16 1:03 pm

Absolutely. The future of our planet and our health as a species are far more important than economic growth, especially when 92% of that growth goes to a tiny handful of people.

And as it so happens, there is no trade off between economic growth and the environment in the long run. Our ability to continue to live sustainably is fundamental to the future of or economy. Constant war and conflict over basic resources does not foster economic growth. Rising sea levels and ocean acidification don't foster economic growth. Pollution and waste and don't foster economic growth. It's really just a trade off between our future and the short-term profits of a few.

Reply