What's Your Ecological Footprint?

[Saek tr'Vosh 0]

::gets the torches and pitchforks::

 

LETS FIND HOLDEN!!! :lol:

 

 

:P :)

[Johnny Unitas 0]

::grabs bag of **** and lighter::

 

Can I use this?

[NDak 0]

Last semester in my "Enviromental Geography" class, we did the 'real' test which as Vex mentioned earlier is actually a lot more scientific. And is much more on target.

 

And that's right Grom, the Organic hut is going to be made out of fallen leaves, mud, and fallen sticks.

 

 

And as a side note, I think it can be accepted that Humans aren't exactly the most Eco-Friendly inhabitants of the globe :lol:

[Nemesis 0]

Last semester in my "Enviromental Geography" class, we did the 'real' test which as Vex mentioned earlier is actually a lot more scientific. And is much more on target.

 

And that's right Grom, the Organic hut is going to be made out of fallen leaves, mud, and fallen sticks.

 

 

And as a side note, I think it can be accepted that Humans aren't exactly the most Eco-Friendly inhabitants of the globe :lol:

What are you saying? I compost :P Just a sec, I need to fill my gas tank :)

[Vex Xiang 0]

Did the teacher discuss alternate viewpoints, or was this merely her personal views shielded under increasingly less credible term of "science?" Maybe Holden can answer this for us

 

Personally, I'm sure this teacher was just trying to bring a little perspective to her students on the blatant over-consumption of industrial societies, IE America and Europe.

 

The test you see is 'based' on a real scientific study...it is meant to emulate it (using generalized correlations), not replicate it exactly.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to argue. The test isn't meant to be purely scientific and accurate, and you're criticizing it for being unscientific! It's an online quiz...good grief :lol:

 

But...if you don't think humans overconsume, and you think our population growth is just fine, and you are ignoring the message that this website is trying to send...well, thats just a shame :P

Edited December 6, 2004 by Vex Xiang

[Nemesis 0]

Ok, now a serious note from me. Part of the reason my score was so low was because I live in Halifax, which is actually the most enviromentally friendly city in the world thanks to our mayor. Four years ago, we were far from that title but we decreased our city waste by about 40% thus far, with a goal yet for the next 2 years of 50%. We have to separate our biodegradables from our normal trash so we have mandatory composting, which goes to the government which is made into compost that is sold world wide giving us a huge surplus which really helps out with the taxes.

 

So basically what I'm trying to say, is it's not impossible to make the world more hospitable to live in. Heck you can even make money from it :lol:

[Grom 0]

Personally, I'm sure this teacher was just trying to bring a little perspective to her students on the blatant over-consumption of industrial societies, IE America and Europe.

 

The test you see is 'based' on a real scientific study...it is meant to emulate it (using generalized correlations), not replicate it exactly.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to argue. The test isn't meant to be purely scientific and accurate, and you're criticizing it for being unscientific! It's an online quiz...good grief :lol:

 

But...if you don't think humans overconsume, and you think our population growth is just fine, and you are ignoring the message that this website is trying to send...well, thats just a shame :P

You illustrated my point twice...

 

 

"Personally, I'm sure this teacher was just trying to bring a little perspective to her students on the blatant over-consumption of industrial societies, IE America and Europe."

 

1. That is not a matter of fact, but a matter of personal opinion.

 

"But...if you don't think humans overconsume, and you think our population growth is just fine, and you are ignoring the message that this website is trying to send...well, thats just a shame :)"

 

2. Exactly. This website is trying to send a message that is based off of predisposed conclusions. That's my point. It has nothing to do with science, it has more to do with agenda. While I don't believe that the classroom can ever be completely neutral, I do believe that there should be intellectual responsibility, i.e. making sure that major sides of an issue are covered.

 

I personally take the view that we do not have an overpopulation problem, nor are we going to eventually run out of these "un-renewable resources." I do, however, wish to note that population growth correlates with development. The nations with the highest population growth rates are among the poorest in the world today. Those "blatantly over-consuming industrial societies" that you speak of are the ones with the least amount of population growth. Therefore, the concern shouldn't be over "what to do about population growth," the concern should be "how can 2nd and 3rd world development be acheived the fastest and the most effective?" That's the other side of the coin. :)

 

.02 plus my original .02 makes .05 B)

[Atragon9 0]

Very interesting topic, but let's remember to discuss the issues and not pick at individual postings in the thread. We all have opinions and we are all free to express them - but we can be polite about it, too.

 

Thanks.

[Grom 0]

We all have opinions and we are all free to express them - but we can be polite about it, too.

 

:lol: Sorry Vex if I haven't been polite in my disagreement. I respect your opinion, but I completely disagree with your conclusion.

[Vex Xiang 0]

I certainly respect your opinion and your right to disagree.

 

I think if people did do some research on the subject they would understand what I'm talking about, but I can't expect people to take time out of their lives to really do serious research. So I understand your opinion and we may just have to disagree and move on.

 

Consider this, however. When looking at other cultures who were relatively isolated and their growth and resource-consumption outweighed the ability for the population to survive, they died (well, they moved on to another region). Put more simply, if you're on a small patch of land with 50 trees, and you use 1 tree a year for 100 years, and trees only grow back every 2 years, you run out of trees. Factor in the complexities of our various resources, our planet's ability to renew them at different rates depending on region, etc (and our newfound ability to import massive amounts of resources from other regions), and our exponentially-growing consumption...even someone without any background in this field should see a problem.

 

There is one interesting phenomena when an environment becomes no longer able to support its population...the population itself never notices. It happens gradually, over generations...so back to our tree example, I may have known that we had lots of trees to build huts in my day, but my great grandson will look around and think "we dont have many trees? sure we have enough, since I also use this stacked mud to make my hut walls"...does that make any sense? Successive generations adapt to the lack of surplus resources, dimishing the ability to recognize a rapid fall in ecological sustainability within-generations.

Edited December 7, 2004 by Vex Xiang

[Dumbass 0]

Successive generations adapt to the lack of surplus resources, dimishing the ability to recognize a rapid fall in ecological sustainability within-generations.

They adapt by finding new energy sources, and usually end up better off than if the shortage had never happened in the first place. If you are interested in the subject, look up the writings of the late economist Julian Simon.

 

However, here is a layman's explanation.

 

When coal looked like it was becoming scarce humanity turned to wood as our primary energy source. Then when wood looked like it was becoming scarce people turned to fossil fuels, mostly oil and natural gas. When these became scarce (I don't think they really are scarce but just for the sake of argument let's assume they are.) people turned to electricity. I'm not sure what will eventually replace electricity because even the so-called "alternatives" of solar, wind, hydroelectric, and even nuclear are converted to electricity in terms of actual useage.

 

The result is progress, not only looked at in terms of man's survivability but our impact on the environment. Compare the clean electricity we use today with our dirty coal-burning days. If we had somehow prevented coal from becoming scarce we would not have had the incentive to switch to more advanced fuels - and then we would be stuck trying to run the Internet on coal.

 

By the way, isn't the argument saying "We have too many people, and the number keeps growing. We're all going to die!" inherently self-defeating? If there are already too many people for the planet to support our numbers would be DECREASING, not increasing.

[Dumbass 0]

When looking at other cultures who were relatively isolated and their growth and resource-consumption outweighed the ability for the population to survive, they died (well, they moved on to another region).

And we see this happening, to some degree, in places like Africa and India and some parts of Asia and South America...

 

but wait a minute, aren't the populations in these areas growing as well? Sure people are dying of malnutrition and disease, but the birth rate is still more than the death rate.

[HyperDrive 0]

Your ecological footprint is estimated to be 7.5 hectares (18.4 acres).

If everyone in the World lived lived like you we would need 4 Planets to support global consumption.

[Nemesis 0]

And we see this happening, to some degree, in places like Africa and India and some parts of Asia and South America...

 

but wait a minute, aren't the populations in these areas growing as well? Sure people are dying of malnutrition and disease, but the birth rate is still more than the death rate.

He means small isolated tribal places, they have not increased in population but rather decreased in population due to industrial expansion.

[Holden 0]

::gets the torches and pitchforks::

 

LETS FIND HOLDEN!!! :lol:

 

 

:P :)

::ducks::

 

Well, it seems like a few people have really gotten in to this. I just want to let eveyone know that I put the link up here for some semi-educational entertainment...let's not get too violent ::shakes:: :)

 

 

P.S. I have been in Seattle for the past few days, so I would've been more active in the thread, but the only way to get Internet in the room was to pay $15 for a day...yeah, right!