I Don't Think So Bill

[Kooky]

Wealth concentration isn't an environmental problem.
I pointed out what Bill & so many other celebrity greenies
do...they preach at us, but are hypocrites in their own acts.

If their wealthy lifestyle isn't any more damaging to the environment than a regular person's, then what exactly is hypocritical about their acts? They are pointing out a problem without being part of the solution, granted, but is that actually hypocritical?

The cumulative effect of all mankind using resources is
the problem. If we raise the standard of living planet-wide
for the poorest, it'll mean increasing that effect.

Indeed! The best way to do it would be to take resources from the rich and redistribute them among the poor instead! That way, we don't need to consume precious resources in order to raise everybody's standard of living.

 

[Revoltingest]

If their wealthy lifestyle isn't any more damaging to the environment than a regular person's, then what exactly is hypocritical about their acts? They are pointing out a problem without being part of the solution, granted, but is that actually hypocritical?

I specifically addressed Bill's huge mansion. Such homes
consume more resources to build & operate. Lecturing us
on green behavior rings hollow when they appear to care
less than they want us to.

Indeed! The best way to do it would be to take resources from the rich and redistribute them among the poor instead! That way, we don't need to consume precious resources in order to raise everybody's standard of living.

Good luck with that.

 

[Kooky]

I specifically addressed Bill's huge mansion. Such homes
consume more resources to build & operate. Lecturing us
on green behavior rings hollow when they appear to care
less than they want us to.

You are simultaneously argueing that spreading the wealth is a bad thing that is hurtful to the environment, and that keeping wealth concentrated in the hands of a few individuals living in large mansions is hurtful to the environment. I can see the fun in argueing two mutually contradictory positions, but I hope you don't expect me to take that argument seriously in that light.

Good luck with that.

I would find it preferable to the starving of millions in service of preserving a few huge mansions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My understanding is that the scientific nature of Malthusianism has been mostly discredited, and that particular school of thought seems to be largely sticking around in the pseudoscientific periphery.

As far as I can tell, what we commonly refer to as "overpopulation" seems to be a largely an inability or stubborn unwillingness on our part to properly distribute existing resources to everyone who needs them.

No, it was merely declared too early. Sooner or later math wins. And by the way, this sort of development is what it takes to keep Dr. Malthus at bay so you have in fact contradicted yourself.

 

[Revoltingest]

You are simultaneously argueing that spreading the wealth is a bad thing that is hurtful to the environment, and that keeping wealth concentrated in the hands of a few individuals living in large mansions is hurtful to the environment. I can see the fun in argueing two mutually contradictory positions, but I hope you don't expect me to take that argument seriously in that light.


I would find it preferable to the starving of millions in service of preserving a few huge mansions.

Not quite.
Raising the standard of living for all is harmful to the environment
& to quality of life. Concentrated wealth is not inherently harmful
to the environment.
What's your opinion of denuding the ocean, massive extinctions,
& paving over the natural environment? Good or bad?

 

[icehorse]

My understanding is that the scientific nature of Malthusianism has been mostly discredited, and that particular school of thought seems to be largely sticking around in the pseudoscientific periphery.

As far as I can tell, what we commonly refer to as "overpopulation" seems to be a largely an inability or stubborn unwillingness on our part to properly distribute existing resources to everyone who needs them.

Let's start by agreeing that there is some upper limit to the number of people the planet can sustain. How about a trillion people? Could we agree that that would be too many?

Then the next question is, who really wants to live on a planet that has maxxed out it's capability to house humans? Do we really want to have cities 10 times or 100 times bigger than - say - Mexico city? Who wants to live in a place like that? Do we want to squeeze out all other species, and eat algae gruel all the time?

Not me! If some virus came along and made 90% of humans sterile for a generation, and so we got back down to under a billion people, I think the planet and our environment, and all the critters we share the planet with, AND the 700 million people left, would be far, far happier.

 

[Stevicus]

If their wealthy lifestyle isn't any more damaging to the environment than a regular person's, then what exactly is hypocritical about their acts? They are pointing out a problem without being part of the solution, granted, but is that actually hypocritical?

It could be seen as hypocritical. After all, can everyone have a 66,000 square foot mansion just like Bill Gates? If not, why not? Because there aren't enough resources to go around, or is it because the wealthy (such as Bill Gates) aren't willing to share them?

And even if there were enough resources so that everyone could have their own mansions, air conditioning, lots of meat, cars, and cross-country highways to drive on, there would still be massive environmental consequences.

Indeed! The best way to do it would be to take resources from the rich and redistribute them among the poor instead! That way, we don't need to consume precious resources in order to raise everybody's standard of living.

That sounds like a great idea, although it might still require greater consumption of resources to elevate everyone's standard of living around the world. But I also think that should be accompanied with a global goal of zero population growth or even negative population growth. I don't think we need to impose a "one child" policy like they did in China, but perhaps some financial or tax incentives for those who remain child free would be a step in the right direction.

 

[Shaul]

Einstein believed that too much meat production would be the single greatest threat to Planet Earth in the distant future. Why? Too inefficient for production of foodstuff, which could lead to there not being enough food to feed the world's population; plus the effect of methane gas, which is 20 times more heat retentive than CO2.

Citation please.

 

[Shaul]

Soylent green is people!!

Soylent Green - Wikipedia

 

[Kooky]

Let's start by agreeing that there is some upper limit to the number of people the planet can sustain. How about a trillion people? Could we agree that that would be too many?

Then the next question is, who really wants to live on a planet that has maxxed out it's capability to house humans? Do we really want to have cities 10 times or 100 times bigger than - say - Mexico city? Who wants to live in a place like that? Do we want to squeeze out all other species, and eat algae gruel all the time?

Not me! If some virus came along and made 90% of humans sterile for a generation, and so we got back down to under a billion people, I think the planet and our environment, and all the critters we share the planet with, AND the 700 million people left, would be far, far happier.

You are argueing two different things in one here.

If we would have to give up spacious air conditioned offices where we can order grilled steaks at any hour of the day, in order for millions of people to not starve to death, then I wouldn't consider this a condition where "our planet" is at its limits of capacity - rather, it is our current system and, perhaps just as importantly, our current sense of comfort that is at its population capacity. And these are two very different issues that I don't think should be conflated in an argument.

We already have the capacity to feed, house, and clothe many more people than currently live on this planet. We also have the capacity to transition our mode of economic activity into one that is less destructive to the world we live in and more likely to be sustainable for the next few centuries at the very least. That we choose not to utilize said capacity is not the fault of the world's poorest and most destitute.

(edited for clarity)

 

[metis]

Citation please.

Albert Einstein is credited with saying, “Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet". -- Albert Einstein: Genius, Birthday Boy, Vegetarian… Vegan?

 

[icehorse]

You are argueing two different things in one here.

If we would have to give up spacious air conditioned offices where we can order grilled steaks at any hour of the day, in order for millions of people to not starve to death, then I wouldn't consider this a condition where "our planet" is at its limits of capacity - rather, it is our current system and, perhaps just as importantly, our current sense of comfort that is at its population capacity. And these are two very different issues that I don't think should be conflated in an argument.

We already have the capacity to feed, house, and clothe many more people than currently live on this planet. We also have the capacity to transition our mode of economic activity into one that is less destructive to the world we live in and more likely to be sustainable for the next few centuries at the very least. That we choose not to utilize said capacity is not the fault of the world's poorest and most destitute.

(edited for clarity)

We've got to limit our population - full stop. If we don't do it, mother earth will. As a species, we continue to demonstrate an inability to take the long view, and so our population continues to grow as we pillage our environment.

I agree that we could feed the 7+ billion people we have now, but where would that lead? Man, these are tricky questions.

 

[Kooky]

We've got to limit our population - full stop. If we don't do it, mother earth will. As a species, we continue to demonstrate an inability to take the long view, and so our population continues to grow as we pillage our environment.

I agree that we could feed the 7+ billion people we have now, but where would that lead? Man, these are tricky questions.

Who is "we" in this context? America and Europe?

I ask because a lot of people don't realize just how outsized the industrialized West's share of environmental destruction and carbon production is relative to its population. We could easily double or triple the world's population and still be fine with the current amount of necessary resources, if everybody was living without our current conveniences and destructive practices.

 

[icehorse]

Who is "we" in this context? America and Europe?

I ask because a lot of people don't realize just how outsized the industrialized West's share of environmental destruction and carbon production is relative to its population. We could easily double or triple the world's population and still be fine with the current amount of necessary resources, if everybody was living without our current conveniences and destructive practices.

I would agree that the west is a resource hog.

But I don't think we could double or triple our population. We are depleting aquifers and fisheries and topsoil world-wide. Often in regions where the west isn't really in the picture.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Seems that Bil Gates thinks that rich countries should not eat beef, just synthetic beef. What's next, synthetic bacon?
Oh by the way it seem's that Bill is invested in 'synthetic meet' startups.
Synthetic meat investor Bill Gates calls for rich countries to shift entirely to synthetic meat - Beef Central

He's an authoritarian psychopath pushing for more control over people. He is not a scientist and has no business running his mouth as an expert or authority on things like disease, vaccines, climate change and so on. He's just a rich man looking to fatten his wallet even more and serve an agenda. Switching to synthetic meats would put control over the meat industry in the hands of a few corporations, who we would be at the mercy at. It's a scam just like GMO crops are a scam for corporations to control our food supply and remove choice and freedom. (Having chemical corporations like Monsanto controlling your food supply probably isn't a good idea.)

 

[Kooky]

I would agree that the west is a resource hog.

But I don't think we could double or triple our population. We are depleting aquifers and fisheries and topsoil world-wide. Often in regions where the west isn't really in the picture.

The West is the primary market for the cash crops, minerals and rare tropical resources that are responsible for this destruction, in addition to being largely responsible for the global destruction of oceanic ecosystems.

 

[Augustus]

Seems that Bil Gates thinks that rich countries should not eat beef, just synthetic beef.

I'm all for other people eating synthetic beef, the more the merrier. Subsidise them even.

For all his wealth, Mr Gates doesn't exactly seem like a prime physical specimen to be mirrored though

 

[icehorse]

The West is the primary market for the cash crops, minerals and rare tropical resources that are responsible for this destruction, in addition to being largely responsible for the global destruction of oceanic ecosystems.

I've already granted you that the west is a consumer hog, we're agreed!

Is it your contention that if "the west" was someone instantly self-contained and had no impact on the rest of the world, the rest of the world would not be guilty of unsustainable fishing, farming, and mining practices?