global self-defense

[bushidomartialarts]

started with an innocent comment from still learning on a different post.

Today the world's population is going to reach 6 billion and our natural resources is going to run out? Please help us reduce the use of our natural resources. How? .......UM .........Aloha

might make me sound like a hippy, but what do you/your friends/we do to help keep our resource consumption under control?

for over a decade, my chief method has been poverty. i run a karate school, which means i'm just this side of broke. couldn't afford a gas-guzzling suv and 7 screaming kids even if i wanted 'em. my idea of conspicuous consumption is eating a deli sandwich in public.

 

[elder999]

started with an innocent comment from still learning on a different post.



might make me sound like a hippy, but what do you/your friends/we do to help keep our resource consumption under control?

for over a decade, my chief method has been poverty. i run a karate school, which means i'm just this side of broke. couldn't afford a gas-guzzling suv and 7 screaming kids even if i wanted 'em. my idea of conspicuous consumption is eating a deli sandwich in public.

You want to reduce the uise of natural resources-kill off a few billion people. Seriously.

 

[ginshun]

I have converted to flouresent lights in almost my whole house. Just waiting for the rest of the bulbs to burn out to make the change compete.

I know its not much, but imagine if the entire country did this. Seeing as how half of the power in the US is made by burning coal, it's save tons on fossil fuel and reduce polution by a ton.

Baby steps.

 

[Monadnock]

You want to reduce the uise of natural resources-kill off a few billion people. Seriously.

Well, the bird flu IS coming...

 

[bushidomartialarts]

You want to reduce the use of natural resources-kill off a few billion people. Seriously.

that would certainly do the trick, and there's the most interesting bio-anthro theory about how war is built into us like the lemming thing, as a way of thinning the herd when we overrun our environment.

but for those of us who aren't james bond-type supervillains, what can we do/are we doing to reduce our own use?

 

[Hand Sword]

Unfortunately, I think it would ultimately come down to a few billion peoplen "removed" from the enviroment. As long as people are here, they're going to use and keep using. We're horrible to each other, therefore the enviroment doesn't stand a chance!

 

[Ray]

...i'm just this side of broke. couldn't afford a gas-guzzling suv and 7 screaming kids even if i wanted 'em.

I think I understand the part about the SUV {the rich get to consume more of our scarce commodities};

but I'm not too sure about the "7 screaming kids" part --- sounds like couched facism? Perhaps you think we can learn something about birth control from mainland china? Apologies in advance if I completely misunderstand.

 

[Phil Elmore]

It worries me when people start asking what they can do -- what actions they can take -- to control the "consumption of the world's resources." Unless and until one of us is elected Lord Emperor of Earth, the "consumption" of others is none of our business as long as they are exchanging value for value with those who have the access rights to the resources being "consumed."

When we start asking ourselves how to stop someone else from doing, buying, eating, or using something, what we're really asking is, "How can I force other human beings to do what I think they should do, rather than what they want to do?" This is harmless until we find ourselves in a position of power to do just that. Then, the impulse to "do good" in this manner is more than well-meaning; it is the soul of tyranny.

From this fertile ground are born mass-murderers whose names now echo through history -- Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and the like.

 

[shesulsa]

I am reminded of George Carlin's tirade about environmentalists.

Goes something like this:

----------------------
Save the whales. Save the dolphins Save the Earth. Are we so egomaniacal to think we can save a planet? The Earth has been around for billions of years - most of it without us. If plastic doesn't degrade then the Earth will evolve into a place called 'The Earth Plus Plastic' - the Earth, despite your best wishes and good deeds is fine! The Earth isn't going anywhere!

WE ARE! Pack your ****, folks.

The Earth will shake us off like a bad case of fleas, like dust on it's jacket, dandruff on its shoulders. It is not about where the Earth is going, it is all about where WE are going.
--------------------------

Yeah ... I like that routine. However, I do appreciate and understand the theory behind controlling other people's actions through legislation. So ... is there a difference between controlling the actions of the population at large and controlling the actions of business and corporations?

Curious where everyone stands on that.

 

[JamesYazell]

The earth is pretty strong and I think its almost egotistical to believe that we are capable of destroying it through pollution. Just keep doing what your doing, when we die off the earth will repair itself, well untill the sun blows up...

 

[bushidomartialarts]

but I'm not too sure about the "7 screaming kids" part --- sounds like couched facism? Perhaps you think we can learn something about birth control from mainland china? Apologies in advance if I completely misunderstand.

maybe protofacism. i'm of the firm belief that having more than two children per couple is environmentally irresponsible. my wife and I and would like four children, but plan to adopt the second two. there are many children in need of a good home and overpopulation contributes hugely to many of our global problems.

that said, i would never, under any circumstances, support laws that required other people to act the same way. i encourage it if it comes up in conversation, and support people who make the same decision. but government has no place in decisions like that.

interesting side thought: does irresponsible behavior breed 'facist' laws? america is full of stupid, micromanaging laws like jaywalking, drug control and seat belt requirements. if people were smart crossing the street, used their drugs intelligently and drove like grownups, those laws would never have been enacted. the best way to guarantee birth control laws in america is for people to keep having huge broods of children until we start to run out of room and resources.

example -- how much easier would it be for responsible gun users like mr. elmore if everybody who bought a gun used it intelligently and responsibly? the anti-gun lobby's supports would evaporate.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

I However, I do appreciate and understand the theory behind controlling other people's actions through legislation. So ... is there a difference between controlling the actions of the population at large and controlling the actions of business and corporations?

Curious where everyone stands on that.

i figure as soon as a corporation or other entity gets large enough to be a major social force, it should be bound by the same restrictions as the government. in america, the government is forbidden from infringing on certain human rights. there are corporate forces in america which infringe seriously on several of those rights (most notably freedom of the press and right to due process before being deprived of property).

people should have the right to do what they want, so long as they don't go around hurting other people. corporations and businesses have a greater responsibility.

 

[Ray]

maybe protofacism. i'm of the firm belief that having more than two children per couple is environmentally irresponsible.

That's a nice belief for you. I think you should run for a federal public office.

 

[Phil Elmore]

When we start telling people how many children they may have -- as if the state has any business telling you when you may or may not have children -- we are not too far removed from murdering those "illegal" children born without government permission. As I said, within such ostensibly well-meaning control schemes lies the heart of tyranny.

Anyone who would presume to control another person's life in this manner is a monster waiting to be born.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

That's a nice belief for you. I think you should run for a federal public office.

not in a hundred zillion years. i'm not qualified.

for instance, i'm smart enough to recognize irony when i see it. i think that would disqualify me.

besides, that's kind of my point, isn't it? this isn't the kind of thing you can or should legislate. nobody should ever take away rights like reproductive freedom or being able to spend hard earned money exactly the way you want to.

but exercising those rights with no thought for the greater good is an excellent way to guarantee that some day those rights will evaporate. if our reactionary democracy doesn't do it, then basic economics will.

 

[Phil Elmore]

When the "greater good" is used to make the individual -- and the individual's very life -- subordinate to the whims of the state, the "collective good" has been lost and tyranny has been imposed.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

phil, all respect but are you even reading the posts?

my entire point is that i believe these things for me. it's not my place (or anybody else's) to make policy outside my house. i choose to live with a small footprint. you get to do whatever makes you happy. government action that starts to threaten those basic rights is utterly, inequivocably wrong and must not be tolerated.

i'm asking what other folks are choosing, repeat, choosing to do about their own consumption of resources. would never think to demand, require or legislate that your choices are the same as mine. if everybody were the same as me, i'd get bored.