Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Too many people on the planet?

Posted 2 years ago on March 10, 2012, 2:41 p.m. EST by jph (2652)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I have always thought population growth as an eventual problem on a finite planet, however I do agree with Ian Angus and Simon Butler that the larger and more pressing problem is; corporations and armies polluting the world and destroying ecosystems in a mad grab for short term profits.

They suggest an "action plan...cease all military operations at home and abroad; begin phasing out fossil fuels and biofuels and replace them with wind, geothermal, wave and solar power; bolster efforts by farmers to convert to ecological agriculture; eliminate factory farms and agribusiness; support local food production; increase public transportation networking; regulate corporations to eliminate waste, planned obsolescence, pollution, and manipulative advertising; and ensure that women everywhere have access to birth control and abortion."

Seems like the proper direction from here.

link; http://www.truth-out.org/problem-environment-not-too-many-people/1331163575

150 Comments

150 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

That's a really interesting article. I'm sure it's thesis will be unpopular with reactionaries. The fact that it is not the number of us, but the way we humans structure our lives and economies, will be quite unwelcome news to many who only care about profits.

[-] 3 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

I agree. But, we could also wonder whether the way we structure our lifestyles and economies isn't a direct result of higher population.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

I don't necessarily think so. We maybe have taken the easy way out (which may end up being the hard way due to repercussions), but we could definitely have done things differently with the knowledge we have, and we can do things differently, and better, in the future.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

You're missing my point. Over population creates more competition and this holds true for every species on earth. Think about how all that competition affects every human being at the personal and global level. Competition for food, natural resources, habitat, medical care, etc... is a buffet for opportunists for sure ( on the economic front) in an industrialized world but it's also a burden for many as they struggle to sustain themselves while competing with both humans and industry. I study a lot of history and I can tell you that even 200 years ago people were concerned about losing forests, land and natural resources due to over-population. The problem is that we've outgrown ourselves very quickly and any quick fix remedy( that we call advancements) that anyone seeks to solve an immediate problem are only short term and most always result in further degradation of some kind. I say this applies to all areas of our lives whether we're talking income or fresh air, home heating, genetic integrity, health, job shortages, nutritional value of food, etc... For every action there is a consequence.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

What comes first the chicken or the egg? In my mind, that's not the point. Obviously, since the Neolithic Revolution humans have had to devise ways to utilize resources differently than before sedentarization. And, the population is here and it's not going anywhere.

What I am saying is that humans could have done a much better job since the Industrial Revolution when the major degradation to the environment began. We could have made different, better choices in the past and we can and should do so now.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

We could have made better choices in many cases. But, we choose based on immediate necessity and the larger the population, the greater the need for expedience which equates to those short term quick fixes that get us into trouble. People at the most personal level operate the same way. They get sick and they want immediate relief from symptoms and run for the drug that will most likely add additional problems. People consume junk and then want diet pills and medications. So, why should industry behave any different? It is what it is and it's just responding accordingly. It's the individual that will change how industry behaves. Industry just responds and adapts to human nature and unfortunately will probably be the loan survivor on this planet. Survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily mean that the good guy wins. We drive the economy with the choices we make and so collectively, we do have the ability to force industry to adapt to our needs. The tide is turning....slowly but it's turning.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

So we agree, then, that it is choices that drive how we treat the environment, not just the sheer number of people. That is a sad thought to think that industry will be the victor of survival of the fittest. LOL!

I think we can change this thing around. It's not too late.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Yes we agree but I still do believe that the more crowded the earth, the more rapidly we advance and decline. Industry would not be as powerful as it is if there were less people in the world who needed them. Imagine if only half of the world used electricity.. Mountain tops would still be there, less power plants, etc.. Have you ever read Silent Spring by Rachel Carson? If not, give it a read. It's a rude awakening to how little we've actually advanced in protecting the environment. Yesterday it was DDT and today it's a whole host of other dangerous pesticides that were developed to replace the DDT. Our presidents and elected officials are truly ignorant about these matters and rely on industry of course to educate them and you and I know how that goes.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

I haven't read it in it's entirety but gave it a good skim once. Very important book and thesis.

I'm thinking about what you say regarding people needing industry. Yes, to some extent we need industry, but a lot of what industry produces is just s--t if you ask me. We have a lot of things we do not need which we are made to believe, through marketing, that we do need. This over-consumption is one of our biggest problems and the environment's.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

You're right. Most of what industry provides anymore is junk and that's why I don't buy new stuff unless I'm absolutely forced to....ebay is my mall :D and I buy mostly stuff from the 1800's to through the 60's. Great stuff! Heck, my farming tools are from the early 1900's and they are just as sturdy as the day they were made. I was thinking a lot about industry and population too and here's an example of what I was trying to say. Take the food industry for example( this is a very over-simplified example)... A hundred+ years ago, the quality of our food was great because the majority of Americans were growing their own ( mostly organic) food in nutrient rich soil or at least sharing a farm with their neighbors. But, as the population grew so fast and for various reasons, the local farms were not able to meet demand or they sought other employment with railroads, were bought out by cities for development, etc.. Factory farms were needed and resulted and then as the pop continued to climb, factory farms needed to find ways to produce more food in less space which has ultimately led to the use of excessive synthetic fertilizers,GMOs, more pesticides, depleted soils, degraded nutrtition, the need for a global year round food supply and an unhealthy and fat population. Let's not forget big biochem too...Monsanto has become one huge dangerous agricultural machine that is going to destroy us if we don't stop them. Our lawmakers are really stupid about these matters. They are patenting their seed and that seed is not a healthy seed....ie..." round-up resistant" seed. I don't think we've evolved intelligently..unless you want to consider artificial intelligence...hahahah Humans are the most destructive force on this planet. I'm critical and biased though because I prefer furry animals to people.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

I totally agree with what you are saying here. Humans often try to take the easy way out, the food supply being an excellent example. Very sad. Monsanto has already done a great deal of damage as we've already lost many species due to their shenanigans. I'm hoping people will wake up.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

I was just thinking too that given our technology today, we don't need to have children for any other purpose than to keep the government happy/economy rolling or to feed our egos. Years ago when folks had large families or any children at all, it was for the purpose of running their farms or family businesses. Did you read the article yesterday about Round-up herbicide on Dr. Mercola's site? http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/03/13/active-ingredient-glyphosate-in-roundup-herbicides-found-in-peoples-urine.aspx?e_cid=20120313_DNL_art_1 I remember telling our local Extension officer that Roundup was not safe back in 1998 and that he needs to quit telling people it is. You would not believe how many folks were angry at me and I mean ANGRY for opposing this ' god' of agriculture's views.
It's really going to be up to folks like you and I to be role models of change without harshly judging others. I get frustrated with the masses though. Even my own brother is a complete moron about these issues( but he's a banker which would explain his denial...hahahahha ) Farmer's markets are all over the place now. People are waking and demanding better quality. Shops on ebay and etsy and craigs list are more popular than ever before. So, I suppose there is a blooming rainbow somewhere at the end of this road. I just hope that we live long enough to see it. Last night a man told me that he hated tipping in restaurants and I got a bit tiffed and told him that he shouldn't eat out then and expect someone to serve him for free when he can get that at home! He was quite taken back by my response and I was just amazed at his ignorance and selfishness. People with that Walmart mentality of wanting everything now for cheap frustrate the heck out me. I haven't set foot in a Walmart since 1996 except to protest ...hahahah Which brings to mind that elevated level of competition due to more humans. All that ' unnecessary' stuff that people want and have today that you wrote about...well, it's the competition that makes people think they should have it ( and the media that further tempts us). People compete with their neighbors and kids at school want what other kids have, people compete for jobs that pay more so they can have bigger houses, more cars, more over-priced crap and stuff that makes them feel important and successful and they believe, happy. WRONG. Our egos are too big and hinged to materialism. Stuff doesn't really fill us up or give us a true sense of happiness and that's why more than half of the USA is depressed, anxious and unfulfilled. All that stuff actually distracts us from true happiness. I truly do not live that way and I honestly don't feel any less successful but I do feel very fulfilled. Last week I had to buy a new car and it really left me feeling so at odds with myself ( as crazy as that sounds). When the salescrook began showing me the bluetooth, the satellite radio, etc.. I just shook my head and wondered how I got to this place in my life. All I wanted was a reliable car that would get me from point A to B and last me a good long time. I would have been just as happy with a horse and buggy...probably happier. But I did buy a very good diesel car that will last me a good twenty years, so I guess that helps me to feel a bit better.
Years ago when I began to realize how our lifestyles impact the world, I would ask myself before I did anything, ate anything or purchased anything..." Is this necessary". That's how I set boundaries for myself . It's as much a spiritual decision as it is ethical. Granted, I do splurge on a few things along the way but I also try to maintain balance by making up for any poor choices or mistakes I make.
Gotta run..have a wonderful day :D

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

Beautiful post, Gillian. Great rant! I agree with most everything, except for the fact that I love my kids (2) more than anything, and in my world, love is what makes it go 'round.

Here's a story. I'm putting my house on the market and the house happens to have a beautiful kitchen. Would you believe that some of the realtors I called in actually wanted me to replace my perfectly working, clean and newish "white" appliances with "Stainless" just because that's what people are looking for? Isn't that ridiculous? That kind of materialism will kill our civilization. Just sickens me.

You have a great day, too.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

I love kids too and I hope no one thinks I hate kids. We need kids for our future otherwise we have no one to grow us out of this mess. But, here's where I have an issue and boy, this will sound so elitist: the wrong people are having kids! For example, Kids shouldn't be having kids and it drives me nuts when I see HS girls wanting kids. No husband, no job. They are so clueless. As you know, being a parent is like working two full time jobs. I know that sounds terribly elitist even my exhusband laughed one day and said, ' My god, you have become an elitist!!!". hahaha I suppose in some ways he's right. I have changed in that respect and I guess it's because I see too much of the wrong thing happening, too many kids struggling, suffering, hungry, murdered. Yes, I would believe that nonsense about your realtor. I have friends who are realtors and it's truly insane what they put their clients through. What about granite counter tops? Too much HGTV influence on the world. They would die if they saw my stove and frig. I have a very very old Hardwick canning stove with the solid elements. I love it! But, the realtors would not. I had a company refinish my wood floors last fall that was highly recommended on HGTV and they turned out to be the worst company ever and guess what? They have to come back out and do the floors again. Ugggh. I'm really trying not to work myself up over this. But, can you imagine what I must go through AGAIN???? moving all my stuff out of my house, living in a tiny small area with my german shepherd and giant beagle for three days??? I should buy your house as is. Is it up north?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

Yes. I'm in the Northeast. Funny, they recommended I re-do all my hardwood floors. They're in great condition. So, no, not happening. In my house before this one I had the original 55 year old stove. That thing worked so much better than this new one. So frustrating. Anyway, raising kids is a big deal. I agree. Nothing to take lightly.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Never to late to start. Unless we are all dead of coarse. There is new technology available to be put to work right now. All we need do is use it.

Thanks BW

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

That's my point. What are we going to do to start limiting population growth? I'm not going there.

[-] 1 points by Quark2 (109) 2 years ago

Yes, tax people more if they have three or more babies. Refer to George Carlin. Each person should be allowed to make a replacement person.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

You get into some hairy stuff with that kind of thing. What might work in one culture won't work in another. That is true on a global level and within the U.S.

I do agree with you, though, that it is best for us all if we just replace ourselves when we have children.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Support education and awareness. Just like everything else it takes awareness and unity in common cause. We must look to what can be done in a positive manner, in every issue.

We do not make progress alone and unknowing.

We continue as we have started.

We reach-out.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

I agree. It's not too late. And, I don't think it is the amount of population causing all of these problems. Choice is a big factor. We don't need to have 3/4 cars per family, 20 light bulbs in our kitchens, over-sized McMansions, etc. etc.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Correct - one example for immediate change. Stop making CFL's. We have LED technology now in functioning lights they are upwards of 95% efficient.

The power to operate one 80Watt incandescent can run 5 CFL's with the same lumen output or the same amount of power can run 16 LED's with the same lumen output. Approximately an 80Watt output for 5 watts and no mercury like in CFL's. I have one of these it screws into a regular socket just like the incandescent and the CFL.

This is only one example of what can be done today.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

Exactly. There is a lot we can do. Thanks.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Anytime.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

That is a spectacular energy savings in the LED.

But check this out. 1st a question how many coal fired power plants are currently being decommissioned due to age and inefficiency? Something like 160.

Now: Additional Green energy support. Real working technology today.

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=600

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

Nice!

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called..............

Nice memory.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

Yes. Very sweet.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (4749) 6 minutes ago

Agreed. Good work. Thanks. ↥like ↧dislike permalink


If I had a hammer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUKB3PxG-0E

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

Thanks for that song. Brought back memories of my father playing his guitar and singing "Puff the Magic Dragon" to me when I was little. LOL!

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (4749) 1 minute ago

Sounds like a good plan to me. What are we waiting for? ↥like ↧dislike permalink


I have absolutely no idea why this is not a major push by everyone. Those who stand firmly in the way are the Fossil Fuel Providers.


What is also really really cool is - that power to run a plant like this could also be provided from wind turbines and from solar panels.


Even neater the running of the plant besides creating electricity also creates Hydrogen ( another power source ) and it produces heat ( another power source ).


So to get this moving I believe we need to see public involvement. To force the issue. We need voices lots and lots of voices.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

Agreed. Good work. Thanks.

[-] -1 points by rstedbe (-1) 2 years ago

You have a pipe dream but it is going to take many years before plants run on electricity and not fossil fuels

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It is about as self sustaining a system as I have ever seen.

Runs on sewer/sewage gas. What is that? mostly it is methane.

Methane you say?

I do.

But can't you get methane from Landfills?

You bet. From farm manure too. When it has expended its methane it can still be used for fertilizer.

You don't say!

But I do!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is something else. What happens when plant matter decomposes?

?

It breaking down to being compost ( fertilizer ) it produces methane.

I know! Cool! Right?

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

I need more info but so far i like what i read. My questen is cost. cost to build is not what i mean, well a little. But what is the cost of a fuel cell. I work in tech, and i know that the best tech does not always make it because it cost to much for the user to use.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

Sounds like a good plan to me. What are we waiting for?

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It is. I am trying to spread awareness. Leave fossil Fuel behind right here and now.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

Makes so much sense.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Love IT. need a few here in Indiana.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I do not have pricing but these are the links I have collected so far.


Additional Green energy support. Real working technology today.

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=600

Combine the Hopewell project: http://www.hopewellproject.org/

WITH:

I'll give ya a bump and raise you an E CAT and an LFTR.

http://ecat.com/

Sorry, I have miss quoted this as LFNR. the T stands for thorium. It's a "clean fission" option.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1 - This was in reference to clean fusion generators

http://www.fuelcellenergy.com/

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Spread the word. We need the public to push for this or it won't get done.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

If only everyone had such memories.


-] 1 points by beautifulworld (4749) 0 minutes ago

Yes. Very sweet. ↥like ↧dislike permalink

[-] 0 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Also do not forget that all CFL's have a drop of Mercury in them, think about that all going to the dump. All my lights are LED now. LED tech is getting better all the time.

[-] 0 points by myjart (21) 2 years ago

Soros pays for OWS

Soros #1 mission is to cut the population

OWS #1 debate subject is to cut the population

Chomsky calls this manufacturing consent.

[-] 2 points by flamingliberal (138) 2 years ago

u mean the federal reserve aka international banks

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Exactly,. truth is a hard pill for some folks.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

Like all of these trolls. Seems to have hit a nerve with them. LOL!

[+] -4 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

feel free to step off any time you like. you wont be missed.

[-] 1 points by Quark2 (109) 2 years ago

Imagine if we had the efficiency of the bee hive or an ant colony or even a solar system. This old person cronyism paradigm of have's & have not's those who serve and those who are always served must be put to an end.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

Agreed.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Newspeak1 (39) from Mt Shasta, CA 2 years ago

You are......never mind.... I pity you.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Here are two great presentation on population and world economics.

The first is on population growth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg

The second is very interesting and deals with energy consumption and population growth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZoKfap4g4w

This guy makes a lot of sense.

[-] 1 points by flamingliberal (138) 2 years ago

this will explain everything you need to know http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

My question what problem that we recognize that we have now would be made worse with a smaller population? Make an assumption of 20% fewer or some experts say that the maximum sustainable level would likely be 40% less. But pick either one and think about the shortage of potable water around the globe,

Consider the number of people who starve every year? The number that are killed in armed conflict??

Yet, this the only subject that nobody and certainly no government wants to talk about. Are we headed for a mass die off? A population that is only sustainable based on some invention that can hardly be expected to arrive on schedule, could hardly be called a plan for survival of the human race..

[-] 1 points by ClearTarget (216) 2 years ago

A very well written article.

"Angus and Butler hope to alter this trend and suggest an action plan to move the world in a more environmentally respectful direction: cease all military operations at home and abroad; begin phasing out fossil fuels and biofuels and replace them with wind, geothermal, wave and solar power; bolster efforts by farmers to convert to ecological agriculture; eliminate factory farms and agribusiness; support local food production; increase public transportation networking; regulate corporations to eliminate waste, planned obsolescence, pollution, and manipulative advertising; and ensure that women everywhere have access to birth control and abortion."

Unfortunately, quite a few of those points will never be likely to come true. Ceasing all military operations abroad and at home is one of those points that won't happen due to uncertainty and fear. Regulating corporations to the extent mentioned is also not very feasible.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Why? You just state things will not come to pass, but leave it at that, some reasoning as to why you believe this, would go some way, to let us understand your position.

Sounds to me, like you need to realize that that military, is an outgrowth of government, and the government, is nothing more than the popular will. We just need to make that popular will, the actual force driving our collective efforts, not some co-opted con-artist corporate paid professional politicians.

There are 99.998% of people that are rather reasonable, and just want to live simple so that others may simple live. The small portion of us who have such trouble playing nice with everyone else, the bullies, need to be shown that we together easily best them in every way. They will learn humility and some will take to living in a human community, those that just can not, will fortunately parish.

All we need is regime-end, not change! We need to stop the current system we use for social organisation, and build new democratic systems to replace them.

[-] 1 points by ClearTarget (216) 2 years ago

"Cease all military operations at home and abroad" This almost sounds similar to disbanding our military which is why I doubted that it would happen. With the past terrorist attacks and current issues with Iran, disbanding our military would seem foolish. Not to mention that other country super powers certainly won't do the same.

As for regulating corporations to that extent, it is not feasible unless we turn towards fascism or communism. There is already stiff opposition to further regulations so it will be unlikely to push through regulations far enough to reach the points in the article. Where would you even begin to eliminate "manipulative advertising".

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Sounds like your under the mistaken assumption that 'the way things are' has some future. It does not. The current order is unsustainable for too many reasons to list. There really are only a couple of possibilities, either the 99.998 percent of us get off the sofa and end this painful system now, or we don't and the system collapses in on itself shortly. I maintain that the proactive end-it-now approach is the way to go, but it is not up to only me. I just try to show others some the many options we do have, and urge them to take actions now.

What terrorist attacks? 9/11 was pure theater, staged mass murder for the purpose of starting wars. That is the only actual terror attack that they continue to use as the justification for all the oppressive, control tactics. These tactics have nothing to do with terror attacks and everything to do with maintaining control and expanding state/police powers. Do not be fooled.

"unless we turn towards fascism"? This is what we have now! A fascist system; state-corporatism, this is clear in Obama's drug plan; to create laws that force people to buy insurance from private for-profit corporations, that is fascism. A single tax funded system with basic coverage for all people, is the most cost effective system, period. The rich can still pay for plastic surgery and people are not left to die in the streets. It is not communism, hardly, it is a mixed-economy with some free-market and some socialized systems that will always be the most balanced and efficient.

[-] 1 points by 666isMONEY (348) 2 years ago

this is THE most important issue and many ppl (including my sister who has written about Peak Oil) says there's really no solution and to expect die-off.

wouldn't surprise me if someone spread some kind of virus like in the movie "Contagion".

Plutocrats have jets & yachts to escape to their 1000-acre ranches.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

The solutions are already here; Permaculture, Degrowth, Relocalize, SlowMoney, etc.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Let's just take a look at the last couple hundred years for population increases shall we?

Today: Estimated at 6,928,198,253

50 years ago: Estimated at 2,556,000,000

100 years ago: Estimated at 2,000,000,000, (best estimate in 1927)

200 years ago: Under 1,000,000,000

It appears that in the last 50 years the world population has trebled. It is also unthinkable that the pattern can reasonably continue.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Yup, we do need to work on keeping human numbers reasonable. The only outcome from the current growth rate is massive die-back. This is inevitable if we do not start to fix our broken social structures rather quickly. Why wait till the system fails we can start today; Permaculture, Degrowth, Relocalize, SlowMoney, etc.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Previous to more recent times, we did have massive die out...plagues, natural disasters, local droughts etc...

Today the natural means is pretty much a moot point.

A die out isn't exactly an answer, although one would occur naturally IF people are willing to accept the responsible choices and limit reproduction to a stable low or no growth pattern.

If one just followed with basic math, at our current 2.7 replacement rate of beings, we'd have over 17 billion population in less than 50 years.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Only you run up against carrying capacity at some point, or pass it, for a while, running on depletable oil,. so the growth number will level off after the die-back,. for a while, at least.

I didn't say die-back is an answer, I said it is inevitable. We need to start building systems that are not so energy wasteful. Build sustainable systems using the tail end of the finite oil. This is the only way forward, if any people are to live here.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Oh, I agree, guess it wasn't clear...

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

just too many koch employees

[-] 0 points by OWSJesus (20) 2 years ago

and nowhere near enough federal employees

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

The energy sources you mention would not be sufficient for public transportation, subways, trains, airplanes, boats, or for manufacturing. I think we would need nuclear energy to generate electricity as well as to create synthetic fuels such as hydrogen to fuel transportation.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

sure, I will support nuke plants, as soon as you tell me exactly what happens with the contamination and who pays for that!

Currently private for profit-corporations build these plants, and run them collecting a tidy profit while doing so. Then they are all gone when the plant is in disrepair, and out dated, and the residual wast is left for the people who live near it to deal with at great cost to them. Nuclear power is just more corporate profiting off externalized costs hoisted on the tax paying population, the 99.998 percent.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I'm glad you asked. We need to make progress on technologies for the treatment and recycling of nuclear waste. The Chinese are already making substantial progress in this area:

China starts building home-made nuclear waste processor http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-03/07/c_131452769.htm

"CHANGSHA, March 7 (Xinhua) -- A company based in the city of Changsha has started building the first China-made reactor to process radioactive nuclear power plant waste, researchers said Wednesday...

It will transmute nuclear waste into less-harmful waste. The most advanced technology in the world is being put to use, said Huang."

Its estimated that 90% of nuclear waste can be reprocessed into materials that are very useful to medicine and industry.

And can you tell me how many people have died from contact with nuclear waste so far?

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

So, all the private for-profit nuke plants pay up front for all the wast management issue on the back-end? Nuke energy is a money pit of epic proportions! Just look at the profits extracted in the short term, and the social costs that are never covered by the profit-takers. As they are long gone before the real long-term costs are even close to paid.

Lets look at cancer rates, and that cost. I 'm not going to wast my time doing research you can do yourself, just because you ask.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

If you don't want to prove your point that's up to you. Countries like China which are proceeding full speed ahead with the development of nuclear plants, and facilities for treating nuclear waste will prove my point as time goes by.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

I don't need to prove a point, the actual truth is quite clear. The nuke-industry is a money pit!

Private for-profit corporations build plants at crazy inflated prices, operate them for a few years when there is little maintenance costs and nice profits, and then bail as the downside emerges and the costs go through the roof. They are not made to put profits aside for the endless wast management and inevitable contamination clean up. It is always the rate-payers that are left on the hook, yet again! Nuke energy is just another 1% scam, to profit in the short term, on the backs of the 99 percent who are made to pay in the long run. It is a terrible 'business' model, it should be criminal in fact if it is not already (and just unenforced like most good laws).

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Don't sweat the waste.

Store it for now. In 50 years new reactors will be able to turn it into an energy souce that will last for centuries and that we can sell for $100kk per pound.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

no worries, it will all be obsolete very soon.

[-] 1 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

And as long as said plants aren't reprocessing spent nuclear fuel for weapons development, thus generating waste.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

China starts building home-made nuclear waste processor

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-03/07/c_131452769.htm

"CHANGSHA, March 7 (Xinhua) -- A company based in the city of Changsha has started building the first China-made reactor to process radioactive nuclear power plant waste, researchers said Wednesday...

It will transmute nuclear waste into less-harmful waste. The most advanced technology in the world is being put to use, said Huang."

Its estimated that 90% of nuclear waste can be reprocessed into materials that are very useful to medicine and industry.

[-] 1 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

Even if that's true 10% is still 10% too much, especially with the half-life on most high level waste. Better to not be producing nuclear weapons at all.

Of course, that will never happen. That would mean the U.S. would start following the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty they signed...

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Sure, I am against nuclear weapons, but for nuclear energy.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Here's something else to consider that wasn't acknowledged. .http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/20/peak_phosphorus

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Even with a moderate rate of growth we will reach maximum density in all habitable areas of one square meter per individual within 300 years. So forget resources, completely and totally... habitable space IS the issue.

And if you don't believe it, do the math.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

I really don't need to do that math,. resources will limit growth well before that! People need to eat,. is a simple thing really.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Yup, that's what the world's super brains say, too - "I don't need to do the math."

Well, I'm gonna tell you something... I have done the math and all of that "malthusian" stuff and worry over resources is just a bunch of crap; it's just not reality, it's not going to happen. The reality is that if we don't kill each other in a really big way we're going to run out of space within 300 years or less.

Human beings have a psychical presence; we require space. But it seems that virtually all most conveniently forget that.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Ok, I'll bite show your work! Where is this math?

How can you calculate the growth rate of any animals, without taking their resource requirements into your equations, and expect anything like a useful result? How do you propose people exist in one meter of space? Your point is completely silly. We are already past the point of supply problems for most resources now. Don't get me wrong I think we have too many people already, and people should be limiting their procreation accordingly. And we are, in most developed places, and as resource limits are reached we will see die-back from over-shoot. A finite planet can support a finite population, I have no problem with this fact.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

It's not silly at all.

It's a very easy equation and one that experts on population growth very foolishly ignore: take the habitable space (not all is habitable, obviously), project a moderate rate of growth as compiled by the World Organization on population growth... assign each individual one square meter, and we WILL run out of space within 300 years.

It's been years since I worked these numbers but believe me, it's very easily done.

There will be no room for other living creatures.

This, of course, assumes we can artificially create to meet all other needs. And we can't do that, either.

Scary thoughts, and the scarey truth... which when finally realized will greatly impact our approach with its "love one another right now" philosophy.

The "liberal" is the most vicious of all; overnight they shall become like rabid dogs.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Wow, ok,. i see,. . you are an insane person. "The "liberal" is the most vicious of all; overnight they shall become like rabid dogs." ?!? WTF!

So, your 'math' is pure logarithmic growth curve, with absolutely zero reasoning? We have been in resource wars for the last ten years at least,. you seem to just take the rate of pop. growth in a vacuum, we do not live in a vacuum. The eco-spear will fully collapse before anything like your proposed population density is reached. We are interdependent with much of the 'other' live on the planet, is this not obvious?? How do you think we will live without the systems that sustain us?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Exactly, and you're the proof - today's liberal with his propensity to so quickly, sadistically, vilify appears the least possessed of that thing we call, "humane"; and I'm not insane.

We are on a course to overpopulate. And we will find and create the resources to do it. Overpopulation is our number one enemy.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

I don't know why you think I am a 'liberal'? I also see a tad more vilification coming from the right. Death panels, coming for your gun, to force you to have an abortion,. that type is sht.

I get now that you are un-able to engage in any sort of debate, and just restate your premise with no reasoning, or even any thought present. Adding baseless insults to boot! Good day Sir. <steps away from logic challenged nut-job, has pleasant day>

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

I am of the belief that we are capable of acquiring or creating all necessary resources but that we will eventually, quite literally, run out of available space. This is not prophesy, anyone can do this simple math... my numbers suggest that maximum density (as in shoulder to shoulder) will occur between the years 23 and 2400.

The terms liberal and conservative, left or right, have no application here: this is NOT a political or politically motivated statement. It is based entirely on existing scientific evidence which suggests that population is growing exponentially in such a manner as to discount "malthusian" entirely.

Vilification today is typical and quite common with today's "left"; I can argue this both psychologically and philosophically to show cause but what's the sense. Ask yourself this - who is "left" and why?

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

And my point continues to be; that such density will never happen, as humans require many more resources than one meter will provide. QED

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

We're well on our way already... we're stacking people many stories high in our cities now, and suburban sprawl, is everywhere. Get real.

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

yep id feel alot free-er if everyone except my family was dead. Just stating a fact here. Nothing personal, but you people (the majority or whoever owns it cause i dont) have hogged the earth.

[-] 0 points by incomeforall (64) 2 years ago

What we need here is a massive population reduction, I'm talking billions. People are like festering boils on the massive buttocks of Mother Gaia and need to be popped to let the human pus be cleansed from the good earth!

Let us survivors celebrate our return to nature and be as one with the mighty elephant and the lowly cockroach.

All for Mother Gaia!!!

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Oh, you are funny. Not. Did you happen to notice the the conclusion of their study points out that population is not the most pressing issue. It finds that the reckless over-consumption by large corporations and the military are the most destructive forces on the planet today.

I blame the faith-head and their ignorance-is-bliss, blind-faith, approach to life.

[-] 0 points by incomeforall (64) 2 years ago

Don't you get it? If you follow the logical conclusions through the curtailing of corporate consumption and defunding the military will have the salubrious effects that we desire, billions dead!

Never forget, depopulation is the goal, there are just a number of ways to get there.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

LOL, why are you so funny? How then does getting rid of the military, the machine that causes the most destruction and suffering, kill people? How exactly does stopping the corporate conversion of this planet into a wast heap kill people? Some thought might help you make some logic, try.

[-] 0 points by Newspeak1 (39) from Mt Shasta, CA 2 years ago

Well? Or perhaps congregating "excess " population could be the first step towards a more natural, eugenic driven society.

[-] 1 points by incomeforall (64) 2 years ago

Well, of course a certain amount of ah congregating may well be necessary as we can expect some elements of our society to become unsettled during the coming unpleasantness but I expect the die off to take no more than a month, six weeks tops.

I don't know why these people are talking about nuclear destruction, far too messy, we'll need the infrastructure later. No, we'll stick with stopping the truck and trains, no food, no live! A simple plan is a good plan and and our brothers in environmentalism have thought of everything!

[-] 0 points by Newspeak1 (39) from Mt Shasta, CA 2 years ago

Starving huge portions of the population is impractible. And what parts will you deem undesirables and start killing?

[-] 1 points by incomeforall (64) 2 years ago

Hey, you want some mayo you have to break a few eggs. The die off will be a result of political policy. Take the craziness presented here every day as "policy" if pretty much any of these things were actually put in place the trucks would indeed stop running.

That's why OWS is important. People can voice the type of policy we require and try to get it mainstreamed so that when disaster strikes there will be no fingerprints anywhere, just followed some new policy! Kewl huh??

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Dumpthechump (96) 2 years ago

Yes, incomeforall, a massive population reduction for Planet Earth is a good idea.

A Mr Benjamin Netanyahu seems to have plans that will ultimately lead to such an outcome - but as a bit of a loony-toon he will probably end up as one of the billions of victims!

Unfortunately, the nuclear fallout from the "Netanyahu Option" will make life rather difficult for survivors e.g. the mortality and morbidity rates in children and in animals will increase massively.

But, look on the positive side! At least nobody will blame Neturai Karta for the resulting situation - which is more than we can say for Chomsky, so Dump the Chump!

[-] -2 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

How? Mass executions (excepting of course you and your tree hugging friends)?

[-] 1 points by Dumpthechump (96) 2 years ago

You sound very optimistic about the "post-Netanyahu" world BlackSun - i.e. presuming that there will still be living trees big enough to hug without snapping off the trunk!

[-] -1 points by Reneye (118) 2 years ago

Overpopulation is nwo oligarch indoctrination !!! Pay no heed, the oligarchs are going down.

[-] -1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

What a pile of shit. This is a thinking that only comes from the left that care not for life. Limited resources and to many people. we need to stop this growth. When did you left start taking about killing off mass amounts of humans for the collectives good. Was that the 1920's? or 1930's?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

What left? There is no organized mass left in the United States and there hasn't been for nearly a century, Only in the United States would someone like Nancy Pelosi be considered a leftist, What is so inspiring about OWS is that it could be the seed of a genuine mass culture of opposition, but it is yet not even really in its infancy, To continue the metaphor it is barely out of the womb,

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

I would hate to see what you call the left? what was Communism? the middle to you?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I don't know how familiar you are with any actual occupation, though I would strongly suggest that you spend a little time at your closest general assembly to get some idea of what I am talking about. For the most part these folks are not liberals which would become immediately apparent to anyone who spends more than a half hour at an occupation, though it can be rather confusing and disorienting to anyone unused to thinking outside the extrmely narrow binary of Republican and Democratic politics, which is essentially a rather conservative Democratic Party and a still more conservative Republican Party.

One of the more significant things about OWS is that while it is still quite tiny, it really represents an incipient radicalism that bears little or no relationship to what most Americans conceptualize as liberalism. The social democratic and labor parties of the rest of the industrialized world are, after all, far, far to the left of the most left wing of American Democrats and in terms of its vision of a radicalized democracy OWS is far to the left even of a European social democratic vision, Of course its not Communism, which was, after all a totalitarian society. If anything it is the polar opposite of that, so democratic that it is difficult even for its supporters to conceptualize,

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

What, pay tell, does this mean; " the left that care not for life " I don't get it. Are you blaming the left, for what, exactly?

This story is about the fact that it is not overpopulation that causes problems for the planet and us, it is the way in which we organize our selves, something very much in our own control. Seem like a good tragedy, we have the key to our own survival and happiness, yet we are unable to use it. By the way I don't know any leftist that are pro-mass killings? Where you get this idea??

[-] 0 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Eugenics. Was used by the left you weed out the unwanted, etc etc etc.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

lol, get you head out of the right-wing-bubble of nonsense and gibberish! Eugenics! Really where and when? Lets talk about modern times, in our life times. What you got?

[-] 0 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Your kidding right? Eugenics is going on right now, We just do not call it that. Here is eugenics on a personal level. you find out your unborn kid will have a defect in life. Well why deal with it, we have Abortion right? Problem solved. Eugenics is cleaning the human race of the problems and rejects. You maybe like well that is the choice of the parents right. I say murder is bad no matter what. you really want to do away with a person like stephen hawking? You many not have know he would be a so smart but with today's testing you may have detected the problem and came up with the so call fix. Mind you it is really bad when it is government law.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Oh I see, the 'left' is pro-choice so the "corporations and armies polluting the world and destroying ecosystems in a mad grab for short term profits." (!the subject of this post!) is unimportant as long as we save the unborn fetuses?

Eugenics implies some totalitarian plot to bread super humans, pure sci-fi paranoia.

[-] 0 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Then you need to finish reading the POST for in the end it is also about murder. Pro-Choice to kill the unborn is sick in the head man, simple at that. Hell today I heard that there is a movement for post birth abortion. For someone that claims to see all the problems of the world ( the right, the rich, the anyone that has more then you ) you sure are blind, Or maybe you see it just find and agree with it.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

So I suppose you are Vegan, and kill no animals to eat? And you are an opponent of capital punishment as well? And you do not support ANY wars, as these activities take life, right? Or are you only interested in telling women what they are allowed to do with their bodies? The killing you do is sanctioned by the Invisible-Man-In-The-Sky?? If you don't want an abortion don't have one.

[-] -1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Oooo you got me there, i forgot that you will take one word and misuse it to the extreme. and that word is "kill". OK the correct word is murder. We kill food to eat, in war you will kill each other, killing a murderer is justest as long as there was a fair and just trial ( that is not always done due to lying and tampering with evidence or just plain hate for the one in trial ). we do not condone murder at all, we understand defensed killing and even understand in the heat of a moment killing, but to plan and trying to do a murder is not accepted. Planning to kill a unborn child is still murder. We protect the child from the parent when they are born but for some reason it is OK to murder them if they are not been born yet.

[-] -1 points by Frank (19) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

I wonder how old you are? I'm old enough to remember choking pollution in American cities, smog thick like yellow blankets. Today by comparison the air is remarkably clean.

Yeah I remember in the 60's the anguish over population growth, that by 2000 the world would be unsustainable. Keep crying wolf.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Lol, yes it was unsustainable then and is much worse now! What planet are you living on?

The point is not actually about population, it is about the broken social system we cling to, as if there is no other possible way to organize our society.

[-] 0 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Also do not forget that in the 50's the so called experts said we only had a few decades of oil left. 60 years later they are still saying the same thing. I also remember the 70's and the experts claiming about the coming ice age because of pollution.

[-] -2 points by onetime (-67) 2 years ago

replace them with wind, geothermal, wave and solar power; ///////////////////////////Yes bring it, we need some more of Odumbo's failure plans

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

What do you propose we replace fossil fuels with?

You do understand that these are finite resources right? It is far better that we begin to build and plan for a society that has much less of these things, as they are just going to get more and more costly. We need to build sustainable systems that we can use with way less consumption!

Permaculture, Degrowth, Relocalize, SlowMoney, etc. the solutions are already here!

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

We can replace fossil fuels with synthetic fuels, such as hydrogen, generated by nuclear power plants.

Nuclear energy would allow us to synthesize or recycle many of the resources which we are currently running out of.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Ok Buck Rogers, good luck with that. Those of us using reality based technology will just curtail the rampant wast-full over-consumption, while we design and build sustainable systems that do not require a 'moon-base' and a 'decoder-ring' to utilize. Small local based organic economies for real people. We don't need some new super techno-fix, the solutions are already here; Permaculture, Degrowth, Relocalize, SlowMoney, etc.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

The nuclear industry in China speaks for itself and will continue to do so. Nothing Buck Rogers about that. They may not be providing hydrogen fuel yet, but they are supply an increasing percentage of energy to a nation of over a billion people.

Some of your ideas probably have merit, but I don't see much evidence to support your anti nuclear claims.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Evidence of what? That ALL nuke plants loose money, on the tail end, and all the 1%ers who pushed and pulled to get them built have divested by this time? What do you need? The numbers exist look them up. It is a terribly irresponsible way to make hot water. The sun exists, the geo-thermal heat of the molten core is still hot, the wind continues to blow, the waves and tides keep generating energy, why are you so hooked on nukes????????

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

The World Cannot Survive Without Nuclear Energy http://www.larouchepub.com/other/editorials/2006/3305go_nuclear.html

Debunking the Myths About Nuclear Energy http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3405_nuclear_myths.html

Rejecting Nuclear Power Is 'Incomprehensible, Irrational' http://www.larouchepub.com/hzl/2011/3819no_nuke_irrational.html

A Renaissance in Nuclear Power Is Under Way Around the World http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3308nuclear_revival.html

Nuclear Power in Asia Is a Matter of Survival http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2010/3750nukes_asia_survival.html

Sane Nations Are Rejecting Anti-Nuclear Hysteria http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2011/110329sane_reject_anti-nuclear.html

Why Former Greenpeace Leader Supports Nuclear Energy (Only have a pdf on this one)

Patrick Moore: The reason I changed my mind on nuclear energy is fairly simple, and it started with the fact that our initial campaign in Greenpeace was against nuclear weapons testing, and against the use of nuclear weapons in general, and the fear of an all-out nuclear war. It was during the Cold War, in the late 1960s, early 1970s. It was also the height of the Vietnam War. There was just a lot of war going on, and we were afraid that there was going to be an all-out exchange of nuclear weapons, and we determined that we were going to stop that possibility.

So, we were totally focussed on the weapons side. And I believe, in retrospect, that we made the mistake of lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons, as if all things nuclear were evil. And in retrospect, that would be as wrong as lumping nuclear medicine in with nuclear weapons. Obviously, nuclear medicine is a beneficial use of radiation and nuclear technology; it successfully diagnoses and treats millions of people per year. Most of those radioactive substances, the medical isotopes that are used, are actually produced in nuclear reactors, so that is clearly a good use for nuclear reactors. And, of course, one of the other good uses of nuclear reactors is to produce electricity for peaceful purposes.

So, we made a mistake in my estimation. I don’t think it was a very discerning approach to the technology, because there are lots of different technologies that can be used for both good and evil, many different things, including fire. So, if we had said, “We’re not going to use fire, because you can burn down a city with it,” then we would be forgoing all the beneficial uses of fire, like staying warm and cooking food.

I think that applies to many technologies, and for me it should be no different for nuclear energy, that we should use the beneficial uses of nuclear energy and avoid using the destructive ones. It’s as simple as that—just like we do with other technologies.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Dude, tell me how to cost effectively deal with the wast. With real world tech of TODAY.

Also, show me where a nuke plant is not a money pit for the 99%. The people that actually have to pay the bill, after the profit-takers, err,. I mean 'job-creators', have sold all their stock and moved to the islands.

Just saying louder and louder that same thing, in the face of arguments against your position is not going to convince anyone. In fact it is just tiresome and boring. The running of a nuke plant is very expensive and dangerous and it is not needed in any way.

Apparently you have a boner for nuke plants, if it lasts more than 4 hours seek medical attention.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

From Wikipedia:

"One of the big problems with nuclear power is the enormous upfront cost. These reactors are extremely expensive to build. While the returns may be very great, they're also very slow. It can sometimes take decades to recoup initial costs. Since many investors have a short attention span, they don't like to wait that long for their investment to pay off."

Ideally, nuclear plants, like public infrastructure in general, should be financed by a national bank at low interest rates, since such a bank would not have to pay profits to private investors.

Its perfectly normal for big infrastructure projects to take decades to pay off. But there is upfront pay as well, to the workers who would build the nuclear plants, providing a significant stimulus to the economy.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Huge centralized plants serve the public interest

and should remain in the hands of the public

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I can't say that you have proven your point either. You say I should do the research to prove your point, but if you believe in something you should already have the supporting information.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Really? I need to 'prove' my point that Nuke-energy is an economic black hole used to transfer wealth from the many to the few, and that there is no known safe disposal of the wast, and its contamination. (getting at the uranium is not factored in to any pro-nuke info. btw) That the 1% who push this bad system of boiling water take profits and then flee? These are clearly true if you look, at all, into the issue.

You are just quoting one source; Lyndon Larouche no less!

Try; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants

"Currently, there is no plan for disposing of the waste and plants will be required to keep the waste on the plant premises indefinitely."

http://www.ccnr.org/uranium_deadliest.html

"The tailings will remain dangerously radioactive for millions of years. Thorium- 230, itself a by-product of uranium, is an alpha-emitter with a half-life of almost 80,000 years."

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheRisksOfNuclearPower

"Currently, no country has a complete system for storing high level waste permanently,.."

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by onetime (-67) 2 years ago

fossil fuels is not going to be replaced overnight and until a good sustainable solution can be found we should be drilling heavily here in the US and get away from Foreign oil. We have more oil in the US then the Middle East ever had and there is enough to last us well over a hundred or more years. Also closing the door on China would also be a big help.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

It will still run out. A hundred years is just a couple generations, we need to start now to build the sustainable systems, while we still have reasonable access to that much energy, so when the oil is gone, people will have more usable systems that don't need the vast amounts of energy we are wasting today,. to you know, live and stuff. The oil burning is not only a global warming issue, it is poisonous pollution, acid-rain anyone?

[-] -1 points by onetime (-67) 2 years ago

There is some wells in the US that were capped off because of the oil ban and some of them now are replenished again

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

You really live in a dream world eh? The oil does not grow back, that is only a right-wind-bubble myth. And it is simple to disprove, why is this oil not flooding the market and driving down prices?? Any thoughts?

Besides, why cling to a system that will inevitable lead off a cliff? Oil is a finite resource that will run out, and burning it is rather destructive releasing all sorts of poisonous chemicals into the atmosphere that we breath, and that feeds our food, as well as more greenhouse gasses exacerbating the warming problem.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

I'm sorry to pop the 'oil bubble' but the US is a net oil exporter...we aren't using our own oil, the companies that extract it sell it just like any other producer sells product, to the highest bidder.

Drilling here is not going to reduce our dependency, it's just going to line the same pockets even more so.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Green energy implementation has reduced our dependence on and our use of Fossil Fuels. So rant on denier of truth. We will move forward and you will still benefit even with your lousy attitude.


This is the future available to start immediately - Today.

http://www.hopewellproject.org/ People send this link viral!

I'll give ya a bump and raise you an E CAT and an LFTR.

http://ecat.com/

Sorry, I have miss quoted this as LFNR. the T stands for thorium. It's a "clean fission" option.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1 - This was in reference to clean fusion generators. Thanks again shooz.

Or scale-up the process that was used to power the Hydrogen House. I'm not even sure of the process that was used to fill the cars fuel cell. These are the kinds of things to explore in pushing this technology forward. If they can build an effectively Hydrogen powered house ( a stand alone system ) I don't see why that same technology process could not be applied elsewhere in other applications.


This "IS" how we go forward to a clean world.

The use of clean tech and the continuing development and implementation.

Invest in the future - not in the past - support clean operations for every industry.

Let's get'er done!

[-] 0 points by onetime (-67) 2 years ago

This is not going to happen overnight and it will take years and years until we stop using fossil fuels

[+] -7 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It certainly will take time and effort.

The thing is to require it as old installations need to be replaced.

To require it of all new installations being proposed.

This is the role of Government. The Government of The People. This is a watchdog duty of the EPA and THE PEOPLE.

We move forward - We gain Momentum - TOGETHER.

[-] -3 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Well, we definitely need to keep feeding people so they will grow more people!

The problem is not really that there are too many people, just too many white people!

[-] -1 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 2 years ago

Invest in pyrex.

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Okay, I like borosilicate!

Wait... why?

[-] -1 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 2 years ago

Only because I said so. Don't make me go all Draino all over you.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

I haven't needed draino ever since I started selling pretzels! Whoo-ee!

[-] -1 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 2 years ago

Have you seen RotoRooter lately? He's barefooted because some poor slime stole his shoes.

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

No I haven't... probably a 1%er shoe thief.

I guess we shouldn't assume the thief didn't need the shoes more than he did, though. He probably needed them because he got laid off from work at his corporate job...

[-] -3 points by Newspeak1 (39) from Mt Shasta, CA 2 years ago

In other words you are a Luddite. And do you really think we can abort our way to happiness? Really?

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

"And do you really think we can abort our way to happiness?" I can not decipher this gibberish. Luddite? No, I enjoy technology when it is appropriate and actually useful.

[-] 0 points by Newspeak1 (39) from Mt Shasta, CA 2 years ago

Wrong thread.