The green issue that dare not speak its name

  • Thread starter Thread starter ribozyme
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BlaineTog said:
If every man, woman, and child on earth were given 1,000 square feet of ground area (they can have as much vertical space as they want), the entirely of the human population would fit easily entirely within the state of Texas. Do the math yourself, it’s just a simple division. This implies to me that we’re probably not using too much land.
Click to expand...
Texas includes 267,339 square miles, or 7.4% of the nation’s total area.

50states.com/facts/texas.htm

That translates to 7 452 983 632 000 square foot (surveyable)

There are approximately 6,602,224,175 (July 2007 est.) people on Earth

kids.yahoo.com/reference/world-factbook/country/xx–World#people

Which translates to about 1,129 square feet per person.

However, infrastructure en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructure

and markets and schools and police and fire stations and hospitals and government buildings and water parking lots / garages and uninhabitable probably would take up 90% of that.

So, let’s say I can get us a deal on a family of 5 in a cardboard box, for 95% of the world’s population, freeing up an average of 2,258 square feet for the Americans, that would give a family of 5
approximately 11,290 square feet or 11 290 square foot [survey] = 0.259 183 774 27 acre.

Sounds like we need more room 😃
 
Ted_in_Charlott said:
Sounds like we need more room 😃
Click to expand...
Well, yes, of course, obviously. But 1,000 square feet isn’t an uncomfortable amount of space; not everyone would like it, of course, but it’s enough to live in. Even if we assume each person needs 10,000 additional square feet of infrastructure, you’d still be able to fit the entire population of the world into the United States alone, and there’d still be some room to spare. And of course, remember that I’m only talking about footprints: you could get effectively double the amount of space out of the same amount of land if you build everything two stories high, triple if it with three, etc etc.

Point is, just because we’re spread out across a large amount of land doesn’t mean we actually need anywhere near that much amount of land to live, which means there’s plenty more space for newbies.
 
BlaineTog said:
Well, yes, of course, obviously. But 1,000 square feet isn’t an uncomfortable amount of space; not everyone would like it, of course, but it’s enough to live in. Even if we assume each person needs 10,000 additional square feet of infrastructure, you’d still be able to fit the entire population of the world into the United States alone, and there’d still be some room to spare. And of course, remember that I’m only talking about footprints: you could get effectively double the amount of space out of the same amount of land if you build everything two stories high, triple if it with three, etc etc.

Point is, just because we’re spread out across a large amount of land doesn’t mean we actually need anywhere near that much amount of land to live, which means there’s plenty more space for newbies.
Click to expand...
Take heart – when all those who are runing around with their hair on fire, screaming about over-population have left the planet, there will be plenty of room for the rest of us.😉
 
vern_humphrey said:
No, I say this to holier-than-thou people who are full of demands that other people pay for grandiose programs, including their retirement, but who don’t even have jobs.
Click to expand...
Eh good point…good thing that doesn;t apply to me hehe. Course I think I know who you are talking about… 😉 And that person should get a job and support himself as soon as possible imo.
 
As for all these we could all live in texas/the USA calculations do they take into account alll things needed to live? Or just purely space for human beings/houses?
 
Calliso said:
Eh good point…good thing that doesn;t apply to me hehe. Course I think I know who you are talking about… 😉 And that person should get a job and support himself as soon as possible imo.
Click to expand...
I’ve made that suggestion several times. And when he posts all that stuff about how wonderful the Scandanavian countries are, I’ve explained he could go there – if he had a** job**, and could buy a ticket.😉
 
Swan said:
My understanding of population control has nothing to do with killing the people who are already here, only of limiting future births. Are you suggesting that there are mainstream green groups who serioulsy suggest murder and suicide to lessen the population or are you simply being disingenuous? :confused:
Click to expand...
Then why are some advocating Eugenics and Infanticide for those you are not or will not be productive part of society in their perverted view.
 
vern_humphrey said:
I’ve made that suggestion several times. And when he posts all that stuff about how wonderful the Scandanavian countries are, I’ve explained he could go there – if he had a** job**, and could buy a ticket.😉
Click to expand...
Ok, but what about Ted Turner and all you have are ad hominems against me. Focus on Ted Turner! Why do you think about his positions. I do not think you can call him “lazy.”
 
ribozyme said:
Ok, but what about Ted Turner and all you have are ad hominems against me. Focus on Ted Turner! Why do you think about his positions. I do not think you can call him “lazy.”
Click to expand...
What has this thread to do with Turner?
I thought we were discussing the myopic viewpoint of a single individual on this board that has provided an empty promise of suicide over mythical circumstances and advocates barrenness.
 
vz71 said:
What has this thread to do with Turner?
I thought we were discussing the myopic viewpoint of a single individual on this board that has provided an empty promise of suicide over mythical circumstances and advocates barrenness.
Click to expand...
I want to talk about Ted Turner’s views of population so this thread would not turn into attacks against me. I never attacked anyone on this thread.

It all started with the inane remark the people such as Ted Turner and Paul R. Ehrlich should commit suicide. People who advocate population control do not promote suicide or murder of people.

Regarding suicide:
Not doing it will be catastrophic. We’ll have eight degrees – we’ll be eight degrees hotter in 10 – not 10, but in 30 or 40 years. And basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died, and the rest of us will be cannibals.
Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state like Somalia or Sudan, and living conditions will be intolerable. The droughts will be so bad, there will be no more corn growing.
Click to expand...
I think suicide is preferable compared to the aforementioned scenario.

See this:

charlierose.com/shows/2008/04/01/1/a-conversation-with-ted-turner

and

warsocialism.com/thermogenecollision.pdf (about the scenario that I am trying to evade)
 
Microsoft has taken the millions we have paid them and because Bill Sr is on PP have used our money to sterilize the people. Use LINUX fight the sterilization of the planet,

Brother John
 
Ribozyme, do you really believe that in 30-40 years we’ll be cannibals because Ted Turner said so?

Did he watch *Soylent Green *and think it was a documentary?

You could go out and rent “Logan’s Run”. It’s a cool sci-fi that deals with population control. Check out Michael York’s final phrase.
 
ribozyme said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by vz71
What has this thread to do with Turner?
I thought we were discussing the myopic viewpoint of a single individual on this board that has provided an empty promise of suicide over mythical circumstances and advocates barrenness.

I want to talk about Ted Turner’s views of population so this thread would not turn into attacks against me. I never attacked anyone on this thread.

It all started with the inane remark the people such as Ted Turner and Paul R. Ehrlich should commit suicide. People who advocate population control do not promote suicide or murder of people.
Click to expand...
People who advocate population control do not promote suicide or murder of people.

That is precisely what they advocate!

Suicide: You yourself would choose suicide over “Soylent Green-land”.
Murder: Abortion
 
I’m still trying to figure out that, if so many people are starving to death, how and why the population keeps growing? And most from developing nations.
 
Calliso said:
As for all these we could all live in texas/the USA calculations do they take into account alll things needed to live? Or just purely space for human beings/houses?
Click to expand...
Purley space. But it give us an idea of the actual size of the population. But the planet can feed the entire planet. I see the waste in the US and know that it can feed the whole planet.
 
Wow! Everybody is all upset over some 18 year old’s fevered ramblings. As for Ted Turner, he is not so smart. He actually married Jane Fonda! Vietnam vets are not so fonda Jane.:eek:
 
State denies cancer treatment, offers suicide instead
‘To say, we’ll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it’s cruel’
Click to expand...
State officials have offered a lung cancer patient the option of having the Oregon Health Plan, set up in 1994 to ration health care, pay for an assisted suicide but not for the chemotherapy prescribed by her physician.
Click to expand...
The story appears to be a happy ending for Barbara Wagner, who has been notified by a drug manufacturer that it will provide the expensive medication, estimated to cost $4,000 a month, for the first year and then allow her to apply for further treatment, according to a report in the Eugene Register-Guard.
Click to expand...
Full Story
Click to expand...
Another example of the Population Control’s out of control behavior.
 
peregrinus_WA said:
Another example of the Population Control’s out of control behavior.
Click to expand...
You will probably say it is better to let her die than to provide increased funding for a public health program by increasing taxes as that is the worst transgression of any government. So, how will she get treatment (since she presumably does not have much income) under a “free-market” scheme?

“We can’t cover everything for everyone,” Dr. Walter Shaffer, a spokesman for the state Division of Medical Assistance Programs, told the paper. “Taxpayer dollars are limited for publicly funded programs. We try to come up with policies that provide the most good for the most people.”

And I presume the drug is erlotinib or bevacizumab (it is not mentioned in the article but they are expensive drugs that increase survival * in lung cancer patients).

nytimes.com/2006/02/15/business/15drug.html

So how is this related to population control? Isn’t that article about how the Oregon’s Health Plan is underfunded to take care of such a situation?*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top