Human overpopulation and pollution
- Thread starter GotGusto
- Start date
The thing that kills me is that the liberal pantywaists that put fort the global warming is human made nonsense are usually the exact same assholes who say all life is precious even the useless eaters that are breeding us into oblivion.
Can't have it both ways people.....cull the weak or starve with them
Can't have it both ways people.....cull the weak or starve with them
Overpopulation?
With our current state you can fit the entire world's population into the state of Texas the population density would less than that of Manhattan. Niger which has the most poverty and overpopulation has 9 people per square km. The US has 28 people per square km, Japan, 340, Netherlands 484 and Hong Kong leading at a colossal 6,621. and Hong Kong is one of the richest places on the planet.
Famine and shortages are not caused by overpopulation because the sources of food like animals and plants grow at a faster rate than humans. In Niger, 2.5 million people have inadequate food because food production is managed by the state. That causes things like civil wars and government corruption that interfere with food distribution. The absence of property right, enforcement of price controls and other socialist experiments underway in other African countries are causing needless problems.
The engineering and industrial innovations of food production grows at an incredible rate. In the 1800's 99% of the population labored on farms and it was full of with famines and shortages. Today the population has grown vastly more, we can efficiently grow more food on less land, less than 1% of the population is farming and we overproduce food to the point where we give shiploads away to needy countries.
It is the policies of economic freedom of a country that determines its wealth and poverty, not overpopulation.
Check out this chart from gapminder (http://graphs.gapminder.org/world/), the richer the country, the lower the birth rate. As people get richer, they have less kids. Some countries have a negative growth rate. In places like Russia and Singapore, even with a national sex day they couldn't get their birth rates up.
and in a humourous way, this article is right on the money LOL:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/03/24/how-to-use-your-children-to-annoy-a-liberal/
With our current state you can fit the entire world's population into the state of Texas the population density would less than that of Manhattan. Niger which has the most poverty and overpopulation has 9 people per square km. The US has 28 people per square km, Japan, 340, Netherlands 484 and Hong Kong leading at a colossal 6,621. and Hong Kong is one of the richest places on the planet.
Famine and shortages are not caused by overpopulation because the sources of food like animals and plants grow at a faster rate than humans. In Niger, 2.5 million people have inadequate food because food production is managed by the state. That causes things like civil wars and government corruption that interfere with food distribution. The absence of property right, enforcement of price controls and other socialist experiments underway in other African countries are causing needless problems.
The engineering and industrial innovations of food production grows at an incredible rate. In the 1800's 99% of the population labored on farms and it was full of with famines and shortages. Today the population has grown vastly more, we can efficiently grow more food on less land, less than 1% of the population is farming and we overproduce food to the point where we give shiploads away to needy countries.
It is the policies of economic freedom of a country that determines its wealth and poverty, not overpopulation.
Check out this chart from gapminder (http://graphs.gapminder.org/world/), the richer the country, the lower the birth rate. As people get richer, they have less kids. Some countries have a negative growth rate. In places like Russia and Singapore, even with a national sex day they couldn't get their birth rates up.
and in a humourous way, this article is right on the money LOL:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/03/24/how-to-use-your-children-to-annoy-a-liberal/
Humans are doing the majority of the self destruction, we're intelligent enough to do all kinds of great things, yet we're the most ignorant, selfish and most destructive.themexi said:
The part I put in bold that you said, well, I'm all pro-choice buddy, that life is precious crap is all from the Christian conservatives.
Ya, that's what we need more people on this planet to suck everything bone dry from this planet.
Our resources aren't infinite, you know like ohhh, oil (the stuff the rich conservatives love to drill for).
Try again.
Well, I studied ethiopia in school and while the raw data has been updated the system is still the same.
THE major problem in places like Ethiopia is that the land can barely support the current population. Then throw in three years of drought in a row and not limiting the population, then you have mass starvation.
The reason most underdeveloped countries have huge population grow is due to NO birth control and the fact that because they know 3 out of 5 kids will die, they have 5. So instead of having 2 and feeding them, they have 5 that don't have enough to eat.
In addition, when "do good" agencies step in, they artificially support the cycle of birth/starvation/famine/death. By not allowing the ecosystem to limit the population, they are just continuing the cycle.
I saw a doc on one african nation (can't remember which one) but on average, females have their first baby at 12, and on average, have 12 in their life and those are just the babies that are born alive. I forget how many are still born.
The BEST analogy I have heard yet was from the movie "the matrix" where agent smith was talking to Morpheus and he said: Humans are like locusts, you move into an area and strip it of all natural resources. That's us to a T. Look at what we've done to our air/water/food supply? Now we've polluted space?
THE major problem in places like Ethiopia is that the land can barely support the current population. Then throw in three years of drought in a row and not limiting the population, then you have mass starvation.
The reason most underdeveloped countries have huge population grow is due to NO birth control and the fact that because they know 3 out of 5 kids will die, they have 5. So instead of having 2 and feeding them, they have 5 that don't have enough to eat.
In addition, when "do good" agencies step in, they artificially support the cycle of birth/starvation/famine/death. By not allowing the ecosystem to limit the population, they are just continuing the cycle.
I saw a doc on one african nation (can't remember which one) but on average, females have their first baby at 12, and on average, have 12 in their life and those are just the babies that are born alive. I forget how many are still born.
The BEST analogy I have heard yet was from the movie "the matrix" where agent smith was talking to Morpheus and he said: Humans are like locusts, you move into an area and strip it of all natural resources. That's us to a T. Look at what we've done to our air/water/food supply? Now we've polluted space?
Pollution?
You don't need legislation, the market will take care of it, the more growth and progress there and the more resources we use, the greener we will be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve
Another situation where the Kuznets curve appears is the environment. Many environmental health indicators, such as water and air pollution, show the inverted U-shaped curve. The argument for the environmental Kuznet's curve is based on the following argument. In a developing industrial economy, little weight is given to environmental concerns, raising environmental pollution byproducts. After attaining a certain standard of living from the industrial production system and when environmental pollution is at its greatest, the focus changes from self-interest to social interest. The interests give greater weight to a clean environment by reducing and reversing the environmental pollution trend from industrialization. This parabolic trend occurs in the level of many of the environmental pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, lead, DDT, chlorofluorocarbons, sewage, and other chemicals previously released directly into the air or water.
For example, between 1970 and 2006, the United States' inflation-adjusted GDP grew by 195%, the number of cars and trucks in the country more than doubled, and the total number of miles driven increased by 178%. However, during that same time period, annual emissions of carbon monoxide fell from 197 million tons to 89 million, nitrogen oxides emissions fell from 27 million tons to 19 million, sulfur dioxide emissions fell from 31 million tons to 15 million, particulate emissions fell by 80%, and lead emissions fell by more than 98%
highly recommend these excellent books:
The Real Environmental Crisis: Why Poverty, Not Affluence, Is the Environment's Number One Enemy http://www.amazon.com/Real-Environmental-Crisis-Affluence-Environments/dp/0520243285/
A Poverty of Reason: Sustainable Development and Economic Growth http://www.amazon.com/Poverty-Reason-Sustainable-Development-Economic/dp/0945999852
"In this detailed economic investigation of sustainable development, a noted professor of economics argues that many of the alarms commonly sounded by environmentalists are, in fact, unfounded, and that current sustainable development policies should be reconsidered in light of their effects on the earth's human population, such as increased poverty and environmental degradation in developing countries. In a rare balanced counterpoint to popular sustainable development rhetoric, Professor Beckerman forces policy makers to consider whether future generations have rights that morally constrain and trump the claims of those alive today, particularly the masses of people living in dire poverty, arguing that the current sustainable development program is a menace to the prosperity and freedom of both current and future generations."
Two Cheers for the Affluent Society, A Spirited Defense of Economic Growth http://www.amazon.com/Affluent-Society-Spirited-Defense-Economic/dp/B0028QNUOM
4 excellent documentaries and 1 lecture discussing the global warming scam
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295
The Great Global Warming Swidle http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=288952680655100870
Exposed: The Climate of Fear, The Other Side of the Global Warming Debate http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5605527100321408693
Global Warming or Global Governance?, Contrasting the "facts" of An Inconvenient Truth http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8698781878429061634
The Cato Institute, Global Warming - Some Convenient Facts http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4284409908361663875
DDT as just one example of what the policies of the scientifically illiterate in the name of doing good have done overseas:
The Worst Crime of the 20th Century http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/aug/050816a.html
Rachel Carson's Genocide http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4965
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot ... Rachel Carson http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/955667/posts
Climate change is not an excuse for genocide http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea...ate-change-is-not-an-excuse-for-genocide.html
You don't need legislation, the market will take care of it, the more growth and progress there and the more resources we use, the greener we will be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve
Another situation where the Kuznets curve appears is the environment. Many environmental health indicators, such as water and air pollution, show the inverted U-shaped curve. The argument for the environmental Kuznet's curve is based on the following argument. In a developing industrial economy, little weight is given to environmental concerns, raising environmental pollution byproducts. After attaining a certain standard of living from the industrial production system and when environmental pollution is at its greatest, the focus changes from self-interest to social interest. The interests give greater weight to a clean environment by reducing and reversing the environmental pollution trend from industrialization. This parabolic trend occurs in the level of many of the environmental pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, lead, DDT, chlorofluorocarbons, sewage, and other chemicals previously released directly into the air or water.
For example, between 1970 and 2006, the United States' inflation-adjusted GDP grew by 195%, the number of cars and trucks in the country more than doubled, and the total number of miles driven increased by 178%. However, during that same time period, annual emissions of carbon monoxide fell from 197 million tons to 89 million, nitrogen oxides emissions fell from 27 million tons to 19 million, sulfur dioxide emissions fell from 31 million tons to 15 million, particulate emissions fell by 80%, and lead emissions fell by more than 98%
highly recommend these excellent books:
The Real Environmental Crisis: Why Poverty, Not Affluence, Is the Environment's Number One Enemy http://www.amazon.com/Real-Environmental-Crisis-Affluence-Environments/dp/0520243285/
A Poverty of Reason: Sustainable Development and Economic Growth http://www.amazon.com/Poverty-Reason-Sustainable-Development-Economic/dp/0945999852
"In this detailed economic investigation of sustainable development, a noted professor of economics argues that many of the alarms commonly sounded by environmentalists are, in fact, unfounded, and that current sustainable development policies should be reconsidered in light of their effects on the earth's human population, such as increased poverty and environmental degradation in developing countries. In a rare balanced counterpoint to popular sustainable development rhetoric, Professor Beckerman forces policy makers to consider whether future generations have rights that morally constrain and trump the claims of those alive today, particularly the masses of people living in dire poverty, arguing that the current sustainable development program is a menace to the prosperity and freedom of both current and future generations."
The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy http://www.amazon.com/Bottomless-Well-Twilight-Virtue-Energy/dp/046503117X/Cobster said:
Two Cheers for the Affluent Society, A Spirited Defense of Economic Growth http://www.amazon.com/Affluent-Society-Spirited-Defense-Economic/dp/B0028QNUOM
4 excellent documentaries and 1 lecture discussing the global warming scam
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295
The Great Global Warming Swidle http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=288952680655100870
Exposed: The Climate of Fear, The Other Side of the Global Warming Debate http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5605527100321408693
Global Warming or Global Governance?, Contrasting the "facts" of An Inconvenient Truth http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8698781878429061634
The Cato Institute, Global Warming - Some Convenient Facts http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4284409908361663875
DDT as just one example of what the policies of the scientifically illiterate in the name of doing good have done overseas:
The Worst Crime of the 20th Century http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/aug/050816a.html
Rachel Carson's Genocide http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4965
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot ... Rachel Carson http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/955667/posts
Climate change is not an excuse for genocide http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea...ate-change-is-not-an-excuse-for-genocide.html
The biggest big oil, Exxon; is owned by ordinarily people. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobil’s shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The people who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company. When Exxon Mobil earns $41 billion in a year, that money does not go into the coffers of a few billionaire executives in Texas. It goes into the pension and retirement accounts of ordinary citizens. When Exxon pays a dividend, that money goes to pay for the mortgages and oxygen tanks and in-home care of lots of the elderly and the union pension plans of blue-collar workers. After expenses, Exxon's exploration and finding new ways of delivering oil benefits cheaper to the ordinary people in our cars than it does to oil executives.Cobster said:
If the price of a barrel of oil stays high, lots and lots of entrepreneurs will scramble (understatement) for ways to come up with ways to supply cheaper energy, just as they are now. At really expensive prices it would even be profitable to recover oil stuck in the oil sands in Alberta that contain enough oil to meet our needs for the next 100 years.
The last time that was tried it wasted billions of taxpayer money on a totally failed synfuels project. That was a $20 billion dollar Carter administration plan to develop a cheap way to make synthetic natural gas from coal. At least this time they are letting the market decide which projects to fund.
After factoring for inflation, gas at $2.25 a gallon is 67 cents cheaper than 1922 and 69 cents cheaper than 1981. Bottled water at $1.25 for a 24oz bottle is 3x more expensive than gas.
Its easy to bottle water, how about gas? It has to be sucked out the ground, sometimes beneath the sea floor of oceans. The drills have to bend and dig sideways through as much as 5 miles of earth. If something is found, it has to be shipped through long pipelines and shipped in monstrously expensive cargo ships. Then its converted into into 3 or 4 different formulates and then transported in specialized trucks that cost $100k+. Then not forgetting the endless bureaucratic safety regulations and devices to ensure that people don't blow themselves up at the pump.
The issue is less overpopulation and more about standard of living. People always talk about helping poorer nations improve their living conditions to the level of the western developed world. If that happened, then there would be disaster. Already the world is becoming negatively impacted as China improves its living standard and it is still far off and has much to go.
There is no way the world can sustain even 3 billion people with the living standard of the average American (or Canadian - it's about the same) let alone 6 billion.
There is no way the world can sustain even 3 billion people with the living standard of the average American (or Canadian - it's about the same) let alone 6 billion.
Don said:
I'd say thank goodness more people are developing (excellent book: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Billion-New-Capitalists-Wealth/dp/0465062822/), the more undeveloped they are the more pollution they cause. As I said in an earlier post in this thread about the Kuznets curve, a developing country pollutes more but gets exponentially more greener as they progress.
Capitalism will save the planet, half baked anti growth and progress hippie ideologies will not.
One way to judge the impact of capitalism on the environment is to compare the environmental records of capitalist countries with those of countries with precapitalist, socialist, or communist economies. The record clearly shows environmental conditions are improving in every capitalist country in the world and deteriorating only in non-capitalist countries.
Environmental conditions in the former Soviet Union prior to that communist nation’s collapse, for example, were devastating and getting worse.
Untreated sewage was routinely dumped in the country’s rivers, workers were exposed to high levels of toxic chemicals in their workplaces, and air quality was so poor in many major cities that children suffered asthma and other breathing disorders at epidemic levels.
In the United States, the environment is unequivocally becoming cleaner and safer. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), total air pollution emissions in the United States fell 34 percent between 1970 and 1990. Particulate-matter emissions fell by 60 percent, sulfur oxides by 25 percent, carbon monoxide by 40 percent, and lead by 96 percent. Between 1987–1992 and 1994–1999, the number of bad-air days (when air quality failed to meet federal standards) fell 82 percent in Newark, 54 percent in Los Angeles, 78 percent in Chicago, and 69 percent in Milwaukee. Total emissions of air pollutants tracked by the EPA are forecast to fall by 22 percent between 1997 and 2015 (assuming there are no new air-quality regulations) thanks to reductions in tailpipe emissions for most types of vehicles (already down 96 percent or more since 1978) and cleaner fuels.
According to the EPA, water quality also has improved, and in some cases dramatically so.
Sports fishing has returned to all five of the Great Lakes, the number of fishing advisories has fallen, and a debate has started concerning the scientific basis of many of the remaining advisories. According to the Council on Environmental Quality, levels of PCBs, DDT, and other toxins in the Great Lakes fell dramatically during the 1970s and continued to fall (at a slower rate) during the 1980s and 1990s.
The number of wooded acres in the United States has grown by 20 percent in the past twenty years. The average annual wood growth in the United States today is three times what it was in 1920. In Vermont, for example, the area covered by forests has increased from 35 percent a hundred years ago to about 76 percent today. In the four states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, there are 26 million more acres of forest today than there were at the turn of the century.
As a result of this re-greening of America, wildlife is enjoying a big comeback. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, breeding populations of bald eagles in the lower 48 states have doubled every six or seven years since the late 1970s. In 1994, there were more than 4,000 active nests, five times the number reported in 1974.
The security of personal possessions made possible by the capitalist institution of private-property rights is a key reason why capitalism protects the environment. Where property rights are secure, the owners of property (land as well as other physical assets) are more likely to invest in improvements that increase the property’s long-term value. Why plant trees if your right to eventually harvest them is at risk? Why manage a forest for sustained yields in the future if someone else will capture the profit of their eventual harvest?
Markets, the second capitalist institution, tend to increase efficiency and reduce waste by putting resources under the control of those who value them most highly. This tends to ratchet downward the amount of any resource that is not used or consumed during production, a practice that produces cleaner-burning fuels and machines, lower-emission manufacturing processes, fewer byproducts shipped to landfills, and so on. A good example of this is the fact that the amount of energy required to produce a dollar of goods and services in the United States fell 1.3 percent a year from 1985 to 2000 and is expected to fall 1.6 percent per year from 2000 to 2020.
Finally, the wealth created by the institutions of capitalism makes it possible to invest more resources to protect the environment. Once again, the United States is the best example of this tendency. The cost of complying with environmental regulations in 2000 was approximately $267 billion, or nearly $2,000 for every household. Only a capitalist society can afford to spend so much.
One way to judge the impact of capitalism on the environment is to compare the environmental records of capitalist countries with those of countries with precapitalist, socialist, or communist economies. The record clearly shows environmental conditions are improving in every capitalist country in the world and deteriorating only in non-capitalist countries.
Environmental conditions in the former Soviet Union prior to that communist nation’s collapse, for example, were devastating and getting worse.
Untreated sewage was routinely dumped in the country’s rivers, workers were exposed to high levels of toxic chemicals in their workplaces, and air quality was so poor in many major cities that children suffered asthma and other breathing disorders at epidemic levels.
In the United States, the environment is unequivocally becoming cleaner and safer. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), total air pollution emissions in the United States fell 34 percent between 1970 and 1990. Particulate-matter emissions fell by 60 percent, sulfur oxides by 25 percent, carbon monoxide by 40 percent, and lead by 96 percent. Between 1987–1992 and 1994–1999, the number of bad-air days (when air quality failed to meet federal standards) fell 82 percent in Newark, 54 percent in Los Angeles, 78 percent in Chicago, and 69 percent in Milwaukee. Total emissions of air pollutants tracked by the EPA are forecast to fall by 22 percent between 1997 and 2015 (assuming there are no new air-quality regulations) thanks to reductions in tailpipe emissions for most types of vehicles (already down 96 percent or more since 1978) and cleaner fuels.
According to the EPA, water quality also has improved, and in some cases dramatically so.
Sports fishing has returned to all five of the Great Lakes, the number of fishing advisories has fallen, and a debate has started concerning the scientific basis of many of the remaining advisories. According to the Council on Environmental Quality, levels of PCBs, DDT, and other toxins in the Great Lakes fell dramatically during the 1970s and continued to fall (at a slower rate) during the 1980s and 1990s.
The number of wooded acres in the United States has grown by 20 percent in the past twenty years. The average annual wood growth in the United States today is three times what it was in 1920. In Vermont, for example, the area covered by forests has increased from 35 percent a hundred years ago to about 76 percent today. In the four states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, there are 26 million more acres of forest today than there were at the turn of the century.
As a result of this re-greening of America, wildlife is enjoying a big comeback. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, breeding populations of bald eagles in the lower 48 states have doubled every six or seven years since the late 1970s. In 1994, there were more than 4,000 active nests, five times the number reported in 1974.
The security of personal possessions made possible by the capitalist institution of private-property rights is a key reason why capitalism protects the environment. Where property rights are secure, the owners of property (land as well as other physical assets) are more likely to invest in improvements that increase the property’s long-term value. Why plant trees if your right to eventually harvest them is at risk? Why manage a forest for sustained yields in the future if someone else will capture the profit of their eventual harvest?
Markets, the second capitalist institution, tend to increase efficiency and reduce waste by putting resources under the control of those who value them most highly. This tends to ratchet downward the amount of any resource that is not used or consumed during production, a practice that produces cleaner-burning fuels and machines, lower-emission manufacturing processes, fewer byproducts shipped to landfills, and so on. A good example of this is the fact that the amount of energy required to produce a dollar of goods and services in the United States fell 1.3 percent a year from 1985 to 2000 and is expected to fall 1.6 percent per year from 2000 to 2020.
Finally, the wealth created by the institutions of capitalism makes it possible to invest more resources to protect the environment. Once again, the United States is the best example of this tendency. The cost of complying with environmental regulations in 2000 was approximately $267 billion, or nearly $2,000 for every household. Only a capitalist society can afford to spend so much.
You seem to think the world can be treated as some kind of factory geared to support us.binderman said:
The US Census Bureau has estimated the world will add another 3 Billion people by 2050, bringing us near to 10 Billion. The growth rate has slowed, but the overall population number continues to grow.
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopgraph.html
The stresses this will create are already evident. Nearly half of the world by 2050 will live in countires with water shortages, and while the problem is most acute in the African continent it is by no means limited there. The giant Ogallala aquifer which is critical to the growth of crops in the US Plain States, is being depleted and increasingly contaminated. Then there are the truly perverted use of some of the most pristine waters on Earth, such as the millions of gallons of water being used to process the tar/soil muck we have churned up in Northern Alberta. It's not like we can replace this people. Agriculture alone uses 70 times the amount of water as domestic use, so it shouldn't be difficult to understand how with the growth of population and the need to feed people, will require an exponential use of water. Additionally, in many areas of the world topsoil is being lost at an accelerating rate, again especially in Africa, making the land basically useless to sustain life. The farmers simply move to another area and repeat the whole process. To discount the impact of adding more and more people to the planet is absurd, and results in us taking more and more risks in keeping us barely beyond the tipping point.
Last edited:
Geohive is pretty good:Robinto said:
http://www.geohive.com/charts/en_cons.aspx
Canada is 7th but remember to look at per capita. Considering we are ~10% the population of the USA but consume ~14% the energy the USA does, we actually consume more energy than the USA per capita.
Also:
http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=77c10b18-0723-40d9-9f9b-f1ad20a017fd
http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/203678
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/417080
Good overall summary (discusses our high energy consumption coupled with being a big polluter):
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0013229
I haven't read the book but I don't necessarily buy that argument. You think China is a major polluter because it's "developing"? No, it's because lots of American/Western industry (the major polluters) now operate out of China rather than America. There they can operate with impunity in regards to the environment and to standards for workers.binderman said:
Hey, and you want another example of journalistic spin of facts? Have another look at that photo-montage of doom and gloom, and open your eyes a little. Some of those pictures are of good things, it you rewrite the captions. The giant field of refrigerators, is actually, pretty clearly, a recycling depot. I thought recycling was a good thing? It provides employment for the locals, and the reuse of materials for new products.
The field of yellow cars are not at the bottom of the ocean, but will be made into new cars pretty soon when the somebody over there gets off his ass.
The little Asian kid is sorting PETN bottles to sell them to a recycler as well. China recycles its PETN because it has reached a level of techno-development that the countries in the other pictures still have to strive for. They're just dumping them into the dumps and the water supply. That makes for lousy swimming, and makes poor economic sense.
It may be tough that a little kid has to work to eat, but my Dad had to work as a kid a generation ago back in Ireland, but things have changed radically now thanks to technological advancement.
The field of yellow cars are not at the bottom of the ocean, but will be made into new cars pretty soon when the somebody over there gets off his ass.
The little Asian kid is sorting PETN bottles to sell them to a recycler as well. China recycles its PETN because it has reached a level of techno-development that the countries in the other pictures still have to strive for. They're just dumping them into the dumps and the water supply. That makes for lousy swimming, and makes poor economic sense.
It may be tough that a little kid has to work to eat, but my Dad had to work as a kid a generation ago back in Ireland, but things have changed radically now thanks to technological advancement.
