The best to way to "green" your home

+ Reply to Thread

Page 2 of 3 First 1 2 3 Last

• Jump to page:

Results 16 to 30 of 31

Originally Posted by Val

The above, along with the biggest green thing a person can do---go to one or no child families, and tell the politicians to shut off immigration and kick out the illegals. Overpopulation is the root cause of nearly all environmental problems, along with consumerism like selling products. So may who advertize "green" are bull. Trinkets won't stop the population crash. Trinkets won't cause a 90% reduction in HGHGs to mitigate AGW.. Population must be lowered 2/3 to sustainable, along with green lifestyles, homes, and transportation. Time is of the essence.

I agree even if this does sound cold hearted to most. The world is overpopulated with humans but of course most people don't want to acknowledge that fact. In fact most people don't think that there's anything wrong with our rampant population growth. And on top of that people are trying to do everything they can to make sure they live as long as possible, make sure they're able to buy and consume as much as they want to. Humans are just too selfish and inconsiderate of everything else that exists in this world and the more humans there are, the worse it is for the world as a whole. Population control, as cold hearted as it sounds is really a necessity to keep humanity from destroying this world.

Ken, I found this old post at theenvironmentsite.org and it sounds like it could be you, or some other member of NPG well versed in math. Maybe I am wrong, but it is great, and a wow! for me when I read it:
"What if there was a total moratorium, ruthlessly enforced, on having ANY kids for the longest time possible without causing extinction? That would be say, 30 years. At the present death rate of 60 million per year, and if it was somehow done instantaneously, then the population in 2039 would be down to 5 Billion. With all the effects of depletion and pollution on food production for that time, it would yield around 1,200 calories per person per day, if distributed evenly. People would have to be at a maximum weight of 100 pounds to do enough work to feed themselves at 400 calories per day expended above the sedentary starvation level for someone of 100 pounds weight. If those old enough to breed kept the population at that level of near starvation as the sustainable level continued to decline from further depletion and pollution effects, then the population would decline further to a final state of sustainability where depletion equals replenishment of soils, and water, and pollution is at absorption rate. The world population would be around a billion, and would have avoided the holocaust of the population crash, and extinction if human habits had also changed toward sustainability.
It is a mighty big what if, and knowing human psychology and inertia, just will not happen. The population drop off will be the natural result of depleting and polluting the habitat. Human life expectancy will peak and fall, as food production ability also falls, and too many people causes falling incomes and increased prices to world depression. Pollution effects will continue to increase, and they are nasty.
The people that have had more than 2 kids since the world reached maximum sustainable at the lowest reasonable standard of living, the late 1920s, have caused what will happen. Of course, no one knew until the late 1960s, and now, you can see the impossible situation our species is in. There is no way to stop the Juggernaut.
What CAN be done is to mitigate the destruction of the biosphere to prevent extinction of the survivors. Minimize pollution of all kinds, maximize soil building with true composting increase, reduce pure water usage through efficiency and recycling, and reduce family size to decrease depletion and pollution, and lessen the impact of the crash. Certain areas can be "niched" to being totally independent for energy and complete nutrition, while others who use up everything will turn their lands to unusable wastelands. Global pollution will still affect even these "niched" areas----mercury, malevolent climate change, and other atmospheric and seaborne toxics---for many thousands of years. The more people of now and until the mid century crash, the less survivors and survivability of the species, along with many other species, many of which we need in our ecological support system.
Reduce, Re-use, and recycle are still good words to live by, and teach. What is really more important; personal selfishness, greed, and ignorance, or future generations of yet unborn people? What is more important, you, or the human species? Soldiers fight for their country, while true environmentalists fight for those future unborn people. Both make personal sacrifices, while the selfish, greedy, or ignorant do not. Environmentalists can help teach the ignorant, and show the selfish and greedy the errors of their ways. It is frustrating because the ignorant are very hard to teach, and the selfish and greedy resist strongly in changing their ways, with every rationalization possible, every form of deceit possible, and with the power their money can buy.
Still, reduce, re-use, and recycle--live it, and teach it. Rest when needed, and know you are doing what is truly right and good."
I, like nrdthxpr, am "clinging to a thread of hope." This above post makes me know we are truly doing what is right and good.

Originally Posted by Val

Ken, I found this old post at theenvironmentsite.org and it sounds like it could be you, or some other member of NPG well versed in math. Maybe I am wrong, but it is great, and a wow! for me when I read it:
"What if there was a total moratorium, ruthlessly enforced, on having ANY kids for the longest time possible without causing extinction? That would be say, 30 years. At the present death rate of 60 million per year, and if it was somehow done instantaneously, then the population in 2039 would be down to 5 Billion. With all the effects of depletion and pollution on food production for that time, it would yield around 1,200 calories per person per day, if distributed evenly. People would have to be at a maximum weight of 100 pounds to do enough work to feed themselves at 400 calories per day expended above the sedentary starvation level for someone of 100 pounds weight. If those old enough to breed kept the population at that level of near starvation as the sustainable level continued to decline from further depletion and pollution effects, then the population would decline further to a final state of sustainability where depletion equals replenishment of soils, and water, and pollution is at absorption rate. The world population would be around a billion, and would have avoided the holocaust of the population crash, and extinction if human habits had also changed toward sustainability.
It is a mighty big what if, and knowing human psychology and inertia, just will not happen. The population drop off will be the natural result of depleting and polluting the habitat. Human life expectancy will peak and fall, as food production ability also falls, and too many people causes falling incomes and increased prices to world depression. Pollution effects will continue to increase, and they are nasty.
The people that have had more than 2 kids since the world reached maximum sustainable at the lowest reasonable standard of living, the late 1920s, have caused what will happen. Of course, no one knew until the late 1960s, and now, you can see the impossible situation our species is in. There is no way to stop the Juggernaut.
What CAN be done is to mitigate the destruction of the biosphere to prevent extinction of the survivors. Minimize pollution of all kinds, maximize soil building with true composting increase, reduce pure water usage through efficiency and recycling, and reduce family size to decrease depletion and pollution, and lessen the impact of the crash. Certain areas can be "niched" to being totally independent for energy and complete nutrition, while others who use up everything will turn their lands to unusable wastelands. Global pollution will still affect even these "niched" areas----mercury, malevolent climate change, and other atmospheric and seaborne toxics---for many thousands of years. The more people of now and until the mid century crash, the less survivors and survivability of the species, along with many other species, many of which we need in our ecological support system.
Reduce, Re-use, and recycle are still good words to live by, and teach. What is really more important; personal selfishness, greed, and ignorance, or future generations of yet unborn people? What is more important, you, or the human species? Soldiers fight for their country, while true environmentalists fight for those future unborn people. Both make personal sacrifices, while the selfish, greedy, or ignorant do not. Environmentalists can help teach the ignorant, and show the selfish and greedy the errors of their ways. It is frustrating because the ignorant are very hard to teach, and the selfish and greedy resist strongly in changing their ways, with every rationalization possible, every form of deceit possible, and with the power their money can buy.
Still, reduce, re-use, and recycle--live it, and teach it. Rest when needed, and know you are doing what is truly right and good."
I, like nrdthxpr, am "clinging to a thread of hope." This above post makes me know we are truly doing what is right and good.

I bet there is something that could be done. I bet sooner or later scientists could develop some kind of sterilization drug that could be mass produced, fed into the water systems and consumed by the majority of the public, at least in the well developed nations. Of course the project would have to be top secret, and the public could never know about it. But if something like that could be done then that would go a long way to curbing the population growth in large parts of the world.

Way to go Val, way to go. That some people are actually greening their entire house and grounds lends some hopeful encouragement to an otherwise rather grim global predicament.