If people knew how to save money, we'd be a whole lot wealthier. I worked at a minimum wage job for three years to save for school (a year of which was part-time), saving pretty well everything that didn't go towards a necessity and came out with twenty grand saved. Imagine how much other's could save if they managed their spendings a little better...

I fully believe this planet can sustain twice the number of people we have now, as long as we are responsible with our resources.

Not in my lifetime we won't.

Getting out of the milky way is pretty much impossible, travelling to another planet on the other hand is possible.




Now that, is impossible.

Indeed. We can't continue to increase consumption indefinetly.

That makes sense but you're assuming they've already solved it. It's possible they have, tough. But I like to think there's a problem. Adds excitement to my otherwise boring life.

Money doesn't have a whole lot to do with sustainability. It's a means to an end. It's how we produce and maintain such things as cars, clothing, housing, food, etc. that is what will keep our population and, more importantly, this planet sustained. Money is just something to buy those products with. Also, many people have things to pay for, such as emergency medical care, car insurance, rent, food, etc. In your situation it was possible to save $20k, but don't assume that everyone else should have saved up $20k because you were able to.

We actually don't know how much fossil fuels are left. So energy is no a problem. I say the U.S. goes bankrupt from our stupid government spending money when we are over 13 trillion dollars in debt.

• War-Check
  
• Famine-Check
  
• Disease-Check

We're good!

There's a technique used currently that generates 'fake' fossil fuels, yet they do the same thing as actual ones.

Aren't I always?

http://www.zerofootprint.net/ :whisper:

If people knew how to save more money, they'd probably still spend it where its needed.

This statement right here is something every misanthrope should read.

Some people really should be able to differentiate between their own well being and that of the world at large. A world mind you that while violence and dominance is a fact of the organic condition (strong take what they will, Will to Power, and the like) where humans seems to be getting better to a http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html. Besides acting under the assumption that any species that that may have risen in our place instead on the evolutionary curve and remain in perfect harmony with their environment throughout the history of that species (similar technological levels included) is both absurd and hopelessly idealistic.



So any species achieving sentience past a societal level of subsistence agricultural should cease to exist? How droll.



As far as self-sterilization is concerned I would't mind doing so if I got payed for it and it didn't involve a snip or gamma rays. I don't like kids to put it simply and nicely (among other things).

As far as over population is concerned however I'm certain that one of the following will occur as natural (or perhaps man made) event(s) will result as a counter to older and longer living populations with a rebound baby boom afterward:

-Mega disaster (Something like a super volcano blowing out, meteor impact)
-A wide spread disease (Another black death, perhaps man made with a cure perhaps in months but by then deaths may range in 1 billion+ as a result of said pandemic)
-Massive lack of resources (Food, especially [clean] water)

[Note: Even with a world war barring nuclear weapons bypassing MAD deaths will remain too small in comparison to death that occurs via say heart disease or a host of other illnesses versus homicide or physical accidents.]

Honestly, I believe China's one child policy seems like a good idea, even if it's kind of immoral. v;

I completely agree with you...

It isn't sustainable, economically.

We don't need to leave the galaxy ever. There are enough earth like planets and terraformable planets out there in the Milky Way for the next thousand-billion years I would think.

Yay. c: :foodndrink:


True, but still a good attempt.

If there were only ten people on the planet and one of them owned ninety-nine percent of the worlds resources, then the starvation and misery of the other nine would give the appearance of over-population, and that is what i feel is happening now.

Exponential growth has to be tackled at some point because it will very obviously become a serious problem , but now is not that time, at this moment it is the grossly unequal distribution of resources that is a far bigger problem for humanity than the amount of people currently on the planet, seven billion people could be sustained easily if those few at the top didn't feel they were entitled to a billion times more than their fellow man.

In my opinion over-population is currently a trifling affair at best, a non-issue, only of concern to those who have accumulated more than their fair share and fear losing it to a hungry crowd that gets larger by the day, at worst however i feel it is a smoke-screen, deliberately set up to cover the far more pressing issue of severe inequality between human beings.

Let's not share, urgh! what a horrible word sharing is, nope let's just cull humanity instead, that way i can keep all my shiny toys to myself... got that? i'm not sharing. :tongue:

We are all doomed..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTZBm5dwXoE

Natural Checks will happen, civilization as we know it will cease to exist due to Climate Change before we ever run out fo Oil. Its not running out fo resources thats the problem, its doing things ina way that we wont kill ourselves in the process.

I don't believe that charity is the answer here. As the saying goes, "Give a man to fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for..." I can't remember how long, a long time is the point. Charity creates dependence on that charity and eliminates motivation. There are unquestionably flaws and inequity, but I disagree that the people with a lot should just give away most of it and us expect the world to become a better place. The issue lies in how these people amass so much more than everybody else, and the whys and hows of that wealth's perpetuation.
It'd be nice if there were answers to these questions. If we're lucky some will spurt out of the protesters here in the US.

You guys know that wealth isn't static, right? That economical thought has been dead for 100s of years now, ya know. And that industrialized nations are either plateauing or declining in native population, and only gain more people through immigration from other places, right?

You ask me, prosperity leads to a more sustainable population. Why else are the industrial countries tend to have a non-growing or declining native population growths? Not hard to see when most families tend to have 0-3 kids.

And Capital, there are a few things as to why certain countries do become wealthy and others don't, but that begins to go too close to turn this into a political discussion, more so than this thread already is.