'Humans will need two Earths by 2030'

Articles such as these strike a nerve in me. There's obviously solutions to our current problems right now, it's just that our current economic system doesn't compliment it. Our whole system (speaking gloabally) is based on consumption which inevitably leads to waste.

We build things that will not last on purpose, to keep the cycle of jobs and money flow. It's not economic to build/construct something that is efficient or that will last 100+ years, efficiency is the cancer in our current system and this is what needs to be fixed before we can get into "how are going to survive past 2030?". How can any of us beleive that the human species will be around in 100 years if we are ardant in thinking that this lifestyle/economic system/machine is "O.K" for us and that "it'll have to do". This is article is bulls**t and I mean this in no way disrespect to the poster (this is a great thig to be discussing) it doesn't provide solutions, like most articles about "over-consumption" and "over-population". they only serve to spread fear.

A blatant example is cars. We still use gas-powered vehicles when during the 60's we had perfectly functioning electric cars. Why did we go backwards and scrap the idea of electric cars? (the answers are obvious). Now we see commercials time to time promoting hybrid/electric cars like its' something new, and the people fall for it !

Am I suppose to feel responsible just b/c I chose to buy a gas powered car over an electric car?

That^ would be a bad idea, and terrible for us collectively. Destroy one place and move to the next - we should not be imitating a virus. The purpose of a human is the opposite of a virus, think about it, we've been conditioned to act like a virus collectively, it's not natural to our species hence all the sociological/psychological problems our species has now, more than ever mind you. - How is that possible since we have "accelled", "innovated" and "advanced".

Do you see yourself as a virus? Cause that's what matters. Collectively as a species we are destroyers but individually we have many life-givers/healers/saviours amongst us.

That's the thing. They offer NO-alternatives. Yet still manage to put responsibility on us.

I guess if we really wanted to save the Earth, we would need to make some sacrifices. The Greens party in Australia wants to cut electricity consumption by 90% in 10 years, if they ever win the elections.

Uz and Aadmin are high again.

Anyway, look into Oil Peek. The ration for transporting resources is 10 to 1. That means that the amount of resources it takes to produce 1 unit of grain, we waste 10 units of resources to have that grain processed, packed and transported.

Man, you don't know what you're saying. Let's look into On the Origin of Species.

Chapter III, Checks to Increase; p. 43





p. 41 Chapter III; Struggle for Existence

In fact, Uz, all life follows the same fundamental principles; so in that accord, yes, we are like a virus. You'll probably tell me that we were referring to something else, and not the biological perspective in specific. And that's the problem with you: you always mean something different, people like me always misunderstand you. Here's an idea: if you don't know what the F you're talking about, better shut it! It's okay to share your opinion, but when you're acting like wiseguy and shyt, all the F time--and add Aadmin posting videos to compliment the argument--it F pi**es me off! WTF are you doing here, boy! Take the two F-asses with you and start educating yourselves! Leave Pyrros behind, the poor retard is hopeless.

WTF do you come up with this BS higher culture crap every time someone presents something problematic? Every F time you do this, regardless of the natureor the problem. For instance, Hawkings made it clear that if man doesn't end his destructive means, and curb his destructive nature, we'll go under. But he said it the right context, where it made sense. Just like that Dalai Lama dude--when he opens his mouth, it's for a F reason! You on the other hand say this in every F thread where a doomsday is presented. Bring some good argument to the table or STFU, bytch!

Now WTF are you babbling about in this thread ... hold on, let me take another peek.

"That^ would be a bad idea, and terrible for us collectively. Destroy one place and move to the next - we should not be imitating a virus."

What the ... WTF, boy! WTF are you talking about! It is well known that the human specie would have to leave Earth in the very far future, if it wants to survive, due to our Sun dying out. Okay, even if we ignore that scenario--since it's a different issue altogether--we still can't ignore that all life goes by the same principles of expanding in territory and numbers; and in this context, colonizing a different planet fits perfectly to our constitution. Yes, you could argue that it probably won't solve our problem in poor resource management by simply jumping to a different planet ... you know, like in the movie Avatar. But you didn't argue that, did you?

Let me check for more....

"Do you see yourself as a virus? Cause that's what matters. Collectively as a species we are destroyers but individually we have many life-givers/healers/saviours amongst us."

What the...! Oh, come on! Are you shytting me, Uz! What matters? The way we see ourselves? Is that what matters? In what regard does that matter how we see ourselves? I'm sure it's very important how humans as a specie, or people as individuals, see themselves. But how does it relate to what was being discussed here, Uz? It doesn't really relate, does it? You just wanted to be Dr. Phil, ain't it so? Bytch, get the F out!

Let's see what more wise shyt you've posted.

"That's the thing. They offer NO-alternatives. Yet still manage to put responsibility on us."

Who the F is they? The USA, the CIA, the creepy greedy businessmen, the press? Who is they, Uz? Are they you, are you them? Who is making Uz feel guilty? It sure can't be me! Oh, it's the goverment, the ruling class, the this-and-that! Oh, boo F hoo hoo!

"I don't think the sacrifices begin with us, it starts with those in power first- politics-corperations-business' in general, the ones who hold the most-responsibility (b/c of their power, ressources, influence and know-how). They're the ones that provide the goods and materials TO us. They're the ones who need to provide better options. We're the consumers, remember?"

Oh, yeah, now I remember! I'm just a consumer. You F punkass kid, get the F out of here! Get the F out! I mean, yeah--duh--the people in power are those that can structure this Shyt out; but in most, if not all, democratic societies, politicians often act on activism. Now, let's not get into that discussion. There are many things that can influence things around, but let's just say it's not only the people in power who have a responsibility. That would be a dumbass thing to suggest so in short, yes, Uz--you too have a share in this!

"We build things that will not last on purpose, to keep the cycle of jobs and money flow. It's not economic to build/construct something that is efficient or that will last 100+ years, efficiency is the cancer in our current system and this is what needs to be fixed before we can get into "how are going to survive past 2030?". How can any of us beleive that the human species will be around in 100 years if we are ardant in thinking that this lifestyle/economic system/machine is "O.K" for us and that "it'll have to do"."

Alright, this part was okay, for having been written by you; although I don't get why you used quotation marks when you wrote, and I quote: "how are going to survive past 2030"? See, I quoted you, and therefore I used to quatation marks. But who the F were you quoting? Surely not the article! Can you just please tell me who you were quoting, please? Can you? I'm looking for the exact phrase that you quoted. Where is it, Uz!!! Where's the phrase? Lolz -- byatcha!

PMS and full moon, not a good combination I would say.

"You seem to have an unstable obsession with this place and refuse to let go" - Dr. Phil