But I don?t buy ?the world can?t live as we do,? or more correctly phrased, ?the world can?t live as it aspires to? (which of course will be different in many ways from how we live) argument. Given the current world situation, that?s condemning billions to poverty, and just as capitalism is showing signs of lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty (having done so for quite a few hundred million already).

It’s a numbers game. If the world aspires to live as we do, there just aren’t the resources to make that happen. They aren’t there. I would hope that much of the world would choose to live more responsibly than we do. We could help by giving them a better target to aim at than the wasteful mindless consumerism we live by now.

China, for all it’s developmental problems, mostly gets it. We don’t. Unfortunately, many aspects of Chinese society that meant reduced energy consumption (high density, mixed zoning, etc) have started to fall by the wayside as China’s cities have begun to aspire to the Western standard of living – big homes in an automobile-based society. And interestingly, they are largely motivated by a desire to protect their economic well-being. They are taking a view that extends beyond next quarter’s returns.

Please note that this is not a broad endorsement of China or it’s policies – just pointing out that even those morons can see what’s going on when it comes to resource consumption.

We need to make changes, and the sooner we do it the easier it will be.

I also find it hard to believe that you wanna go down the road of bashing “scare mongering”…or shall we re-visit the run-up to the current war in Iraq?

Hi rock. Hi hard place. That’s Tom there in the middle.

King – free speech is great, but there is no such thing as free speech with no consequences. Say something stupid and offensive which also happens to be patently false and expect to get called out on it. Not a hard concept really.

What’s NOT needed is a global carbon-taxing, scare-mongering, business-killing, standard-of-living-reducing, internationally-run by the politically annointed regime that tells nations what they can and cannot do with their economies, and their aspirations (which is exactly what Kyoto, voted down 95-0 in the Senate, and its successors, would do).

But I don’t buy “the world can’t live as we do,” or more correctly phrased, “the world can’t live as it aspires to” (which of course will be different in many ways from how we live) argument. Given the current world situation, that’s condemning billions to poverty, and just as capitalism is showing signs of lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty (having done so for quite a few hundred million already).

And even beyond technology, paying closer attention to energy use can make a big difference. For example, despite my home not being shaded during the summer, I am able to avoid using the AC for a large portion of the year since I’m oriented in such a way to be able to utilize prevailing west-to-east winds to keep my home cool, provided I’m diligent about when windows are opened and closed, and when shades are drawn back or not.

However, it is becoming rather ineffective, especially in India, as insects evolve resistance to the agent.

I’d also like to point out that acknowledging the fact that the world can’t possibly support 6+ billion people all living at the West’s current standard of living is not wishing catastrophe on the planet, it’s acknowledging an inconvenient truth. If the goal is raising the world standard of living to a standard equal to the high standards in the western world (a noble goal, for sure) then there needs to be a lot fewer people, or the western standard of living needs to come way down. One look at China should make that painfully clear.

Coulter is a cancer. The fact that she’s so wildly popular with conservatives should be alarming. Especially for conservatives with conscience.

I KNEW I’d get a “most, if not all” out of you! LOL. I love it!

Neither of us can predict the future, but given all the data that I’ve seen, it seems to make sense as a prudent individual to be on the side of caution. You probably teach this with money management. Or maybe you teach a “throw caution to the wind you’ll probably get a raise by that time and be fine” style of money management. Debt is globaloney.

Put me on the side of strong consideration for our effect on the planet and resources. If you truly side with human engenuity you’d have been OUTRAGED that Bush defunded alternate energy research to enable more hole drilling. But my guess is you weren’t – or I missed it.

I have great faith in our ability to come up with solutions to problems, but very little faith in those who profit from the problems themselves – ahum, capitalism.

But back to the topic at hand. You can’t point to ONE thing that substantiates the claim that “liberals want mass starvation and human devastation”. You also can’t point to where Ehrlich ever claimed to want to eliminate humans.

Her statements were false and inflammatory and you’d do good to acknowledge that. Step up and admit it, it’s OK. You’re cred will be fine.

On DDT, I’m not well versed in it but do know that it does help in fighting Malaria. The problems come in how it is used and how much. I also know there are alternatives to its use and that it hasn’t been banned. Some may advocate this – and you can agree or disagree – but it doesn’t prove that “liberals want mass starvation and human devastation” anymore than I can say conservatives like to buy crystal meth and sleep with male hookers, or that Catholic priests like little boys.

I personally support a public health exception to the use of chemicals to fight diseases, but want it highly regulated and closely observed. That would be what I call stewardship. That coupled with your ingenuity philosophy should be able to coexist. Absent the stewardship I think it is a dangerous experiment in cross your fingers and hope for the best.

So now it’s BS qualifiers time — Most if not all of the true believers in the enviro movement, as noted in the post and the previous one linked to at the post, believe “what they don’t dare say,” which is that the pop needs to drop hugely. Most dedicated “enviros” believe this; most “conservationists” don’t, but are being dragged along unwittingly. Specific enough?

YOU haven’t answered for the millions lost to DDT due to very mainstream environmentalism. That’s a bit more to answer for than whether I’ve got my qualifiers down pat tonight. Someone should be feeling guilty, and worse. In fact, if I adopted a leftist mindset for a bit, I’d be going after someone for genocide.

Speaking of terms of endearment, readers and listeners know that Coulter and Limbaugh are referring to hard-lefties when they use the term “liberals.” When I quote them, I assume the reader understands their use of their terms. I’d prefer that they’d be more specific, but I’m not them.

The world pop is on track to level off around 2050; the faster capitalism is adopted, the faster the level-off will come, as smaller families have almost always accompanied the widespread adoption of it. And I don’t see the problem with the rest of the world living as we do. The resources are mostly available, and human ingenuity, as it always has, will enable the rest. One of many links with the pop projection is here:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762181.html

You’ll have to excuse the slight incoherence if any tonight; I was helping someone who was driving through a snowy icy mess, and I was on the phone with them while they were doing that.