Reason #1. Logistics.

An ever increasing demand can not co-exist with a finite supply. The surface of the earth is only so big. It can't support an exponentally increasing population indefinately.

There are other reasons as well, but I think this reason alone is enough to make the argument.

Opinions?

we need parts of capitolism, but it has got ot have very set limits, and salary caps.

Salary caps seem like a good idea.

I think that the welfare of the planet should override the individuals freedom to have as much stuff as he/she wants.

agreed...someone with more than 50 million dollars is more of a drain on society than a plus.

yeah. I think it's ok to say to someone 'No, you can only have one yacht, and it has to be under 40 feet. That's all the wood you're allowed.'

What parts would we need?

Hey Commies,

What makes you think that your brutal, oppressive, murderous and ultimately failed marxist system is going to save the environment?

When a better alternative to capitalism emerges, I'll consider it.


I'm opposed to the salary caps because a) they would always be arbitrary, and b) The money would just go back to the government unrightfully, not the people who should actually have it, anyway.

If someone does something to generate money, the government shouldn't be given the right to just come in and snatch it up because they say it's "bad for the planet".

I think more centralization would solve most of our population and enviromental problems, as well as a reduction in the amount of meat eaten in the First World. Of course, it has to be recognized that the worst harm towards the enviroment is actually coming from Third World countries, ala the destruction of vast amounts of forests, rivers, lakes, natural wildlife, etc..

i dont know DM i think Salary caps are good ideas when people start making omre than 50 million bucks. Anyhting extra should be taken and put into local charities, and or school systems et al. And how many of those troubles to the environment in the 3rd world are only ther ebecause of Rich scumbags in the 1st worlds who moved thier factories off tier shores to lands where its cheaper because of reduced environmental protection along with cheaper labor? If you can only make 50 million bucks the "sickness" as i call it may be averted in some cases...the sickness being when you have say 50 million bucks and you dont spend it and you just need to make more and more and more and youre possessed by your money..that money should be taken and given to social programs and charities to protect the society.

I never claimed any system as mine. I am of the opinion that we need a system in place that limits how much you can gouge off the face of the planet.

What do you think an alternative worth considering would be like?

I disagree. If there's only so much food in the pantry, you have the right to say 'No, you can't have any more. If you do we'll all starve.'

Rationing then?

It will not work when the population is exploding. During the twentieth century, the global population rose from one billion to over six billion. We live on an overpopulated planet of diminishing resources and until you can do something about population growth, no amount of rationing will save the earth.

Billy and I have had some lively debates over the population bomb. The population bomb is a very controversial topic due to the issues that surround it.(ie. birth control, immigration, and etc.)

My personal opinion is that if the world population were below one billion, then everybody could enjoy the middle class existance at minimum. The industrious could enjoy their wealthy lifetyles. And all this with less damage to the Earth than what we have now.

I agree with and support the idea of birth control, however, it is not something that can be forced upon people, education about it and it's importance is key.

Yes good point. This would be the other factor in the equation. From what I've read some of the ways to solve this problem are more education and empowerment for women, and (strangely enough) lowering infant mortallity.

Yes, having the population around 1 billion would solve alot of problems....somehow though I doubt the method of achieving this would be too popular.

So....one could make the assumption that improving conditions in 3rd world countries would do much to help things overall.

Agreed,

I think a big problem is religion. It keeps women barefoot and pregnant. The taliban government is a good example here.

1 billion, so we gotta figure out how to make another few billion people disappear..and which ones? i say we start with gun nuts, right wingers and war mongers. at least thats just my take on it.

Yes, religion, like nationalisim, can be twisted around to justify just about anything.

Don't forget that it was Lenin who said "you can't make omelettes without cracking eggs."

He couldnt cook to save his life.