Battlezone Forums

jack775544 wrote:When they say that the private sector can do anything better then the public sector they forget to mention that a private company needs to make money, therefore you have to pay for everything.

lolno. nhs ftw.

Red Devil wrote:funny. i know people like to hold onto hope (wishful thinking, actually) but the world population will increase by 50% in the next 38 years and double in 60.

imagine 50% more people driving cars on the roads you drive.

now imagine 100% as many.

http://www.unfpa.org/6billion/pages/worldpopgrowth.htm

imagine all the food and stuff they and the ones inside those cars will create demand for.

people don't care - they just want what they want and need.

it's recursion, basically.

if you think is going to end well, dream on.

Thats a flawed analogy because it assumes that that people in high density areas do not move away to low density areas, so therefore congestion would double. It might hold up in Japan, but in America and Canada there are plenty of small towns and cities with low housing and property taxes that would welcome new residents.

point missed: it's not that there's not enough room - it's that all those people consume mass quantities of everything, clog up the roads, cause pollution, and spam.

analogy: fill up a room with rats - because there's room - and see what happens.

the sooner we can get the earth's population down to 100 million (if that), the happier i'll be.

Go Bilderbergers!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

Gas and oil prices in relation to cars on the road is a self-regulating system. Supply starts dropping, therefore prices start rising, therefore people start looking into alternatives like hybrid and electric vehicles or public transportation. Someday gas and oil will become impractically expensive for personal vehicles -- to me it doesnt matter how many cars people drive. So long as there is gas and oil there will be pollution, and that pollution will last until it's all used up, it's going to dump the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere -- at this point people will be forced into using alternatives. Whether it happens in 30 years or 35, doesnt matter much in the grand scheme of things.

yes, it self-regulates to this:

http://essentiallyangela.com/wp-content ... ownCar.jpg

more likely, this:

http://liveintheplanetgreen.files.wordp ... ic-jam.jpg

and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWoja3qLm_Q

the sooner we can get the earth's population down to 100 million (if that), the happier i'll be.

Such an alteration would take considerably longer than your life span, even a deliberate genocidal movement would struggle to achieve such a reduction, without causing 100% loss. Holocaust daydreamers....first up against the wall

and that pollution will last until it's all used up,

Probably not, An Oceanic anoxic event is already underway, there is probably nothing we can do to stop it now. Combined with continued deforestation and fossil fuel combustion an atmospheric anoxic event will probably destroy our civilisation long before we manage to use up the available hydrocarbon resources. One big volcanic event could easily push us over the edge right now.
The Anthropocene is likely to be a very short geological period.

Red Devil wrote:yes, it self-regulates to this:

http://essentiallyangela.com/wp-content ... ownCar.jpg

more likely, this:

http://liveintheplanetgreen.files.wordp ... ic-jam.jpg

and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWoja3qLm_Q

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density

Also, Banghladesh as a country has over 600 times the population density as the USA. I don't think you'll have anything to worry about for awhile.

But as far as setting up strawman arguments, you're pretty decent at it. You should get into politics.

MrTwosheds wrote:

the sooner we can get the earth's population down to 100 million (if that), the happier i'll be.

Such an alteration would take considerably longer than your life span, even a deliberate genocidal movement would struggle to achieve such a reduction, without causing 100% loss. Holocaust daydreamers....first up against the wall

You dont even have to get nearly so extreme to get results.
If only, as a first step, we can get our population to stick at the number it is now, which can be achieved in a single generation, we are already move quite a bit in the good direction.
We are slowly killing ourselves, you dont have to be a genius to see that, but its a slow process and we do have time to make changes. The biggest problem is that those changes dont agree with peoples choices:
-I want to drive a car cause I am over 16/18/21 and I can, eventhough I have absolutelly no practical need for it.
-I want baby's, cause I can.
-I want whatever isnt good for the environment and dont even consider less environmentally impacting alternatives as those are more expensive.
-I want the best for my children and dont mind the damage I might cause to others or even my own children as long as it doesnt happen in my face.

If we can change things a bit we would already get very far with pretty much the technology/communities we have today:
-You may drive a car cause your life/job requires it.
-You may have baby's as you've tested to be a decent parent and we havent reached our 'budget' yet.
-You may get what is best for the environment, there is no other choice. If you cant afford it you simply dont want it badly enough.
-The best for your children is if there is a future, one where people/governments can afford education/medical service/food. And even if it might be less good for your child, yours isnt the only one.

your position: transportation is self-regulating

my position: agrees with your position and gives real examples (okay, clown car is a bit of an exaggeration). people in bangladesh use public transportation ("taksi's"), their feet, and bicycles.

people from socialist countries or with a socialist philosophy tend to think that more people are better, even utopian. tell that to the people slogging around in the mud, rats, and sewage in bangladesh, er, NYC, right now.

everyone wants a piece of the pie, but there is only so much pie.

Red Devil wrote:people in bangladesh use public transportation ("taksi's"), their feet, and bicycles.

So I'm guessing you missed the point about the population density of Bangladesh, then? With the infrastructure of the United States, you would likely not end up with traffic jams like that if everybody switched to taxis, bikes and walking.

Vehicles are a critical part of the infrastructure keeping our current civilisation going. The only real problem with them is that they are using the wrong sort of fuel. Sustainable energy solutions and clean vehicles are essential to the continuation of our civilisation. We know how to do it, but convincing those in the positions to make it happen still seems to be a major problem even though the old unsustainable economic model is clearly failing us all.
Considerable economic input is required to drive a technological revolution, the more stressed our economy's become the harder it becomes to do, relying on market forces alone to lead the change is a serious mistake.
"The west" has made a major strategic error in not leading this revolution, our economy's are stagnating as we cling on to a rose tinted past that can only sink further into the sustainability swamp.

no, i didn't miss the point, but it seems you did... populations are not spread out evenly like in socialists' utopian dreams - in reality, they are concentrated in large cities; dirty, polluted - and polluting - crime-ridden cities.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globa ... n_pop.html
stop breeding like bunnies before it's too late.

okay, okay, it is already too late.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-develo ... ng-drought

*sigh* We know how population density works, we're simply pointing out that America's streets aren't as crowded as the Bangladesh one in the picture you posted. They might look it at first glance, but consider the proximity of the *people* rather than the proximity of their chosen method of travel.

exactly - and they need to stay that way, otherwise, they will turn out to be like that and not just here, but in europe and elsewhere, too.

If the US public started walking, cycling, and taking the taxi more than they drove themselves, the amount of traffic on your streets would lessen significantly