Of course you’d have to make sure that the money freed up was invested in actual production, rather than squandered on idiocy like real estate speculation…

        Pronatalist said:

I think low population areas should be treated far differently and even more freely than highly populated areas. Let them burn their leaves out in the countryside, if that’s what they still want to do. Low populated areas have far less need to limit pollution sources, because there aren’t many people around to be affected. It’s far safer in such places, to let the coal fires, wildfires, or whatever, burn naturally unchallenged and do their thing, since there’s still the room for nature to be wild. Of course I like and advocate very much, the prospect of highly populated areas, since it’s so important to the many populous humans, to allow our population to continue to be free to grow and expand naturally, and grow naturally “wildly” even perhaps. “Wild” baby booms should always be encouraged, even in the most highly populated of supercities, or amongst huge cities naturally growing larger and starting to coalesce into one another. Not that any specific person should have to live in highly populated areas, but rather, highly populated areas should be welcome to exist and expand naturally, so that everybody can enjoy having their precious darling babies regardless of overall population size or densities, and the human race may continue to enjoy expanding naturally, as much as God would allow.

Uh…… wait… people should be encouraged to reproduce? Uh…

Well, actually I’ve always thought Hummers get more criticism than they deserve. The big Hummer H-1 is considered the quintessential over-consumption/shameful/sinful vehicle. However, the reality is that it’s not nearly as bad as it is made out to be. It’s actually a military-greade Humvee that has been rebuilt into a civilian luxury vehicle. It has a mil-spec high compression turbo diesel engine – thus it gets better fuel effeciency than one might think. It’s also extremely durable and will last a long time. Driving that thing on the road, you’re not going to need the shocks, struts or breaks replaced very often.

        Pronatalist said:

I think low population areas should be treated far differently and even more freely than highly populated areas. Let them burn their leaves out in the countryside, if that’s what they still want to do. Low populated areas have far less need to limit pollution sources, because there aren’t many people around to be affected. It’s far safer in such places, to let the coal fires, wildfires, or whatever, burn naturally unchallenged and do their thing, since there’s still the room for nature to be wild. Of course I like and advocate very much, the prospect of highly populated areas, since it’s so important to the many populous humans, to allow our population to continue to be free to grow and expand naturally, and grow naturally “wildly” even perhaps. “Wild” baby booms should always be encouraged, even in the most highly populated of supercities, or amongst huge cities naturally growing larger and starting to coalesce into one another. Not that any specific person should have to live in highly populated areas, but rather, highly populated areas should be welcome to exist and expand naturally, so that everybody can enjoy having their precious darling babies regardless of overall population size or densities, and the human race may continue to enjoy expanding naturally, as much as God would allow.

With friends like you, we don’t need enemies.

I have spent considerable time in cities like Calcutta, Sao Paulo, Manila, and Cairo, and I can tell you that these are not places that any reasonably civilized person could see as being anything but a blight. The degree of suffering, and the numbers doing so, are palpable to anyone with a modicum of sensitivity. To suggest we need more of this is as indifferently cruel as it is shortsightedly stupid.

You do not speak for any part of the Rational movement, but for the far religious Right, who’s ideas are as roundly rejected by thinking people as those you describe as green Nazis.

        Chem Geek Gregor said:

I have heard a lot of environmentalists talking about “conspicuous consumption”

It leaves me asking, why the hell does it matter how conspicuous it is if you really care about the ecological impacts?

Isn’t it a lot worse to have an inefficient, unfiltered coal power plant, even if it’s in a low population area where it hardly gets noticed than it is to have a stretch-limo hummer with a metallic flake paint job?

Sure, you *notice* one of them more, but the impact is a lot less.

It’s like coal fires, they’re usually in isolated areas and often not noticable on the surface.

So does that mean they don’t matter?

For that matter… if you have two big cars that burn a lot of fuel, and one is understated in its style and barely noticable and another is gawdy, covered with chrome and a loud exhaust system, so it sticks out like a sore thumb, aren’t they equally bad for the enviornment?

Oh, but don’t you see? It’s not really about “science” as they claim, but rather being “greener than thou,” judging people unfairly, finding any excuse to control people, “It’s the thought that counts,” and shutting down freedom and capitalism. So “out of sight, out of mind,” really does appear to apply. It’s not science, but a freaking POVERTY RELIGION with most of the most noticable vocal eco-nuts.

Unlike so many of the meddlesome green nazis, I’m not so interested in secretly and hypocritically consuming more than the average hard-working person, nor especially in doing it conspicuously. (In fact it annoys me when the typical speed demon out there, passes me on the way coasting towards a wait-2-minutes red traffic light. Why must I waste gasoline to get to an intersection where I have to stop anyway, when I have enough car momentum to get there eventually anyway? What gives them any right to “cut in line” ahead of me, when they had been behind me?) Why can’t we just be left alone and the green nazis stop pushing their false earth worship religion down our throats, and leave us alone?

What should it matter to anybody whether some of us might still have a black car, and just the other day I heard some stupidity about the green nazis wanting to paint the entire developed urban world white, supposedly to stop so-called “global warming,” or now “climate change” as they so fondly call it, as if anything had been proven by now.

It’s about hypocrisy, junk-scare-tactics science, so of course whether it’s “conspicuous” or not, matters a whole lot more than actual, usually mostly neglible, environmental impact.

I think low population areas should be treated far differently and even more freely than highly populated areas. Let them burn their leaves out in the countryside, if that’s what they still want to do. Low populated areas have far less need to limit pollution sources, because there aren’t many people around to be affected. It’s far safer in such places, to let the coal fires, wildfires, or whatever, burn naturally unchallenged and do their thing, since there’s still the room for nature to be wild. Of course I like and advocate very much, the prospect of highly populated areas, since it’s so important to the many populous humans, to allow our population to continue to be free to grow and expand naturally, and grow naturally “wildly” even perhaps. “Wild” baby booms should always be encouraged, even in the most highly populated of supercities, or amongst huge cities naturally growing larger and starting to coalesce into one another. Not that any specific person should have to live in highly populated areas, but rather, highly populated areas should be welcome to exist and expand naturally, so that everybody can enjoy having their precious darling babies regardless of overall population size or densities, and the human race may continue to enjoy expanding naturally, as much as God would allow.

And I’m not so impressed with the idea that all whatever “consumption” shouldn’t be conspicuous? Isn’t that sort of the idea behind some of those Hummers? Not to consume, but perhaps to show off one’s wealth or status a little? Or should we be all the same, a bunch of unquestioning communist conformists, no individuality or individual expression allowed? I see some rather “conspicuous” nice-looking recreational vehicle motorcoaches on the freeways. Should they not be allowed, or should owners be required to paint them ugly drab colors? No, why shouldn’t they be proud to enjoy what they earned and worked so hard for, and I like to see such huge RVs beautifully and proudly colored.

Isn’t it a lot worse to have an inefficient, unfiltered coal power plant, even if it’s in a low population area where it hardly gets noticed than it is to have a stretch-limo hummer with a metallic flake paint job? Sure, you *notice* one of them more, but the impact is a lot less. It’s like coal fires, they’re usually in isolated areas and often not noticable on the surface. So does that mean they don’t matter?

For that matter… if you have two big cars that burn a lot of fuel, and one is understated in its style and barely noticable and another is gawdy, covered with chrome and a loud exhaust system, so it sticks out like a sore thumb, aren’t they equally bad for the enviornment?

        katana0182 said:

My comment about Hummers was more of stating that I sympathize with the sentiment that there is such a thing as overconsumption and unnecessary largesse, and that I agree with the aesthetic position that certain aspects of overconsumption are banal, but, unfortunately, in the grand scheme of things, moderation and conservation of energy and goods is more of an ideal and an admirable virtue rather than a political goal, especially if conservation is pursued in lieu of ensuring continued and expanded supply of energy. Ending material scarcity is a far more sound policy than sumptuary (as opposed to necessary) restrictions on consumption.

Well, Hummers get dumped on a lot for being the quintessential big vehicle, but I don’t really dislike them. For one thing, they are indeed quite roomy and powerful, which makes them drive well. The H1 is also extremely safe. If I recall correctly, it has the best safety record for it’s occupancy of any mass market road vehicle in the US. Also, it’s not as much of a fuel guzzler as people think – the H1 has a very effecient milspec high compression diesel engine.

In any case, they are really very comfortable, roomy, capable vehicles. Not to mention, they have some of the best on and off road traction of anything you can buy.

The H1 being the “real hummer” – the H2 is really just another SUV that is actually smaller than some others.

However, there’s no doubt that people can over-consume to the point that it’s just annoying. There are some parts of Brooklyn NY that are very expensive, because they have individual row houses with a front lawn and garage, which is highly desirable in NYC. They go for like $750,000 each. Of course, the front yards are small – smaller than a tennis court. Some of them, the people who live there obviously feel a need to seem as wealthy as possible or something and the tiny yard is surrounded by a polished marble wall and in the center of it there is a ridiculously large marble fountain with a gilded statue along with sculpted bushes – all crammed into this ridiculously small yard. I look at that and it looks gawdy as hell and like a complete waste.

That said, I really would rather live with such gawdy excess than live in a society where how much one consumes and how much they might flaunt it were legislated.

I was replying to Mr. Salmony’s idea that we all can give up the technological society that allows our population density to be possible – we can’t – not without a lot more than those 40,000 folks a day dying. That’s what I meant by saying that our choices are already made for us – because the people who are alive today matter more than some ideal of man and nature – and to discard technology would reduce our planetary carrying capacity to probably 1 billion or so. That means 5 billion people have to die.

My comment about Hummers was more of stating that I sympathize with the sentiment that there is such a thing as overconsumption and unnecessary largesse, and that I agree with the aesthetic position that certain aspects of overconsumption are banal, but, unfortunately, in the grand scheme of things, moderation and conservation of energy and goods is more of an ideal and an admirable virtue rather than a political goal, especially if conservation is pursued in lieu of ensuring continued and expanded supply of energy. Ending material scarcity is a far more sound policy than sumptuary (as opposed to necessary) restrictions on consumption.

Now, I certainly share the goals of the environmental movement as to pollution, because unlike consumption alone, pollution harms others and decreases everyone’s quality of life, and the best way to deal with pollution in regards to energy is to build nuclear power plants, as they don’t pollute, nor emit carbon – and they work 100% of the time (excluding outages), as opposed to wind and solar power.

        Finrod said:

Doc, I suspect Katana was addressing Steven Salmony, not you.

Oh… yeah. Good call.

        katana0182 said:

I recently read an article about a shantytown dweller’s association in South Africa pleading for electricity to keep food cold, to cook dinner, to light shanties at night. That’s where fossil fuels can’t really help us, because they’re finite, and that’s where nuclear power can help us, because it’s nearly infinite. To those who die at the rate of 40,000 every day due to hunger, or from preventable diseases, to those who live on the coastal areas that will be flooded by a planet gone out of control, to those who don’t have houses, American consumerism – or even good old fashioned American engineering – offer a better world for them than any other option including the romanticist notion of “going back to the trees”. The choices have been made by our great numbers – they cannot be sustained through anything but extremely high technology. To think otherwise is a foolish delusion and would be the end of human equality.

Are you offering a better world for them? Are you offering a better world for us? No. Neither.

As such, your views are relevant, but ultimately, the necessity of delivering a better world for the entire human species takes precedence over your views. Human life and human equality and human freedom have to come before some romantic delusion of the supremacy of the value of nature (which is highly valuable, for its own sake, for its aesthetic values, for its social values, for its usefulness – and not just in monetary terms.)

What makes you think I omit those in other countries or the world’s poor from my push for more energy, more nuclear generated electricity and more industrialization? I’ve had many posts discussing hunger and the need for more countries to embrace modern agriculture and become more productive in that area, and ultimately join the international trade of food, fertilizers, industrial goods etc in a way that is economically beneficial to all.

There is a such thing as being too much of a consumer, and people should not be encouraged to consume beyond their means or to go into debt over luxury goods, but consumption is what ultimately leads to jobs and to upward mobility. The way you improve life for the lower class is first to reduce scarcity. The less fresh water, electricity, food or whatever else there is, the more expensive it will become. Ultimately, it ends up going to the rich in such circumstances, and that increases the class divide and makes them all the more powerful. If electricity were cheap and plentiful, the above mentioned issues would not be a problem.

Part of consumerism is the flip side – for everything consumed, it must be produced. For the lower class, the best situation they can be in is one where their is a huge demand for labor and limited labor force. It increases their options and drives up wages. Every hummer needs to be built in a factory. Not only that, but the materials need to be mined, the vehicle needs to be maintained etc etc. It ends up creating work for dealerships, mechanics, financiers, factory workers, insurance agents, car audio installers, tire manufacturers, plastic producers, steel smelters.

Consumption has another side and that is the effect of social equalization of goods. You and I would not be able to fly for a reasonable price if there were not first extremely wealthy people who went on holiday on the Pan Am Clipper.

Going back to the issue of refrigerators and electricity – the first refrigerators sold for home usage came out around 1911. They used sulfur dioxide as the refrigerant and were extremely expensive – they cost more than an automobile. They required installation of an outdoor heat condenser and a large compressor system. Many didn’t have electricity anyway, but if you were rich you did. Costs continued to decline and the first widespread mass produced refrigerators came out in 1927, but you had to be at least upper middle class to afford them. However, by the late 1930’s they were fairly common and by 1950 just about everyone had one.

You can see what consumerism has done for countries like China. China still has a ways to go and has made hit bumps in the road on many occasions, but the fact of the matter is that there is a Chinese middle class now that is many millions strong. That was not the case 20 years ago.

Yes, I am offering a better world for everyone. Ultimately I’d like to see a world where more people live the way we, in countries like the US, Canada, Australia, Japan and most of Western Europe live. I’d like a world in which the lower classes of South Africa or Bolivia or Cambodia have to worry about things like the fact that someone hit their Hummer with a shopping cart and left a big scratch in it, as opposed to whether their children will see the next day.