dingleberry jones:
as was previously mentioned, 75% of the population would have to die for you to get your sustainable living. Why are you in favor of mass murder?
sicarius:
you see the funny thing is, you seem to lack basic logic.
do you not know what carrying capacity is?
I'll explain it to you.
say you're on a tropical island. theres enough fruit and crabs and etc to support you and nine others.
any more than ten people, and the food gets eaten up faster than it can be replaced.
if the population drops below ten, there will be more food, so more people can live there sustainably.
living sustainably means you can live the way you are living without hurting the land, basically forever.
until we get hit by a meteor or the sun explodes or something.
so say the population rises, to say 20 people.
then theres 30 people, then 50, then 100, then 200.
they live real fat and happy for awhile (especially the 5 or so at the top calling the shots) and maybe not everyone has enough food, but they live. what they dont realize is that othe island can only indefinitely sustain 10 people.
the island can support 10 people forever, but it can support 200 for only say, 100 years.
they've taken too much, and the supply is not replenishing itself fast enough. soon everyone starts to get hungry and most of the people die.
where we are right now, as a global society, is living real fat and happy (especially the few at the top) thinking we can go on forever, well above the carrying capacity of earth. we are heading towards a crash.
sustainability is not a way of life, some hippie ideal, it is necessary for life!
the earth cannot support 12 or 9 or 6 billion people indefinitely.
it will not continue to do so for very long.
its like a 2nd grade science class, (which you must
have skipped?) when there arnt many bobcats, there are more rabbits. then because there are more rabbits, more bobcats come around, thus more rabbits get eaten, thus there are less rabbits.
because the population of bobcats has grown too large, they eat too many rabbits, thus there are not enough rabbits to sustain the remaining bobcats, thus the bobcats die.
BECAUSE THE POPULATION HAS GROWN TOO LARGE, THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH RESOURCES TO SUSTAIN THE POPULATION. THUS THE POPULATION DECLINES.
BECAUSE THE POPULATION HAS GROWN TOO LARGE, THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH RESOURCES TO SUSTAIN THE POPULATION. THUS THE POPULATION DECLINES.
BECAUSE THE POPULATION HAS GROWN TOO LARGE, THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH RESOURCES TO SUSTAIN THE POPULATION. THUS THE POPULATION DECLINES.
did you get that?
"75% of the population would have to die for you to get your sustainable living"
wrong. (its probably closer to 98% or something)
they are going to die eventually anyway, BECAUSE they are not sustainable.
THEY ARE GOING TO DIE EVENTUALLY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT LIVING SUSTAINABLY.
I'm sorry if I come off as an asshole, I dont mean to be really, but why do you not understand this?
I'm not saying the kung! are the greatest civilization and they are just and right.
I'm saying there is no single right way to live, but there is a single wrong way to live. unsustainably. the kung! and native americans and amazonian tribes and welsh druids and mongolian shepards and up until about 10,000 years ago everybody, is way smarter than us, because they knew how to live.
sustainably.
Joining an in-progress private game
)
)
)
)
)
)