# Thread: Can you beat the system?

2.87 planets

18% 21% 30% 31% We've also calculated your carbon footprint, which is 11.59 tonnes per annum

The solution is simple... conquer more planets!

2. The solution is simple... conquer more planets!
Hehe. That was my motto in Spore.

It's saying that if everybody lived the lifestyle you live,
it would take 2.39 planets worth of resources to support
them.

3. I'm not sure how I got 4 percent in travel since I answered no to all the travel related questions. I also got 45 percent in "Stuff" for some reason even though I haven't bought anything in the past year.

I would consider myself an environment friendly person, but organizations like these are just clueless most of the time.

4. no. the game would not click through to the rest of the questions. it did not work. if the game had worked it might have been diff. meow.

5. Originally Posted by Bubba
>>It's saying that if everybody lived the lifestyle you live,
it would take 2.39 planets worth of resources to support
them.

Apparently you do not understand. The US represents 5% of the worlds population, yet we consume 33% of the resources. So someone or something accounts for that. Maybe it is someone else?

The point is, if everyone lived like you, the world would have to produce 139% more stuff. I don't see what's so unbelievable about that, it is undeniably true that most people in the modern west, and America in particular, live a lifestyle far, far above the global average.

This is not even a question of whether you want to "believe" it or not. It is basic and irrefutable math -- although this survey may or may not represent it accurately, it is still true that the earth does not produce enough to provide your lifestyle to everyone. 2+2=4.

6. Originally Posted by MK27
This is not even a question of whether you want to "believe" it or not. It is basic and irrefutable math -- although this survey may or may not represent it accurately, it is still true that the earth does not produce enough to provide your lifestyle to everyone. 2+2=4.
But "everyone" doesn't use 33% of the world resources. So your math is useless. As is this whole exercise. Math is not irrefutable. It lies. And its ability to lie is entirely defined by its axioms. The fact that people are taking as irrefutable truths, untested axioms is what makes math lie with all its teeth.

Furthermore, as far as I know there is no global shortage of resources. That thought is so 90s. On the contrary, we keep stockpiling resources. It is very clear to anyone who cares to look with their eyes open that globally we aren't consuming more than our planet can give us.

7. Originally Posted by Mario F.

Furthermore, as far as I know there is no global shortage of resources. That thought is so 90s. On the contrary, we keep stockpiling resources. It is very clear to anyone who cares to look with their eyes open that globally we aren't consuming more than our planet can give us.
Then you should probably read more. Oceans are over-fished;
fertile land for agriculture is almost gone to the point where
wealthy nations have even been leasing land from poorer
nations in order to grow food for their people. Aquifer depletion
is a huge problem itself.

It's actually terrifying how little people seem to know about
not only the natural, living world; but the effects mankind has
had on it. There are examples of past civilizations collapsing
because their populations exhausted their resources; yet
for some reason, people think it can't happen to us simply
because we've invented iPods and are obviously smart enough
to solve every problem! They've put too much faith in the
capabilities of man, and it's ultimately going to lead to their
downfall.

8. Hmm... maybe you should do the reading. Where's your sources for this information, btw?

You are right. It is indeed "quite terrifying how little people seem to know about
not only the natural, living world; but the effects mankind has

9. Heh. If it was up to these types they wouldn't allow us to hunt deer in my home state. Talk about running out of resources. The deer are so dumb that they would overpopulate to the point they would consume every last source of food and water in the area and then would begin to die off due to starvation. Human induced population controls are what keeps them alive or they would just breed out of control.

Math can lie when the formula is wrong and the inputs are wrong. If those are wrong, or one of those is wrong then all the outputs are wrong. But if it is more convenient for people to think that humans are destroying poor earth then so be it. For me I believe technological advances pave the way to a brighter future. Others may feel that sticking our head in the sand, building mud huts, not using electricity and eating dirt is the wave of the future.

10. Originally Posted by Mario F.
Hmm... maybe you should do the reading. Where's your sources for this information, btw?

You are right. It is indeed "quite terrifying how little people seem to know about
not only the natural, living world; but the effects mankind has
Everything you've spouted has been ill-supported
and anecdotal. So if anyone is spouting "misinformation"
it's you (such as the huge impact turbines have on
bird populations; or the deforestation that results)

Here's a fantastic, well-sourced, free book that not
only recognizes problems, but provides elegant
solutions to them. It's updated yearly with new
data. One of the versions was required reading in
one of my Biology (ecology) classes.

http://www.earth-policy.org/images/u...es/pb4book.pdf

Or maybe you should try the Jared Diamond books,
notably Collapse. Right now I"m reading 1491 by
Charles C. Mann about pre-Columbian American
civilizations' impacts on the environment.

There's plenty of sources regarding overfishing and
soil erosion.

But not that it matters; because you probably won't
accept anything that is in opposition to your viewpoints
as valid. You see a pile of fish at your local grocery
store and assume all is well. Your "eyes are open" eh?

Originally Posted by Bubba
Heh. If it was up to these types they wouldn't allow us to hunt deer in my home state.
That's not true at all and you shouldn't stereotype
people. No Wildlife Biologist or Ecologist is against
all forms of hunting (certain animals, of course). First,
Wildlife Biologists are more often than not employed
by governmental organizations which rely on hunting
usage fees for revenue.

Second, they know the benefits of hunting and
recognize that man is, indeed, a hunter. Don't lump
all Environmentalsts in with the pseudo-activist PETA
puppets. I, for one, totally support the right to hunt,
although I do take issue with sloppy hunters that rely
on high-tech gadgets and weapons to get their kill
and have absolutely no appreciation for the life they're
taking. You know, the people who call animals "dumb"

The deer are so dumb that they would overpopulate to the point they would consume every last source of food and water in the area and then would begin to die off due to starvation. Human induced population controls are what keeps them alive or they would just breed out of control.
The deer overpopulate because man has either
fragmented their habitats (suburban sprawl) or
removed their natural predators from the ecosystem
completely. It has nothing to do with the IQ of
the animal (lol).

I find it hilarious, however, that you're calling Deer
dumb because their population tends to exceed
carrying capacity sometimes; while not reflecting on
the current human population.

11. Hehe. I do like bantering with you but your posts are soooo annoying. I know you explained why they appear to be from a newspaper column but could you please at least attempt to fill up the window just a bit?

Anyways I've said enough and we are getting off the topic a bit here. We could banter back and forth all day and end up in the same place so why do it other than it's fun. Back to the issue I really feel that the 'survey' is mathematically flawed.

12. Originally Posted by ethic
I, for one, totally support the right to hunt,
although I do take issue with sloppy hunters that rely
on high-tech gadgets and weapons to get their kill
and have absolutely no appreciation for the life they're
taking. You know, the people who call animals "dumb"
I have to agree with that. I hate it when people go "hunting" with all the fancy little gadgets that technology brings us. What is the challenge of that? You call that hunting?
Give me a break...
The Indians used to hunt with nothing more than a bow and some arrows, and wearing nothing but a loincloth. Now people are using high-powered sniper rifles with customized scopes, tree stands, full-camo, and the whole works. Then they call deer dumb because the people are too far away for them to detect the danger in time (though people still miss all the time) and escape. If you want to hunt for real, ditch the modern crap, and go stalking some deer trying to make as little noise as possible, and see how easy it is.
I bet you 2-1 that the deer detects you long before you're able to line up a good shot with a bow and arrows.
What a lazy bunch of people the modern age has brought us...

The deer overpopulate because man has either
fragmented their habitats (suburban sprawl) or
removed their natural predators from the ecosystem
completely. It has nothing to do with the IQ of
the animal (lol).
I agree totally.
I find it hilarious, however, that you're calling Deer
dumb because their population tends to exceed
carrying capacity sometimes; while not reflecting on
the current human population.
True, very true...
Humans tend to group together in one place, and before long, the population has grown to way too more than the piece of land that was selected can support, resulting in all sorts of issues and problems.

13. The Indians used to hunt with nothing more than a bow and some arrows, and wearing nothing but a loincloth. Now people are using high-powered sniper rifles with customized scopes, tree stands, full-camo, and the whole works. Then they call deer dumb because the people are too far away for them to detect the danger in time (though people still miss all the time) and escape. If you want to hunt for real, ditch the modern crap, and go stalking some deer trying to make as little noise as possible, and see how easy it is.
I bet you 2-1 that the deer detects you long before you're able to line up a good shot with a bow and arrows
I never mentioned how I hunt in any of my posts. You assumed I use sniper scopes and land mines to kill my prey.

'Hunting' is far more adventurous when you don't rely on the gadgets. I stand by my statement that deer are pretty dumb animals. Cows certainly come in first as the dumbest of them all. Good eating in both cases, though.

But, whatever, back to the survey.

14. Originally Posted by Bubba
I never mentioned how I hunt in any of my posts. You assumed I use sniper scopes and land mines to kill my prey.

'Hunting' is far more adventurous when you don't rely on the gadgets. I stand by my statement that deer are pretty dumb animals. Cows certainly come in first as the dumbest of them all. Good eating in both cases, though.

But, whatever, back to the survey.
Actually, I wasn't really talking about you at all. I was speaking (typing) in a general sense.
I know about the way most Americans hunt, and I was just expressing my own feelings on that subject.

And just the thought of hunting (or trying to hunt) a deer with a land mine made me CUAL (Crack-Up-And-Laugh). Hahaha, made my own acronym...

EDIT: But if the shoe fits, wear it...

15. This post is dedicated to Bubba.

Some Hunter-Gatherer societies (The San) hunt through persistence hunting, which is thought to be the oldest method used to hunt. Basically they chase their prey until their prey becomes too exhausted to run any further and collapses. Then they stab it with a spear say a prayer, and eat it. There's a hypothesis that human features were selected for because they allowed us to endurance run. We can't run as fast as other species, but we can run much further. Less energy is required to move two legs than four, so we can keep it up.

Here's a David Attenborough segment from the documentary Life of Mammals explaining it.

YouTube - Human Mammal, Human Hunter - Attenborough - Life of Mammals - BBC

Now that's awesome.