Thread: Occupy Wall Street around the world.... Your thoughts and feelings about it!

Originally Posted by Hanna

People who have massive houses, larger than they reasonably need, in several locations. People who drive everywhere and have multiple expensive cars in one family. Who fly on lots of expensive holidays every year, who eat excessively, have walk-in closets full of clothes they'll only use once or twice and buy endless quantities of gadgets and stuff that they don't need.

You have one life, and it's your choice to spend it on being a "greedy pig" receiving as much enjoyment from it as you can, or a boring moralist refraining from everything for somebodies you don't even know. It's ok. What I actually stand for is this choice being personal and voluntary, and not imposed on anyone.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Why should you stand up for such people's right to continue to consume like greedy pigs until the earth is devoid of resources and ecologically ruined?

Are you suggesting the Earth can avoid this scenario under some conditions?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

You have one life, and it's your choice to spend it on being a "greedy pig" receiving as much enjoyment from it as you can, or a boring moralist refraining from everything for somebodies you don't even know. It's ok. What I actually stand for is this choice being personal and voluntary, and not imposed on anyone.

Oh dear, what has life done to you, to make you such an egoistical and totally self-centred individual?!

Never mind people of the future, your own potential children and grandchildren.... Let them live in a polluted wasteland in the future, so that the elites of today can take a few extra trips to the Maldives, have a plasma screen in every room and five sports cars... The ironic fact that you yourself can't afford this and probably never will, seems to have escaped you.

Since solidarity isn't your cup of tea, do you remember the simple message of Jesus: Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

How would you feel if previous generations had made your life a living hell through their arrogance, egoism and foolishness?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Are you suggesting the Earth can avoid this scenario under some conditions?

I am certainly not saying I have a fool proof way of avoiding it, but limiting excessive consumption should be a good start. During the war, they rationed food and clothing, so that the distribution would be fair in a sparce economy.
Something like that could be applied to activities and products that are bad for the economy. Like cars, flights and gadgets.

If americans do not want to limit fuel consumption now - then prices like 20$ per litre will do it for them later.
And then they will sell their hummers for scrap metal...

10 years ago fuel here was 3x cheaper than it is now.
In 2000 fuel (95 gasoline) price in Latvia was about 0,60$ per litre - now - 1,80$ per litre.
And it will not get cheaper.

Originally Posted by nulle

If americans do not want to limit fuel consumption now - then prices like 20$ per litre will do it for them later.
And then they will sell their hummers for scrap metal...
10 years ago fuel here was 3x cheaper than it is now.
In 2000 fuel (95 gasoline) price in Latvia was about 0,60$ per litre - now - 1,80$ per litre.
And it will not get cheaper.

You see, it's not that simple. A Hummer can theoretically also run on a renewable fuel like biodiesel or use some other eco-friendly stuff like fuel cells where the electricity to split hydrogen was obtained from water/wind turbines installed in some very remote areas. I think I mentioned it a couple of times in this forum, but, there's a HUGE difference between limiting the level of consumption and a way of securing it. Let me give you a simple example. Say, some 12,000 years ago the humanity grew in numbers and, as a result of the not-very-eco-friendly way of securing food (i.e. the hunting), the amount of food shrunk considerably causing a famine. That was a first global ecological catastrophe the humanity ever knew. So, two options came alive. First, limit the amount of consuming food (i.e. somebody had ceased to live). Second, move to the agricultural civilization and go on eating and grow in numbers. Apparently, the humanity went the second way. Consequently, several other ecological disasters loomed over the millenia. Like, people could no longer burn the forests before planting their grain and move on burning other forests, but rather switch to the more settled way and just swap fields rather than constantly looking for new ones. Even in the beginning of the 20th century there was danger of famine as the land was unable to sustain that many people. So, the fertilizers were invented and used. And later on a similar problem was solved by means of the GM-food. And each and every time the humanity was faced with the request to limit consumption and yet it went on and on evading the dangers. So, now you're saying the "1,80$ per litre" would do the trick?