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

With approximately 5% of the world's population, the United States is responsible for approximately 25% of annual global oil consumption and according to 2008 estimates has a per-person daily consumption rate more than double that of the European Union, whose population is significantly greater.

Maybe 99% should stop driving with SUVs to gym to run on a treadmill?

Anyway - I think that these 99% already live too good (and above their means) - and their living standards should be lower...

Originally Posted by nulle

Maybe 99% should stop driving with SUVs to gym to run on a treadmill?

Anyway - I think that these 99% already live too good (and above their means) - and their living standards should be lower...

Wow - who decides how low other peoples living standards should be lowered to?

Scott

Originally Posted by fortheether

Wow - who decides how low other peoples living standards should be lowered to?

Scott

Лучше не "who", а "зачем". В каменный век что ли начать возвращаться?

Wow - who decides how low other peoples living standards should be lowered to?

Well, people themselves should. In a controlled way - to conserve resources.
Otherwise, shortage of resources, war, famine, diseases, etc will do it for them.
And their growing debt and deficit shows that americans are living way over their means.
And for everyone in the world to live as good as average 99% american - that's simply impossible - Earth does not have that much resources.

Originally Posted by Lampada

Лучше не "who", а "зачем". В каменный век что ли начать возвращаться?

LOL!!!

Originally Posted by nulle

Well, people themselves should. In a controlled way - to conserve resources.
Otherwise, shortage of resources, war, famine, diseases, etc will do it for them.
And their growing debt and deficit shows that americans are living way over their means.
And for everyone in the world to live as good as average 99% american - that's simply impossible - Earth does not have that much resources.

I'll wait for Al Gore and Michael Moore to "lead" the way by example.

Scott

Originally Posted by nulle

Well, people themselves should. In a controlled way - to conserve resources.
Otherwise, shortage of resources, war, famine, diseases, etc will do it for them.
And their growing debt and deficit shows that americans are living way over their means.
And for everyone in the world to live as good as average 99% american - that's simply impossible - Earth does not have that much resources.

That's sad, but would anyone give up a part of their salary, for instance, because the employee on their left earns less and can't afford what they can?

Originally Posted by nulle

Well, people themselves should. In a controlled way - to conserve resources.
Otherwise, shortage of resources, war, famine, diseases, etc will do it for them.
And their growing debt and deficit shows that americans are living way over their means.
And for everyone in the world to live as good as average 99% american - that's simply impossible - Earth does not have that much resources.

Totally agree with this.

And there is so much corporate waste in every area.
I was forced to fly twice last week to attend meetings in the morning. If the meetings had been in the afternoon, I could have taken the train. Nobody seemed to care, even after I pointed it out, I had to do it again and I don't feel confident enough right now to refuse.

My view at the moment is of a large corporate building. They've left all the lights on over the weekend, and I can see screens flaring. One massive and totally un-necessary waste of energy.

Both un necessary business flights and un necessary energy waste by corporations should simply be made illegal and punishable if companies breach it.

Two flights per employee per year is more than enough. More phone conferences, video conferences and train journeys.

If I was forced to consume less, I probably wouldn't enjoy it at first. But I can hardly argue that it wasn't needed or in the best long term interest of myself, future generations and the earth as a whole.

It's a very unhealthy and dangerious situation that developing countries are now aspiring to the same standards as the Western world. Sadly, the Earth as a whole cannot afford resource-wise for them to have it. Rather, it is we that should consume less.

In terms of consumption, didn't the USSR actually have it quite right, I mean that nobody was really poor or starving, but nobody able to consume in excess either? I think that earth might be able to just about support the level of consumption that existed there.... Or am I wrong?
Another comparison would be the way that Americans lived in the 1950s.... or had things already gone overboard by then?

In the USSR everyone had come all the way from being poor and starving at the same time (the 1930s - 1940s) to just being poor (1950s +). While those in power had every opportunity to consume whatever much they just wished.

If I was forced to live my life how somebody (not me) saw it (like telling me how much I should consume, that is what I should buy for my own money), I would be trying to take down those mad dictators by any means, and I believe I would have loads of supporters.

Well, I suspect that it's probably not YOUR consumption that is out of proportions.
I am talking about corporations, their executives, people who inherited wealth or made it fast through banking, or shady affairs.

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.

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?

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.

In the USSR everyone had come all the way from being poor and starving at the same time (the 1930s - 1940s) to just being poor (1950s +). While those in power had every opportunity to consume whatever much they just wished.

If I was forced to live my life how somebody (not me) saw it (like telling me how much I should consume, that is what I should buy for my own money), I would be trying to take down those mad dictators by any means, and I believe I would have loads of supporters.

Аж слезу выжал... t2336.gif
Лампаде понравится.

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?

Originally Posted by Hanna

Totally agree with this.

And there is so much corporate waste in every area.
I was forced to fly twice last week to attend meetings in the morning. If the meetings had been in the afternoon, I could have taken the train. Nobody seemed to care, even after I pointed it out, I had to do it again and I don't feel confident enough right now to refuse.

My view at the moment is of a large corporate building. They've left all the lights on over the weekend, and I can see screens flaring. One massive and totally un-necessary waste of energy.

Both un necessary business flights and un necessary energy waste by corporations should simply be made illegal and punishable if companies breach it.

Two flights per employee per year is more than enough. More phone conferences, video conferences and train journeys.

If I was forced to consume less, I probably wouldn't enjoy it at first. But I can hardly argue that it wasn't needed or in the best long term interest of myself, future generations and the earth as a whole.

It's a very unhealthy and dangerious situation that developing countries are now aspiring to the same standards as the Western world. Sadly, the Earth as a whole cannot afford resource-wise for them to have it. Rather, it is we that should consume less.

In terms of consumption, didn't the USSR actually have it quite right, I mean that nobody was really poor or starving, but nobody able to consume in excess either? I think that earth might be able to just about support the level of consumption that existed there.... Or am I wrong?
Another comparison would be the way that Americans lived in the 1950s.... or had things already gone overboard by then?

Hanna,
Why don't you move to North Korea? I think that they already have what you're looking for.

Also, is your use of the term "un necessary" instead of "unnecessary" a British English thing?

Scott

Originally Posted by Hanna

I really like this movement. Nice to see that people are waking up!
Has it reached Russia? Elsewhere in Europe it seems to have caught on too. I read about similar protests in Italy, Germany in Sweden today.
It's interesting how media are portraying the demonstrators as hooligans when they are really regular people who are participating for the first time.

In hindsight maybe that last sentence should be changed?

This should be interesting:

OWS Protesters Calling For 'Day Of Action' Following Loss Of Camp In Zuccotti Park

Scott

Interesting - how foreign corporations are operating in Russia - do they have to pay bribes too?

Interesting - how foreign corporations are operating in Russia - do they have to pay bribes too?

Of course, they do.