Nfp & Overpopulation

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1347576682' post='2482140']
And if we don't, nature will.
[/quote]

Being made in the image of God includes our creativity.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' timestamp='1347924087' post='2483476']
Being made in the image of God includes our creativity.
[/quote]
To mention one, Africa has always controlled it's population by natural means. I don't know the mind of God, so maybe he has plans that there will be people who will be creative enough to prevent this happening to the whole world. But then maybe not, it's happened in the past. I pray you're right.

[XIX]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1347925106' post='2483484']
To mention one, Africa has always controlled it's population by natural means. I don't know the mind of God, so maybe he has plans that there will be people who will be creative enough to prevent this happening to the whole world. But then maybe not, it's happened in the past. I pray you're right.
[/quote]
Africa is controlling its population?

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='XIX' timestamp='1347973878' post='2483690']
Africa is controlling its population?
[/quote]
By natural means- Wars, famine and disease. The discussion has been about managing our resources and population intelligently and creatively.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Mark of the Cross

[Basilisa Marie]

I think the biggest problem is that the nations (and cultures, really) that consume the most resources are the ones with the most creative means to encourage proper stewardship of our resources, but they're also the ones who are too greedy and lazy to do so.

It's like how in the USA, the hybrid electric car industry hasn't really gotten off the ground in any real capacity, because the auto industry won't put forth the initial capital (a huge amount of money, really) to make the technology affordable and convenient to the average car owner. If I was looking to purchase a new car, I'd love to get one that ran on mostly electricity, for all sorts of environmentally conscious reasons. But the thing is that there aren't very many electric charger stations, and most cars can really only go about 50 miles on one charge. So even if I installed a charger in my garage, I could only travel a 25 mile radius before coming home. Plus the cars are super expensive, because the companies need to return on their investment in the technology. So not only are the ones at the corporate top more interested in lots of profit than environmental stewardship (hard to blame them, but they're the ones with the power), but even if I want to purchase an environmentally-friendly car, I can't, because it's not only too expensive but it doesn't fit my driving needs.

Sure, that doesn't mean I shouldn't recycle, buy used clothes, donate to famine-relief organizations or turn off lights when I'm not using them. I can still take some responsibility for proper stewardship of resources. But the people with the most power to make the biggest impact aren't interested.

[Slappo]

Go green, it's cheaper! Cloth diapers, high mpg cars, LED light bulbs, re-usable water bottles, water filtration systems rather than plastic water bottles...

I thought that electric cars got more like 100-150 miles before needing recharged though. 50 would seem pretty darn pointless! Just looked them up, it looks like 65-100 is the range. Still pretty darn low... that's three days of commuting back and forth to work for me... There's one that Toyota came out with that is mostly electric with fuel that kicks in after 35 miles of electric to get a max 260 miles out of the charge - that seems like it might work well for those that forget to charge or have to go a little further on a commute. Hopefully in future years we'll see a decline in prices on these fuel efficient or electric cars.

[PhuturePriest]

My town "went green" after the tornado. I promise you green is not cheaper. Houses that should be fifty thousand are three hundred thousand because they "went green". We spent fifty five million dollars on our school for two hundred students because we "went green". Green is not cheaper, it's ridiculous. Recycle if you want, go to a thrift store, reuse plastic bottles, whatever. But no one on earth can tell me "green" isn't a code word for "You'll be spending ten times the green".

[sixpence]

So there seems to be some agreement between all of us that stewardship of the earth is important. (I think?)
-What does this entail?
-What if you live in a resource poor area (ex. places with water resource problems)? What if by living there you are degrading the area even further? And this will only be multiplied by having children. Are you moral obligated to move? What if you cannot afford it?

random silly thought: If God wants to control the population, he should just call more people to religious life

[Slappo]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1348079833' post='2484240']
My town "went green" after the tornado. I promise you green is not cheaper. Houses that should be fifty thousand are three hundred thousand because they "went green". We spent fifty five million dollars on our school for two hundred students because we "went green". Green is not cheaper, it's ridiculous. Recycle if you want, go to a thrift store, reuse plastic bottles, whatever. But no one on earth can tell me "green" isn't a code word for "You'll be spending ten times the green".
[/quote]

Are you kidding me? The upfront costs of energy efficiency are more, but long term costs are where you save tons of money. Of course spending 5 million dollars more for the infrastructure necessary for geo-thermal heating is going to make a building both cost more and more valuable. The 500ks a year you save in oil re-coups that initial investment over 10 years and every year after that you are making bank in savings.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1348087266' post='2484306']
Are you kidding me? The upfront costs of energy efficiency are more, but long term costs are where you save tons of money. Of course spending 5 million dollars more for the infrastructure necessary for geo-thermal heating is going to make a building both cost more and more valuable. The 500ks a year you save in oil re-coups that initial investment over 10 years and every year after that you are making bank in savings.
[/quote]

Well at least that is how it is supposed to work, in theory. For a variety of reasons it will not always be the case. You will know that as an accountant. Or did you sleep through your net present value courses?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1348078066' post='2484216']
I think the biggest problem is that the nations (and cultures, really) that consume the most resources are the ones with the most creative means to encourage proper stewardship of our resources, but they're also the ones who are too greedy and lazy to do so.

It's like how in the USA, the hybrid electric car industry hasn't really gotten off the ground in any real capacity, because the auto industry won't put forth the initial capital (a huge amount of money, really) to make the technology affordable and convenient to the average car owner. If I was looking to purchase a new car, I'd love to get one that ran on mostly electricity, for all sorts of environmentally conscious reasons. But the thing is that there aren't very many electric charger stations, and most cars can really only go about 50 miles on one charge. So even if I installed a charger in my garage, I could only travel a 25 mile radius before coming home. Plus the cars are super expensive, because the companies need to return on their investment in the technology. So not only are the ones at the corporate top more interested in lots of profit than environmental stewardship (hard to blame them, but they're the ones with the power), but even if I want to purchase an environmentally-friendly car, I can't, because it's not only too expensive but it doesn't fit my driving needs.

Sure, that doesn't mean I shouldn't recycle, buy used clothes, donate to famine-relief organizations or turn off lights when I'm not using them. I can still take some responsibility for proper stewardship of resources. But the people with the most power to make the biggest impact aren't interested.
[/quote]
So what's your proposed solution to this alleged problem?

Government corporate subsidies to invest in "green" technologies? (This has already created an expensive debacle with government subsidizing of companies spending on "green energy" at taxpayer expense. Wasteful corporate welfarism at its worst.)

Government dictating to private companies how they must invest their capital? (Because all-wise politicians always know better than those stupid,greedy businessmen about how to run their business!)

Despite the negligible actual effect electric vehicles will actually have on the environment and global warming (another debate in itself), the truth is that is that these issues will best be solved through the market, rather than by intervention. Whoever is able to develop and patent a successful affordable "green" vehicle will able to corner an entire market and crush the competition (and not only with environmentally-minded customers, but many others in these bad economic times with high gas prices). The market incentive exists, and I don't think auto-makers are too stupid to see this.

And while it's easy to sit back and accuse others of "greed," the investment of capital is no trivial matter. How resources are invested can mean the difference between success and bankruptcy. (GM would be bankrupt, had the government not bailed them out at taxpayer expense.) You are also presuming that a really affordable effective electric car would exist if only enough money is dumped into it. Who are you to say whether or not auto-makers are spending enough on "green" r&d?

I am sure electric and other "green" technologies will continue to improve. Technological innovations and improvements have occured in many areas under a free market, leading to better and more efficient technologies, and I don't see why this area of technology should be any exception. If companies simply didn't care at all, they would not have developed electric and hybrid vehicles in the first place.

(Note: I'm not sure if you are arguing for government interference in the market here or not, but your arguments are those commonly used to argue for more government spending or regulation, which in real life has been harmful rather than helpful. Your post simply seems to be based on half-baked presumptions and cliches.)

[Slappo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1348087460' post='2484308']
Well at least that is how it is supposed to work, in theory. For a variety of reasons it will not always be the case. You will know that as an accountant. Or did you sleep through your net present value courses?
[/quote]

Unless the realized savings from the upgrade do not cover the additional costs within a reasonable time span, then you're saving money.

Sure there are cases where energy efficiency is not effective, such as the the first hybrid cars, or new technology that ends up failing/high maintenance costs. In general, more efficient buildings/cars/equipment saves money. Of course everything is relative when it comes to cost savings/efficiency upgrades. That's why accountants are hired to do cost benefit analysis for corporations.

You can't throw out "going green" just because it has a higher initial cost though, and thats what FP was doing. Sure you can make "green" decisions that are 95% useless such as installing solar panels on the roof of a small building for the cost of a million dollars when the annual electric bill is 5k, but that's not really "going green" or being energy efficient is it?

[Slappo]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1348094858' post='2484370']
Despite the negligible actual effect electric vehicles will actually have on the environment and global warming (another debate in itself), the truth is that is that these issues will best be solved through the market, rather than by intervention. Whoever is able to develop and patent a successful affordable "green" vehicle will able to corner an entire market and crush the competition (and not only with environmentally-minded customers, but many others in these bad economic times with high gas prices). The market incentive exists, and I don't think auto-makers are too stupid to see this.[/quote]

Yup. As gas prices continue to increase, a free market will drive companies to invest in energy efficient technology. When fuel hits $20 a gallon in USA, you'll see a lot of electric cars.

I'm less concerned with the effect on global warming. I'm more concerned with the rapid use of natural resources at a rate that is unsustainable. The latter will resolve itself in a free market.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1348097980' post='2484396']
Unless the realized savings from the upgrade do not cover the additional costs within a reasonable time span, then you're saving money.

Sure there are cases where energy efficiency is not effective, such as the the first hybrid cars, or new technology that ends up failing/high maintenance costs. In general, more efficient buildings/cars/equipment saves money. Of course everything is relative when it comes to cost savings/efficiency upgrades. That's why accountants are hired to do cost benefit analysis for corporations.

You can't throw out "going green" just because it has a higher initial cost though, and thats what FP was doing. Sure you can make "green" decisions that are 95% useless such as installing solar panels on the roof of a small building for the cost of a million dollars when the annual electric bill is 5k, but that's not really "going green" or being energy efficient is it?
[/quote]

Right, yeah. That is what I was getting at.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1348100144' post='2484425']
Right, yeah. That is what I was getting at.
[/quote]
Sorry I think I came off a little strong there . FP's going green means spending 10x the money irked me a lot.