rideforever wrote:
The market is not free and unlikely to become so before we all die. Also wealthier=healthier only if you think healthier=wealthier. Judging by the mental state of most monkeys on the planet, we have a major problem.
That depends on what one calls free, the current system is not entirely free of course, but Sylvius would probably call for making it much freer. Also, health does correlate with wealth as medicine and other things do reduce the damage of illness. The mental state is a greater issue in all honesty, I wouldn't call past people to necessarily be sane either but too many cultural factors are present in sanity judgments.
Quote:
I heard the planet can support 2 Billion, let' say that it's 4 Billion (why not !) ... we still need to lose weight. It's a bit of a bugger but hey .... that's life.
Well, technically, the matter here is one of assumptions. The planet is supporting more than those numbers, and the question is sustainability which relies on some assumptions that could be unrealistic. The fact of the matter is that we could theoretically expand until we are the only consumers and eat plants grown in massive farms, the environment as we know it would die in that kind of world and it might be somewhat unrealistic, but that is probably the real limitation.
Quote:
Hey I am pretty good at adapting to change like when Tesco's runs out of Ben&Jerry's I can always go to the Co-op.
And with the planet it's exactly the same thing ! !
No, actually, I think he was thinking that if your Ben&Jerry's becomes too expensive due to changes in available resources then you can switch to Bluebell, and that humanity will adapt along the lines of self-preservation and desire.
Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 28 Aug 2007, 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.