| Author
|
Thread |
  |
|
|
|
~Dakine..HeX
Joined: 15 Sep 2000
Posts: 4062
Location: salt lake city |
25, i beat you
|
Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:24 pm |
|
|
SoCzNedoK
Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 2332
Location: Rock Hill, SC |
god bless america
|
|
Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:27 pm |
|
|
Fast Luck
Joined: 11 Oct 2001
Posts: 22805
Location: Penis |
IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2.3 PLANETS.
that doesn't sound so bad, why don't we get 2.3 planets
_________________
i zero bagged your mother
quote:
Originally posted by Fast Luck
hassan-i-asher: majorin in takin pictures
dreamin bout wayne from catalina wine mixers
listen little friend stay outta the deep end
cuz you're less street than vampire weekend
|
|
Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:30 pm |
|
|
Axolotl
Joined: 14 Sep 2000
Posts: 3772
Location: Vancouver BC |
I got owned as expected
FOOD 2.6
MOBILITY 0.6
SHELTER 6.3
GOODS/SERVICES 7.1
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 16.6
|
|
Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:42 pm |
|
|
Paper_Boy
Joined: 28 Sep 2000
Posts: 3587
Location: penis |
28 - 6.3 planets
I dont care if I ravage the planet CUZ ITS MINE SEE N I DO WHAT I WANT, U DONT KNOW ME U DONT KNOW ME
|
|
Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:00 pm |
|
|
bam
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 1108
|
I got a 16 point something. I think it's mainly because I ride a motorcycle and live in an apartment. Oh well.
_________________
The Original.
|
|
Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:17 pm |
|
|
Sypher
Joined: 18 Sep 2000
Posts: 5698
Location: Detroit, MI |
i got 14..
_________________
"I tend to thougoughly enjoy my encounters significantly more with 120+ types, as I find them more stimulating. 100-110 people are okay too operating at full capacity." - Paper_Boy
|
|
Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:28 pm |
|
|
|
|
~Dakine..HeX
Joined: 15 Sep 2000
Posts: 4062
Location: salt lake city |
i drive a car, live in a house with gas and electricity and eat meat. i am what is wrong with the world today.
|
|
Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:34 pm |
|
|
foonat
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 7716
|
IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 4.8 PLANETS
|
|
Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:05 pm |
|
|
SoCzNedoK
Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 2332
Location: Rock Hill, SC |
the world is IMBA
|
|
Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:13 pm |
|
|
KingHillBilly
Joined: 24 Oct 2000
Posts: 1154
Location: California |
I got 58
|
|
Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:37 pm |
|
|
kublikhan
Joined: 11 Jul 2003
Posts: 2849
Location: Schaumburg, IL |
13, 3 planets. average is 24. Damn i'm slackin. I'm not consuming my fair share of earth's resources here....
_________________
Give me a lever long enough and I shall move the world. - Archimedes
|
|
Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:45 am |
|
|
|
|
Ywfn
Joined: 30 May 2001
Posts: 3833
|
quote:
Originally posted by kublikhan
13, 3 planets. average is 24. Damn i'm slackin. I'm not consuming my fair share of earth's resources here....
If the average is 24, doesn't that mean we're already consuming 5+ planets?
|
|
Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:35 am |
|
|
Pimster
Joined: 02 Oct 2000
Posts: 1511
|
FOOD 1.9
MOBILITY 3.8
SHELTER 1.5
GOODS/SERVICES 7.1
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 14.3
I'm really amazed by how people can score so much higher (paperboy/khb, if they're serious),
Interested to see your answers!
|
|
Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:43 am |
|
|
Sypher
Joined: 18 Sep 2000
Posts: 5698
Location: Detroit, MI |
quote:
Originally posted by Ywfn
quote:
Originally posted by kublikhan
13, 3 planets. average is 24. Damn i'm slackin. I'm not consuming my fair share of earth's resources here....
If the average is 24, doesn't that mean we're already consuming 5+ planets?
it probably only is counting people who take the tests. Somalians (who can't afford computers to vote) have a -5 footprint obv.
_________________
"I tend to thougoughly enjoy my encounters significantly more with 120+ types, as I find them more stimulating. 100-110 people are okay too operating at full capacity." - Paper_Boy
|
|
Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:43 am |
|
|
SoCzNedoK
Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 2332
Location: Rock Hill, SC |
quote:
Originally posted by Ywfn
quote:
Originally posted by kublikhan
13, 3 planets. average is 24. Damn i'm slackin. I'm not consuming my fair share of earth's resources here....
If the average is 24, doesn't that mean we're already consuming 5+ planets?
Thats just the average for the United States. For the 300 million living at that standard of consumption there are billions in the 3rd world living in stone age conditions so that we can afford to consume. If everyone on earth lived in the same conditions of the average Indian for example we would need less than half a planet. Kind of scary when you think of how many people live in India in those conditions or worse.
|
|
Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:50 am |
|
|
Ywfn
Joined: 30 May 2001
Posts: 3833
|
quote:
Originally posted by SoCzNedoK
Thats just the average for the United States. For the 300 million living at that standard of consumption there are billions in the 3rd world living in stone age conditions so that we can afford to consume. If everyone on earth lived in the same conditions of the average Indian for example we would need less than half a planet. Kind of scary when you think of how many people live in India in those conditions or worse.
The only thing that really concerns me is if a country's total footprint exceeds the "ecological output" of their country. For example, I don't think people living in the US or Canada, with lots of space and resources, have any obligation to decrease their footprint size unless it's "taking away" from someone else.
|
|
Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:25 am |
|
|
SoCzNedoK
Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 2332
Location: Rock Hill, SC |
quote:
Originally posted by Ywfn
quote:
Originally posted by SoCzNedoK
Thats just the average for the United States. For the 300 million living at that standard of consumption there are billions in the 3rd world living in stone age conditions so that we can afford to consume. If everyone on earth lived in the same conditions of the average Indian for example we would need less than half a planet. Kind of scary when you think of how many people live in India in those conditions or worse.
The only thing that really concerns me is if a country's total footprint exceeds the "ecological output" of their country. For example, I don't think people living in the US or Canada, with lots of space and resources, have any obligation to decrease their footprint size unless it's "taking away" from someone else.
Well we pretty much are 'taking away' from other people. If we were alone in the world we wouldn't have the resources to keep on living the way we do. We get cheap meat because of amazon deforestation for more space for livestock, we get cheap copper and other metals because of nations in Africa who really don't have any other option but to mine the copper and sell it raw as their primary resource and so on. We are so rich because there are people who are incredibly poor, and to me that seems wrong.
|
|
Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:43 am |
|
|
Ywfn
Joined: 30 May 2001
Posts: 3833
|
quote:
Originally posted by SoCzNedoK
We are so rich because there are people who are incredibly poor, and to me that seems wrong.
Well, I don't disagree from a humanitarian standpoint, but that's really an entirely different philosophical issue than what I'm talking about. And as an individual, I think it's your right to make a impact on this issue if you choose. But as a country, I disagree (although I do think that internally we have an obligation to those within our own country).
We have a lot of land, much of it very useful, and relatively low population compared to a lot of other places. That gives us a lot of a large "economic footprint" to play with (I'm not educated enough on the subject to know if I buy-in to this term or how it's measured anyway, so I'm just playing along really).
As a country, I do think we have some obligation to make sure our combined "economic footprint" does not exceed our own country's resources. Taking our obligation beyond that adds in a number of other variables. There could be policy issues within other countries contributing to their own problems, and I think it's not a good idea for us to get in the buisness of helping them cope with their problems, by giving up our resources, unless they're willing to do all they can with what they already have. It's just a big sticky situation I'd rather we stay out of.
|
|
Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:25 am |
|
|
fiftyfour40
Joined: 21 Apr 2003
Posts: 2765
|
my thoughts on the situation
|
|
Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:36 am |
|
|
Eradicate
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 5449
Location: Paulatopia |
the moon will crash into the earth?
|
|
Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:08 am |
|
|
SoCzNedoK
Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 2332
Location: Rock Hill, SC |
quote:
Originally posted by Ywfn
But as a country, I disagree (although I do think that internally we have an obligation to those within our own country).
An obligation to keep consuming and exploiting the 3rd world? How is this justifiable?
quote:
Originally posted by Ywfn
As a country, I do think we have some obligation to make sure our combined "economic footprint" does not exceed our own country's resources.
Well it clearly does, and therein lies the problem. I mean of course we have the resources and land, but there would be a big cost to our way of living if had to sustain ourselves, or if poor countries started to attain our level of development.
quote:
Originally posted by Ywfn
Taking our obligation beyond that adds in a number of other variables. There could be policy issues within other countries contributing to their own problems, and I think it's not a good idea for us to get in the business of helping them cope with their problems, by giving up our resources, unless they're willing to do all they can with what they already have. It's just a big sticky situation I'd rather we stay out of.
I guess I can't argue there. As long as people are concerned only with preserving their own way of living, the others will have to pay the price. This isn't sustainable though imo, and in the end someone will have to give.
|
|
Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:00 pm |
|
|
Warcraft Occult Forum Index
-> Links, reviews, previews, etc
