yup I know that, it would change anyway. it would just settle to whatever new parameters were set.
the world is in a constant change of adaptation.
man isn't the only thing that affects the environment.
many things do.
volcanoes. asteroids. birds bees, the trees. etc.
my point is this
even if man pushes it to the limits, it will only make the environment harder to live and lower the numbers. then it would just settle back to whatever course its meant to be on and everything would follow its own little cycles yet again.
Its done it hundreds of times since its existence.
its just nature.
were more likely to harm the planet through killing the bees than we are through carbon pollution.
the earth has dealt with huge amounts of pollution many times and it always recovers.
Even if each time it has had to do this its usually decimated large numbers of life. they all recover and come back. (obviously not allways all. even nature has an accident sometimes lol)
(2 April 2013, 12:35)Luci_ferson Wrote: [ -> ]very true.
lets invest 10 billion in carbon storage.
or we could just stop destroying forests.
every year that a tree grows it is capturing carbon.
why do we need to build a new one when the earth already has them.
oh yep. its hard to tax a tree.
houses built out of hemp actually absorb carbon from the air, are completly bio friendly and you can grow 4 acres if hemp in 3 months. it takes up to a thousand years to grow the same in trees. the benifits have out weighted the corporations since the dawn of time, not long now till enough peeps know..........all we can do is play the "did u know game" to plant the "it was my idea" seeds into the minds of the ignorant who are the main group of peeps stopping the truth from being accepted. sad state of affairs but there u go.
the beauty of allowing trees to store the carbon, is its an excellent building material too.
pine trees grow at a phenomenal rate. and its an excellent wood to work with.
theyd rather just waste money investing in pointless crap that makes one of them ritch .
they aint interested in simple cheap environmentally friendly solutions.
they want something they can sell and tax.
it has to be something that can be measured in a unit and fitted onto a taxable spreadsheet.
and yep hemp is another usefull product for building and many other uses but we all know why that's not used no more. even though the british empire was built on its mighty navy. whos sails were made from the stuff.
luci, your hitting my kind of nails!! the corpperations have built up a world of business and people to run it all making as u say a few far to rich. but this has its flaws as it has made other countrys rich and with that makes more corporations. this creates power struggle's between the elites; witch inturn has coursed the ressesion were in now. slow business means u slow the growth. this is just as true with country to country not just induviduals. one country or corp will start using hemp as an attempt to brake to oppersisions financial situation and to make the world hate them and love the hempers. they say the world over crowded, its not!!!!!! fact. but it is overcrowded compared to when they had it good-when they were in control of the world. every human on this planet to date could have a quarter acre of land each and all fit into australia, leaving queensland bare, and still have the rest of the world empty. now lets look at THERE world..........yep well overcrowded. power struggle=were we are.
i don't believe the world is overcrowded.
greedy but not overcrowded.
if we put all the rainforrests back. and lived simpler lives living from the land again.
I reckon the world could probably hold 3 times as many as there is already here.
but that's pretty much just guess work.
even in the state its in its already supporting us all pretty well still.
the world isn't as fragile as some of the enviro groups like you to believe.
you have to remember some of these environmental groups are actually cashing in .
they are the ones holding the shares in all this pointless green technology that don't work.
not all environmentalists really give a crap about the planet.
The environment is also a perfect cashcow. for scare mongerers to fleece us out of money for hairbrained schemes that will never work.
yes we affect the planet. but nowhere near as much as some groups make out.
well take this country for instance, it only appears not to be overcrowded because we are getting food shipped in from the other side of the world, if that stopped (political reasons, or other) and we had to be self sufficient, we could not grow enough food for everyone who lives here.lots of people would starve.
yup this country is overcrowded and couldn't sustain itself
be better if most from this country moved elsewhere and left a few behind to farm it.
people would need to live in infertile places and use all the fertile places for growing.
definitely far too many in this country to be self sustaining.
las vegas was built in a dessert. maybe cities should always be built in desserts.
(3 April 2013, 18:12)Luci_ferson Wrote: [ -> ]las vegas was built in a dessert. maybe cities should always be built in desserts.
as far as i am concerned cities ARE deserts, concrete canyons and all that!
(3 April 2013, 18:21)bigpaul Wrote: [ -> ] (3 April 2013, 18:12)Luci_ferson Wrote: [ -> ]las vegas was built in a dessert. maybe cities should always be built in desserts.
as far as i am concerned cities ARE deserts, concrete canyons and all that!
very well said sir,
therefore we should not build them on fertile land.
id chose to stay behind as a farmer.
they can go into the dessert and play with their flashy lights. and gizmos.
(3 April 2013, 18:22)Luci_ferson Wrote: [ -> ] (3 April 2013, 18:21)bigpaul Wrote: [ -> ]as far as i am concerned cities ARE deserts, concrete canyons and all that!
very well said sir,
therefore we should not build them on fertile land.
id chose to stay behind as a farmer.
they can go into the dessert and play with their flashy lights. and gizmos.
yesssssss
