Happening In The Year 2070
-
simple theory.
more people = more resources required = more pollution
in no time, earth will be thanking humans for sucking it dry. -
Ahh... so people don't die now huh?Originally posted by www:simple theory.
more people = more resources required = more pollution
in no time, earth will be thanking humans for sucking it dry.
People dies, usage of resources increases not because of the amount of people, but the amount of usage we are using, in your case, per person.
Resources like oil do regenerate too, just that it takes a pretty long time. But if you guys can say the Earth is going to die in 13 million years etc, the resources will regen back by that time too. -
The problem is not really the water cycle but more of the water quality.Originally posted by 0oohLaLa:SO FAKE LOR
how can the water cycle cease to exist?
As long as the elements are there, the water cycle will not cease to exist. But what that comes back to us from the water cycle might not be exactly what we are having now.
Heard of acid rain? -
-edited-
-
So long as you don't have children, you don't have to worry...Originally posted by FireIce:i think by tt time i oredi not alive
but scary just to think of it -
let's say everyone chip in and save 50% of energy conumption, but increase population threefold, does it help?Originally posted by VagueHart:Ahh... so people don't die now huh?
People dies, usage of resources increases not because of the amount of people, but the amount of usage we are using, in your case, per person.
Resources like oil do regenerate too, just that it takes a pretty long time. But if you guys can say the Earth is going to die in 13 million years etc, the resources will regen back by that time too.
of course, i dont mean we shouldnt reproduce, but i notice some do it for the sake of doing it. -
sounds really selfish to meOriginally posted by Devil1976:So long as you don't have children, you don't have to worry...
-
somehow i feel the story doesn't adds up.
-
-
yea , we also try to do our part
but is like saving a grain of rice from the whole packet
we still need to depend on US and China all these big country , our effort can only be used as encouragment/motivation for big country to see -
won't be around by that time
-
your children will be..
or grandchildren..
and what kind of sick and deranged maniac would put their grandchildren in danger?Originally posted by de_middle:won't be around by that time -
a lot of ppl neber think of the repercussions and wat our future generation will be going thru.....
-
your example is flawed. there are only 2 variables in your example. the population, and the energy consumption per person. if u change these 2 variables at the same time in the same example without looking at other scenarios, the result u get is meaningless.Originally posted by www:let's say everyone chip in and save 50% of energy conumption, but increase population threefold, does it help?
of course, i dont mean we shouldnt reproduce, but i notice some do it for the sake of doing it.
if everyone chips in and saves 50%, its a lot saved.
if population increases 3 X, its a lot more energy used.
if everyone chips in and saves 50% while increasing population by 3 X, u use significantly less energy than u would without saving.
therefore, saving is better than not.
people reproduce for the sake of doing it?
wrong again.
in China, people want sons. that is a legitimate reason because they want somebody to continue their blood name.
islamic countries... because Allah will get mad if they used condoms/contraceptives.
back to Singapore, if people reproduced so much, the govt wouldnt need so many FTs. -
That's not an excuse for not doing your part.Originally posted by aiglosicicle:there is nothing much singapore can do. the future of earth depends on whether larger countries like china, USA or jakarta are responsible, or selfish. -
omg. -
Originally posted by Ristar:
ultimately, there is only so much honey in a pot.
your example is flawed. there are only 2 variables in your example. the population, and the energy consumption per person. if u change these 2 variables at the same time in the same example without looking at other scenarios, the result u get is meaningless.
if everyone chips in and saves 50%, its a lot saved.
if population increases 3 X, its a lot more energy used.
if everyone chips in and saves 50% while increasing population by 3 X, u use [b]significantly less energy than u would without saving.
therefore, saving is better than not.
people reproduce for the sake of doing it?
wrong again.
in China, people want sons. that is a legitimate reason because they want somebody to continue their blood name.
islamic countries... because Allah will get mad if they used condoms/contraceptives.
back to Singapore, if people reproduced so much, the govt wouldnt need so many FTs.[/b]
if 2 ants can empty the pot in 10 days. 4 ants can do likewise in 10 days even if they are selfless enough to consume only 50% each.
perhaps i am less optimistic about human nature, but i dont think many people around us having such virtue these days: selflessness
i deem it's a good effort if we can convince half the world to be environmentally conscious, no?
even so, it means 2 outta 4 ants are selfless, and the pot will be emptied in less than 7 days nevertheless.
i agree with you that saving is better than not.
what i am saying is that if we are multiplying at this rate, energy saving can only go this far, despite all sorta justification for reproducing.