View Single Post
Old 02-23-2011, 12:37 AM   #20
Shedwannabe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Laconia
Posts: 133
Thanks: 3
Thanked 22 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike M. View Post
Your statement about overpopulation (multiple times actually) is offensive.

In other words you want to create laws (enforced by government) that would burden families with financial penalties who exceeded the acceptable number of children chosen by the government? I realize your intentions are good but your research about economics, philosophy, politics seems to be heavily weighed in favor of ideas that are completely opposing to the ideas that made this country and state great.

A)
The overpopulation you speak of wouldn’t be a problem if we removed the incentives to have children. We don’t need to stop people from having children using tyrannical laws; we need to remove safety nets that prevent people from being forced to live within their means. People need to once again have personal responsibility not new laws.

B)
Yes, we will be forced to reduce our energy consumption because of the outrageous fiscal policies of the government and the federal reserve. Using the most energy in the world doesn’t make us bad and we shouldn’t feel bad for it. Our investment in energy has benefited poorer countries with access to improving technology and cheaper energy.

C)
People don’t transition to something unless it’s a better/cheaper alternative to what they currently use.

I’m sure any boat owners, mechanics, even some environmentalist on this forum would agree that the push for putting ethanol into the fuel supply by the government caused a lot of unintended consequences and was counterproductive to its goal. Since you suggested using the government to enforce a limit on children I assume you would also support them forcing us to use ‘green’ technology even though it is still more expensive in most instances.

When green technology advances and the price drops enough or the price of other energy sources goes up enough because of actual supply shortages making the cost of green energy competitive people will do what makes financial sense for them and their families.

Your house sounds awesome; did you do anything specific to prevent heat loss with insulation and sealing? Passive homes will eventually be the norm for economic reasons especially in our area.

Hi Mike M.

Not sure what you mean about my statement about overpopulation being offensive. In what way is it offensive? To me, its a pretty clear fact. Now, what I think should be done about it may be offensive (to you), though I don't see why suggesting a solution is OFFENSIVE. Its seems to me it is just different that what you think needs to be done, or not done.

As a start, I'd be happy with the first step of not burdening the rest of us with paying for the large families through tax incentives (child deduction, etc.) It seems to me you and I have the same solution (for starters) in mind. I wasn't aware that I advocated anything else. I'd say in the current political climate, many people would say removing the incentives to have more children would be "penalizing" population growth.

I do totally disagree with your second statement. "Using the most energy in the world doesn’t make us bad and we shouldn’t feel bad for it." In my opinion, what the US does to the rest of the world in terms of resources is very akin to rape. Its not that we just happen to have a large amount of energy and resources available to us; our military empire supports the extraction of resources around the world. This is not controversial; it just is. "Our investment in energy has benefited poorer countries with access to improving technology and cheaper energy." This is a US Government propaganda statement - if it were true, you'd think the US would be respected and liked around the world. It isn't. Its feared, not respected, by the average person who is aware of the rape of the natural resources from their country. American "exceptionalism" (or nationalism) is just a way we turn a blind eye to any sense of responsibility as leaders of the global community.

As to the third statement, you are absolutely right. I do support the government "forcing" citizens to use green energy - how? By removing the subsidies that artificially make non-renewable energy cheaper, and instead offering subsidies that do make it significantly cheaper. As just one example, I personally see the Iraq war as mainly a way to send a message to oil regimes to do business with us on our terms. If you took away that how many trillion dollars, and put it into "green" economy, we would not be facing the catastrophic problems with regard to energy that we are facing.

House has ICF's (insulated concrete forms) which prevent heat loss on all but the south side. South side of house is uninsulated (during a sunny day) by covered up nights and cloudy days (move-able insulation). Plus the greenhouse modulates the temperature on the south side, creating an outer layer of insulation.
Shedwannabe is offline   Reply With Quote