Posted: Jun 03, 2019 3:03 am
tuco wrote:OK ...
so if I agree it's the elephant in the room, it's the most pressing, it's very urgent to use phrasing couple of posters used, are you going to recognize its only a part of the problem and that transformative change is needed?
I will repeat what I said earlier: it's not 'part' of 'a' problem. It's one of many disparate and multifarious problems, distinct in and of itself.
The only link all the problems necessarily share is due to the function of our population size.
tuco wrote:Because I do not really care it's the most pressing or not.
I think you probably do if you care about any of the other problems. The only way you could not care is if you don't give a damn about what happens to the environment, and your posts don't seem to convey that position.
tuco wrote: I care that people realize they need to do more than to send money to offset programs if they want to have a sustainable future.
Which might be enlightening if you could quantify exactly what it is that people would actually need to do to have a sustainable future. I think any of us here would be hard-pressed to come up with a comprehensive list. I am not even sure if anyone on the planet would be able to produce such a rigorous treatment for all 7 billion of us.
Personally, I opt for the simplest argument here: the problem is 7 billion people. If there were 2 billion of us, current levels of profligacy would not have an unsustainable effect on the environment.
tuco wrote:Deal?
I'm afraid that conveys no sense to me whatsoever. What formal agreement is it you wish to engage in here?