BF2S Forums US cult of greed is now a global environmental threat

Pug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

What exactly are the problems stated in the article, besides the need for alternative energy (hurr durr)? "Consumption" is not a problem. Mass consumption in certain circumstances can lead to problems, but the article just leveraged the negative and frankly somewhat anti-American connotation of the word to manage to say absolutely nothing.

It's obviously sensationalistic for a reason, but beyond that, I'm not sure the average American consumes 185 lbs of products daily.  If that was true, wtf economy?

How is that, as a blanket statement (assuming truthiness), bad?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Pug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

What exactly are the problems stated in the article, besides the need for alternative energy (hurr durr)? "Consumption" is not a problem. Mass consumption in certain circumstances can lead to problems, but the article just leveraged the negative and frankly somewhat anti-American connotation of the word to manage to say absolutely nothing.

It's obviously sensationalistic for a reason, but beyond that, I'm not sure the average American consumes 185 lbs of products daily.  If that was true, wtf economy?

How is that, as a blanket statement (assuming truthiness), bad?

The weight of the products consumed is irrelevant.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Pug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

What exactly are the problems stated in the article, besides the need for alternative energy (hurr durr)? "Consumption" is not a problem. Mass consumption in certain circumstances can lead to problems, but the article just leveraged the negative and frankly somewhat anti-American connotation of the word to manage to say absolutely nothing.

It's obviously sensationalistic for a reason, but beyond that, I'm not sure the average American consumes 185 lbs of products daily.  If that was true, wtf economy?

How is that, as a blanket statement (assuming truthiness), bad?

Because it changes the tone of the article to one that may dilute the message to a headhunting exercise for some folks.

Pug wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

I'm the first to admit everyone has a role to play in reducing waste. Before you buy your next iphone or whatever gizmo ask yourself if you really need it.

Can't do that.  I have to support the local economy

The US is a consumer that needs to put the breaks on spending, but manufacturing needs to be patrolled as well.  Which means global economics becomes a major political issue.  For instance, CAN we impose environmental controls in China when the increased in cost might result in the consumer nation from buying the product from another country?

Spoiler (highlight to read):

Hey, congrats on a debate btw

Umm, for an accountant you sure have a weak understanding of economics

Dilbert_X wrote:

Global depression - US greed and slack regulation
Rise of Nazis and militarists
WWII - Pacific war was essentially about the US and especially Japan wanting to dominate the area
Cold War and rise of militant Communism - aggressive soviet expansion/imperialism policy (maybe us economic interests also played a part)
Imminent threat of nuclear war and total annhilation of human race - resulted from the cold war itself

The article smells of jealousy... and you can't spell jealousy without lousy.

OMG how can you drive an SUV with a 7.3l diesel engine because we have wide roads and modern freeways in cities that were mostly built in the last 100 years. Do we consume a lot? yes absolutely. But we also produce a lot and you can not take advantage of all the farming and resources without the expenditure of vasts amount of energy. Fact is that the US is a beacon showing the rest of the world just how high the standard of living a human being can enjoy. And the rest of the world appears to want what the US enjoys, go figure. So even if the US curtailed its "culture of greed," that's not going to change the world's desire to raise their standard of living and increase their consumption.  Perhaps the US should secret away its standard of living, and stop shipping medicine to the third world and offer food laced with contraceptive to deflect population growth... At what point do you stop in the efforts to save the world? Because let's face it, people everywhere what a better life, they are not following the US example because its an image thing.

The day that the US is reduced to argiculture with a stick is the day the new dark age begins. I guess then this article will be the smartest thing in the world and then they can pat themselves on the back for a job well done.



BTW a 7.3l diesel SUV is a little over kill but it does get 18mpg (US gallon) which is alsmost 22 mpg imperial. So mot unreasonable compared to a V8 sports car or porsche 911. And more practical.

ruisleipa makes a good point. Just because you own a lot of things doesn't make you happier. I wouldn't call being fat and lazy a high standard of living. We've been spending more than we make and we're paying for it, however we are not alone.

ruisleipa wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Fact is that the US is a beacon showing the rest of the world just how high the standard of living a human being can enjoy.

oh pur-leaze. How many millions living in poverty? Rates of crime? Incarcerations? Drug addicts? Alcoholics? Homeless? McDonalds! A real beacon!

Diesel_dyk wrote:

And the rest of the world appears to want what the US enjoys, go figure.

Don't worry we got obese idiots driving SUVs through the middle of cities over here too!

and stop shipping medicine to the third world and offer food laced with contraceptive to deflect population growth...

huh? US pharmaceutical companies deny medicines to the third world or use third world people to test the medicines on! Maybe you should start another thread about that?

At what point do you stop in the efforts to save the world? Because let's face it, people everywhere what a better life, they are not following the US example because its an image thing.

Dude, the point is that buying all that shit IS NOT NECESSARY for a better, or a good life, except your (our Western) culture tells you so.

Dude, who do you think has developed all those medicines, technology, argicultural techiques that has raised the standard of living for the entire world. Excess consumption is an expression of that success. Being fat is sign of a successful society. The US isn't failing, though there are many who are jealous of the standard of living here.

There is no doubt that the US is a beacon to the rest of the world... Point is that "culture" doesn't tell you or anyone to do anything. All culture is, is an example that people are free to follow or not. By the looks of things, the people through out the world are choosing a higher standard of living. India is developing, china is developing etc etc.

The issue is not one of cultural image, or holloywood imperialism, its an issue of accomodation because the thrid world is developing and competing for natural resources with the US and Europe. The real question is whether we make it easier for them to compete with us by freeing up resources. I bet there are a number of huge corporations who would rather control resources in the third world rather than have to live under the expectation of the first world for obvious reasons.

Anyway, I guarantee you that people who are truly peasants don't glorify the peasant lifestyle, they look to escape dirt roads, open sewers, and tin shacks.

If this article were smarter, it would talk about how limited resources will eventually far into the furure cause a decline in the western standard of living as the third world develops. And whether or not that happens is a function of whether the third world can out compete the first world for resources. And with globalization I would say that the play field has been tipped towards that end. Its only a matter accomodation, time and population growth, not a matter of the US changing its culture of greed. IMO the US should not capitulate the fight for resources based on a lame guilt trip.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Dude, who do you think has developed all those medicines, technology, argicultural techiques that has raised the standard of living for the entire world. Excess consumption is an expression of that success. Being fat is sign of a successful society. The US isn't failing, though there are many who are jealous of the standard of living here.

There is no doubt that the US is a beacon to the rest of the world... Point is that "culture" doesn't tell you or anyone to do anything. All culture is, is an example that people are free to follow or not. By the looks of things, the people through out the world are choosing a higher standard of living. India is developing, china is developing etc etc.

The issue is not one of cultural image, or holloywood imperialism, its an issue of accomodation because the thrid world is developing and competing for natural resources with the US and Europe. The real question is whether we make it easier for them to compete with us by freeing up resources. I bet there are a number of huge corporations who would rather control resources in the third world rather than have to live under the expectation of the first world for obvious reasons.

Anyway, I guarantee you that people who are truly peasants don't glorify the peasant lifestyle, they look to escape dirt roads, open sewers, and tin shacks.

If this article were smarter, it would talk about how limited resources will eventually far into the furure cause a decline in the western standard of living as the third world develops. And whether or not that happens is a function of whether the third world can out compete the first world for resources. And with globalization I would say that the play field has been tipped towards that end. Its only a matter accomodation, time and population growth, not a matter of the US changing its culture of greed. IMO the US should not capitulate the fight for resources based on a lame guilt trip.

It's not so much that we in the west will experience decline but that the gap will decrease between the poor and wealthy nations. The wealth disparity will decrease but overall wealth levels for humans shouldn't be expected to decline as a result. Wealth is not zero-sum.

Exactly. There will be a shrinking gap in the standard of living between first and third world. my view on this is an us versus them and whether costs will over run incomes in the US/west. As competion for resources increases, energy and staples may increase in percentage relative to incomes, decreasing consumption because you have to pay more for less. Now given that we have excess consumption, that means that there is some slack to absorb the increase in the standard of living of the third world. And of course technology will continue to decrease other costs. But, I would expect some decline here in the US, especially where we traded manfacturing for guarantees from other countries on intellectual property rights, which of course are now failing and that brings up the issues of the US economic model that was pushed for starting with Bush I/ Clinton.(that Idea came from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RiP!:_A_Remix_Manifesto its an intersting documentary on IP/copyright issues)

Which, as an aside kind of makes the point that the rest of the world likes the american lifestyle, likes american culture and wants to consume american product... they just don't want to pay for it. Which means that our excess production actually subsidizes their standards of living whether they realize or not.

My Jeep burns a gallon of fuel ever 9 miles.  I don't care.  Fuck off.  Many cultures thrive off of producing shit for the US.  Other countries are just as bad as the US.  However, are they as generous? Are they pledging 100 billion a year to combat GW?  Some of the holier than thou here in this thread make me laugh.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

My Jeep burns a gallon of fuel ever 9 miles.  I don't care.  Fuck off.  Many cultures thrive off of producing shit for the US.  Other countries are just as bad as the US.  However, are they as generous? Are they pledging 100 billion a year to combat GW?  Some of the holier than thou here in this thread make me laugh.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/06/busin … gewanted=1

woohoo...

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

My Jeep burns a gallon of fuel ever 9 miles.  I don't care.  Fuck off.  Many cultures thrive off of producing shit for the US.  Other countries are just as bad as the US.  However, are they as generous? Are they pledging 100 billion a year to combat GW?  Some of the holier than thou here in this thread make me laugh.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/06/busin … gewanted=1

woohoo...

1987 was a banner year for yous guise.

We prefer to donate directly, privately..
http://www.america.gov/st/foraid-englis … 97553.html

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

Blame the supplier...

Fuck mcdonalds for making people fat

The whole point is that countries like America have to exercise some goddam self-discipline to avoid excessive consumption. You may think it sounds funny but you've shown it's true time and time again...under Bush you couldn't be bothered, under Obama you're still struggling. You quit demanding the damn stuff and it'll last longer with less of a detrimental effect to the environment. OR you stop demanding the damn stuff and we stop supplying so much. Since the title refers to greed I think referring to demand as the root of the problem is highly relevant. You're right...Norway aren't innocent but as I have mentioned before, America's consumption IS far too excessive. The reason why I pick specifically on the US is because every American I've ever met always insists that America is at no more of a fault than anyone else when in truth you are.

Morale of the story? drug dealers have to exercise some goddam self disciple to get off the addiction otherwise it'll never happen.

America will thrive off nuclear power and electric cars? lol it really isn't that simple and I'm willing to bet your country will be in more of an oil shock than anyone else since you're hooked. Countries who import and export oil may be screwed but what will happen to service base economies who rely on those imports and exports to make a buck???

Norway being left to turn into a third world country eh? I'll say it again, we have a healthy oil fund and a hefty gas supply. The former will prove beneficial in the short run unless we reap the benefits by re-investing. We do, however, have gas and when the oil runs out Europe will be sucking our cocks even more for it.

How does this all relate to my original comment? The fact that America have donated the most to Haiti can't be used as an excuse to support your consumption which is how I interpreted Iowing's post.

The entire foundation of ours and your own society is consumption. The more one consumes, the more someone else has to produce, the more that person produces, the more that they in turn can consume. If you made a serious effort to cut down consumption based on some faulty moral premise you may hold it would put millions of people out of work. You'd also make everyone poor.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-13 15:34:25)