What We Need What We Want What we pay 4?

This is a major issue that keeps us from going "green". Most people won't pay the extra money for any given item just because it is better for the environment. They will calculate the savings from use-cost to see if it will pay for the extra item-cost which is always like years and years and never do it. (all though I think anyone with a hummer or navigator can afford 2 hybrid civics)

The sad thing is that when we continue to shop this way they will continue to make them that way. Does anyone think that if all of us refused to buy inefficient products that they would just disappear? I think they would start producing eco-friendly anythings at an alarming rate!

But I also think this, we have all done this too, but if there is something(reasonable) that you really want you find a way to get it. You really can't come up with the extra 200.00$ to get the eco washing machine instead? Even waiting a couple more weeks or whatever?

You will know when you ask yourself, because you are the only person that you can't hide true feelings of guilt from. Live with your decisions and don't blame the rest of the world on how you justify doing the wrong thing.

As for the fish.. What would you feed to the fish? Used tires?

Meat is very inefficient in the sense that you need a lot more of food to feed that critter than you would ever get from eating the thing later on. Animals are not a way to save the world from hunger.

Yes, meat is good if you want to convert grass to something that humans can eat, but then you might as well grow rice and soy in place of that grassland. Any energy conversion step will waste a whole lot of it and you get much more out of sun->plant->food than sun->plant->animal->food.

If the richest nations donated 1% of their income there would be more than enough (in fact there would be a surplus) to provide food, water, medicine and education for all the third world countries.

The fact is that they simply dont want to do it.

Would natural resources deplete so rapidly if the human population wasn't so large? There is your source for all of the problems... why does everything have to expand and grow so much?

I agree Nodsu; rice would be the way to go.

But you really should check out that doco I saw ... genetically bred fish that grow at an alarming rate and it wasn't really costing him much in feeding them and whatnot.

Good on him for trying! He's on the right track

are u sure about this fact it sounds very made up. a fact like should be posted with proof.

I could say that rich countries already donate 2% if or something. Of course i dont know how much they donate.


I do know the America gives billions of dollars to poorer countires.

Also If u want to donate some of the money u have to a poor country then feel free to do so. It is good to lead by example i think


Also if u do want to donate money to a charity then check out the percent the charity gives at http://www.bbb.org
They should give at least 80% to there cause

ok look antimatter is the same mass as the mater used to create it and as of now we can create a very very very tiny amount of antimatter for more info look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

Read it in detail?

Its not made up at all. These inferences are derived from the UN Development Reports. Plus the main reason hindering the development of the Third World is debt. So it has to be donations not loans.

Surely those development reports are published somewhere?

They are available HERE.

The world is a really stupid place.
There. I said it.

Why do you live in it then? Or do you have your own definition of "world", per se?

So which one has the 1% thing in it? Or should I read them all?

When I was studying Geography back in College I cam across it in a textbook (which I have in front of me) The exact quote I cant find. The quote actually said if the richest 10 men or something similar, that if they donated then it would be enough for.......

Its not hard to believe as the richest 1% own 40% of the Worlds assets.

The UN Development Report is for the year 2003. HERE is an article by Columbia University economist Jeffrey D. Sachs is special advisor to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan on the Millennium Development Goals, and Sakiko Fukuda-
Parr is director of the U.N.'s 2003 Human Development Report. He is asking for 7/10 of 1%, so even less.

PS
The article is in pdf format.