[Johnny Electriglide]

Originally Posted by founder

Where is the living standard in the US better than in Europe?---------Living Standard boils down to Calories per person per day, the US average is 3500, and Europe 2500, hence the 30% obesity rate in the US.--------

That's a complete nonsens. We have the same living standard in Europe,
only US people are wasting for the same standard twice the energy.------see above, and yes, the US uses more energy per capita and the big thing, has more room per capita, which improves living standard.-----

And what is for You a very low living standard?----the 1990 Chinese level was 1400 calories per person per day, which would be well below starvation level for an American housewife doing daily chores, let alone say a husband working as a journeyman carpenter.

Climbing on trees and eating bananas?------real funny----

The USA is has a very low population density.-----population DENSITY average for an entire country has little to do with sustainability. Many factors of good acreage, water, and climate go into habitat carrying capacity or long term sustainability without damage to the ecosystems and biosphere.------

There is no reason why not a much better standard of living should be not sustainable.-----Like I said, it really boils down to calories per person per day, along with per capita energy consumption. If the USA cut its consumption in half, we would still be losing the Ogallala Aquifer and others, and the soil depletion would continue. Global warming would continue toward crop failures much more often, and our ocean areas still would be overharvested to depletion. Other countries are polluting our air, and depleting the ocean stocks, too. We could only sustain a higher standard of living with perhaps 70 million Americans consuming half as much. The 1992 estimate was 40 million at our standard of living then, but there has been climate change and much unseen depletion and pollution since then.------

Or would You call primitive air condition systems with cold air flows and the noise of the fan a living standard?----No. I have no air conditioning except for the cooling effect in summer of my rammed earth/tire/stuccoed and plastered walls, and natural convection. People in hot areas should either live underground, or in wet areas, in a modern version of a thatched hut.-----

NO! That's primitive plunder

Cheap electric power for unprofessional solutions

So it would be better to promote a better living standard, instead of frightening with a bad future.

Well, many years of experience with people shows there relative lack of gumption and intelligence to do what I have done willingly. My footprint is 1/8th the average American, and I live at a good standard. If everyone did what we did(or equivalent), then the US would be sustainable in population at 300 million. Only a few tens of thousands do, however. All solar or alternative independent power (or equivalent), less but not zero meat consumption, growing much of our own food, built our own eco-house with re-used and recycled products and indigenous materials in high percentage, compost heavily, no mortgage from doing it ourselves and paying off the debts, drive a 3200 cc vehicle 240 miles per month, use minimal propane, and the biggest thing anyone can do--had one child only. People like me and my wife make up only a small percentage of Americans willing to do the hard work and sacrifice, and with the intelligence and discipline to keep it up after building and having our one child only. Realistically, forcing people to be this way is not possible. Large programs to educate people, transition the grids to smaller non-CO2 or pollution causing power, smaller vehicles, kicking out illegals and really securing our borders and coasts, incentives for one child only and disincentives for more. The implementation and time for effect is just not there before the USA runs out of adequate water before 2040, and climate change becomes an intense feedback loop that takes the biosphere beyond the range of adaptability of most life. People, from 1966 and MLK's speech on, have not universally grasped the significance and power of what overpopulation does. The human population goes up like clockwork on the mammalian crash curve, and in overshoot past the point where it could have been turned to sustainability. People tend to get crowd tolerant, and live in their own little world of general ignorance and faith that all will be fine. They don't want to do the things necessary like sacrifice and hard work, and can not foresee the consequences of their actions. People delayed and delayed doing what had to be done with numbers, and then with pollution. The idea that humans could ruin the very biosphere of the planet with their reproduction proclivity and bad habits is still not universally understood. In the USA the average IQ has dropped 6 points because of the immigration of low intelligence non-historic peoples and the tendency of the lowest spectrum to overbreed. I have studied and watched it happen for 40 years. I educated many, and lead by example, and still continue to write, email, fax, and post about it--and will continue, that is all I can do. Some people totally forget implementation time, and a great many don't have all the data and work off of that. I didn't paint the picture, I just show it, and do not like it at all. I don't think even half measures will be done, and certainly not in time. Everything is going to just keep getting worse ecologically, economically, and in relations between people. Read up on the Human Overcrowding Syndrome, and economics by Herman Daly. We have passed the point where human numbers can be reduced enough by birth control of one child per family strictly enforced worldwide. Now we are in the area where the "cure" is as bad as the "crash", and most just can not afford to go solar/wind eco-housing. The cities have to go, and will, either by human caused destruction or natural dieoff.