Conservation vs first come first serve

[Pizzabeak]

Which is better? It depends on when, right now does conservation make more sense? Or is it also sensible to splurge for survival and to work forward possible 50-50 long term sustenance in the future.

 

[Rook]

Conservation and populace reduction is more sustainable environmentally, splurging is the reality and will probably remain so for decades/centuries to come, it has been the human standard for most of our recent existence across the majority of cultures.

Splurging encompasses what is so lovingly called development, which in reality is resource usage for the purposes of profit and the provisioning of an ever expanding population; as well as unfettered technophilia across all modes of life.

An universal one-child policy could create a world where conservation and development need not be at odds, with the enlargement of natural preserves as a consequence, though the likelihood of this in the near future is low.

Each human will be at odds when it comes to which one is better, and some, like me, will praise conservation while hypocritically continuing to reap the fruit of unsustainable development.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Which is better? It depends on when, right now does conservation make more sense? Or is it also sensible to splurge for survival and to work forward possible 50-50 long term sustenance in the future.

Invest the portion of your funds which is equal to the expected returns, so for a 60:40 investment, invest 20% of your funds.

Given a fund which increases over time, the risk is able to be increased, of course this is dependent on the rate at which funds flow in.

Obviously, if the risk is 50:50, then conservation is the better option, assuming of course that conservation is zero risk.

 

[Rook]

Oh, were you talking about personal finance?

-.-

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Oh, were you talking about personal finance?

-.-

It's a topic covering various questions, such as:
- what is the meaning of life
- what is the intrinsic value of the natural environment
- are we all innately selfish, and how-so
- general statistics stuff

 

[Grayman]

Nothing should be viewed as conserve or spend. Everything is an an investment.

 

[Pizzabeak]

It's hard; take for instance petroleum and fuel. If it's considered a dwindling resource, isn't better to conserve and try to carpool and plan usage accordingly, instead of burning it up first come first serve? I think some class of people feel privileged or like they worked hard to deserve the right to use it so they willingly spend funds on it for example, instead of trying to drive as little as possible with most cars at least, there are some innovative ones on the streets now.

 

[Grayman]

It's hard; take for instance petroleum and fuel. If it's considered a dwindling resource, isn't better to conserve and try to carpool and plan usage accordingly, instead of burning it up first come first serve? I think some class of people feel privileged or like they worked hard to deserve the right to use it so they willingly spend funds on it for example, instead of trying to drive as little as possible with most cars at least, there are some innovate ones on the streets now.

Crippling an already unreliable economy right when an alternative fuel source is about to make headway wouldn't be advisable. It would be counter productive. It should be a slow transition where certain fuels are taxed slightly and others are subsidized. As it is now.

 

[onesteptwostep]

There was a squared intelligence talk about this, you might want to look into it, though the discussion is in its premature stages:

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSZ-FLhGSBg

Also AFAIK there's still plenty of oil left in the world, people just haven't had the expertise to measure how much is out there so a lot of it is untapped. For example, there's an oil reserve out in the South China Sea as big as the oil reserves in Saudi Arabia, apparently. There's still plenty of oil in Russia, as well as places in the Caspian Sea. Canada is another place. Same with mainland US.

 

[Pizzabeak]

But what irreparable damage done to Earth while trying suck all the oil out? Not to mention rain forest elimination. We have to switch to more sustainable energy fuel sources worldwide.

 

[Grayman]

But what irreparable damage done to Earth while trying suck all the oil out? Not to mention rain forest elimination. We have to switch to more sustainable energy fuel sources worldwide.

There used to be a ice age scare in the recent past. The media has cried wolf too many times.

 

[Grayman]

http://www.sciencealert.com/a-mini-ice-age-is-coming-in-the-next-15-years
I think this is the ice age theory resurfacing again...idk


Also, it was believed that plankton which provides substantial oxygen to our atmosphere would die due to the ph levels of the ocean being altered by co2. This was another doomsday theory that anticipated the death of the oceans. Actually the plankton ended up thriving.

Anytime the media talks about science they exaggerate and hypothesize of their own accord.

 

[onesteptwostep]

But what irreparable damage done to Earth while trying suck all the oil out? Not to mention rain forest elimination. We have to switch to more sustainable energy fuel sources worldwide.

It would take quite a while for us to use all the oil, as in several decades. I'm sure other forms of energy consumption would be around by then. Nuclear energy would most likely be more prominent after geopolitical issues and technically issues are addressed with, for example.