Einstein, read Ghandi vs Nehru, and understand that the problem is not over population or capitalism or even that we effect our environment, but HOW we are populating the Earth, HOW we conduct capitalism, and HOW we are impacting the environment.
We are overpopulated already, but not because the Earth's carrying capacity is maxed out. One third of humanity is malnourished or starving, but not because we can't support more people. The problem is that it is not profitable enough for corporations unless there is scarcity of resources. When food is scarce and 1/3 of the planet cannot afford proper food, agri-business can bee seen to be a good investment; when less than a third is malnourished or starving there isn't enough profit to be expected by further investment in agri-business. This is, of course, immoral, and repugnant, the result of politicians like you continuing push your hypocritical "freeish" market capitalism agenda, one in which the rich are free to make money out of thin air while the poor have no choice but to live in abject poverty, malnutrition and starvation.
You have a very narrow idea of what capitalism is. You seem to equate it with republicanism; that if you aren't republican you automatically don't believe in capitalism. I have said this again and again. Capitalism is NOT a political party. Republicans do NOT have a monopoly on the term. Capitalism is simply economic activity, and there is capitalism in socialist states, communist states, liberal democratic and conservative democratic states alike. Liken capitalism to the word 'exchange' instead if you will. There are exchanges of goods going on all over the world in every sort of economy. The problem isn't, therefore, capitalism. The problem is HOW we conduct capitalism. As we've discussed before, HOW we conduct capitalism is without regard to sustainability. This has NOTHING to do with global warming. MORE pressing is the issue of resource depletion and increased scarcity as exponential population growth continues. When scarcity of resources outpaces population growth, you have an unsustainable economic system. THIS sort of sustainability issue has virtually NOTHING to do with global warming.
That we affect our environment is not the issue. We inevitably will. The issue is HOW we are affecting our environment. Are we affecting it for the better or the worse? If we affect it for the worse, we are going to exacerbate the problems above. We have the capacity to improve the environment in which we live. The sooner politicians like you begin to see that the cost associated with adversely affecting our environment is greater than the cost of maintaining it the better.
Let me ask you this, Einstein, will politicians start advocating improving the environment only when their campaign contributors realize that improving the environment is profitable for the economy as a whole and thus also profitable to them individually? Is that the only thing it will take for them to do the right thing? Their own self-interest?
