Sustainability, le terme du jour..

[MagsJ]

Emails from Sainsbury’s doing surveys on personal sustainability in the home, food shows on TV informing us what parts of an animal we can’t eat, and Social Media sponsored posts promoting the sustainability cause to the wider population at large.

A moral dilemma: would you eat at a restaurant that cooks sustainably-sourced dishes, sourced from the garbage and scraps from restaurants and supermarkets, in a bid to minimise your carbon footprint?

2B729606-BB85-4C2B-B3EF-C2D306FE6CB5.jpeg (149.6 KiB) Viewed 5828 times

[Exuberant Teleportation]

Food in vast quantities I say is always a plus. However, it must be in tune with nature. If we too largely disrupt the harmony of the elements with industrial frenzy, then we may lost touch with mother earth.

Ideally, food is 1 expression of earth's boundless buffet for us, as long as when we eat, we also hold her dear.

[MagsJ]

Food in vast quantities I say is always a plus. However, it must be in tune with nature. If we too largely disrupt the harmony of the elements with industrial frenzy, then we may lost touch with mother earth.

Ideally, food is 1 expression of earth's boundless buffet for us, as long as when we eat, we also hold her dear.

In already over-extending the Earth’s resources, we are now pulling back in doing so, and watching our Carbon-footprint and overall general consumption of all things.


“The optimum population of Earth – enough to guarantee the minimal physical ingredients of a decent life to everyone – was 1.5 to 2 billion people rather than the 7 billion who are alive today or the 9 billion expected in 2050, said Ehrlich in an interview with the Guardian.”

Are we innovative and conscientious enough to sustain the current global population and more?

This can only be done if enough resource is diverted where needed, in this sustainability of such numbers, but human greed may prohibit such diversion of funds to happen, and then there will truly be hell on Earth.

[Pedro I Rengel]

In other times, this was known as an indulgence.

An ecofascist friend of my ex's once seriously proposed to us the idea of buying reusable toilet paper that now apparently exists.

Needless to say, it is completely detached from reality.

[MagsJ]

In other times, this was known as an indulgence.

An ecofascist friend of my ex's once seriously proposed to us the idea of buying reusable toilet paper that now apparently exists.

Needless to say, it is completely detached from reality.

Let necessity not precede availability.. especially in the case of scarcity and toilet roll. I've heard of recyclable, but never reusable.. who made that a thing?

An indulgence.. the name belies the act, but would definitely work well with matters of sustainability, in that it’s akin to Prison community service, but of church.

I voted for 2, because although I am about sustainability, I ain’t about that sustainability life of eating cooked offerings derived from restaurants scraps and supermarket bins.

[Meno_]

I ain't about to vote because the choices miss an in between condition, that may enhance motives to sustain the poll.

I would, in all fairness, vote yes, definitely yes, in the event of a near bankruptcy of supplies would result in my literal inability to feed my family .
That not being the case personally , even if the homeless population here does scavenge the garbage cans for anything resembling edible fodder.
But that can certainly change in case of a catastrophe, such as sudden forfeiture of food supplies, do to bad harvests or other things which may happen in agriculture.
I would hazard that even in the exponential case of 30 or even 50 billion human population, feeding the earth, would still not be impossible.
Any guesses on that?
In the event of gross undersupply, people would need to minimize their eating habits, and terminate the practice of wasteful food consumption, among with the wasteful throwing out if food not consumed.

[Gloominary]

I'd rather shoot a politician in the face.

[Gloominary]

The optimum amount of billionaires on the planet is about 0.

[MagsJ]

I'd rather shoot a politician in the face.

But is it the politicians behind this sustainability drive?

[MagsJ]

The optimum amount of billionaires on the planet is about 0.

So are you saying that wealth isn’t evenly distributed amongst the contributing masses, so those that do/act/effect, aren't earning their share of what they exact?

I agree, so how can this discrepancy be resolved/solved?

[Gloominary]

I'd rather shoot a politician in the face.

But is it the politicians behind this sustainability drive?

The deep state is.
It's funding the education system, the MSM and the political establishment.

[Gloominary]

The optimum amount of billionaires on the planet is about 0.

So are you saying that wealth isn’t evenly distributed amongst the contributing masses, so those that do/act/effect, aren't earning their share of what they exact?

I agree, so how can this discrepancy be resolved/solved?

Academia, the MSM and political establishment, and the wealthy think tanks, round table groups and lobbyists behind them, don't give two shits about the environment.
If they did, they'd voluntarily relinquish their affluent lifestyle, instead of punishing Jane and Joe average for trying to get from home to work and school.
Carbon taxes are a power grab by the overclass, nothing more.
So called sustainable food is an attempt to get the proletariat accustomed to an increasingly lower quality of life, while they live the high life.
The overclass rarely pay their taxes, they find ways of skirting around them.
Most of the money will go directly into their pockets, no matter where they're telling you it'll go.
Just like most charities are corrupt as fuck, government is too.
They're bullshit artists.

[Silhouette]

The optimum amount of billionaires on the planet is about 0.

I worked out mathematically, in accordance with the Pareto Principle, that in a world of 7.7 billion people, with estimated global wealth (in all its forms, including derivatives) amounting to roughly $1 quadrillion, there should be 1 or less millionaires in the entire world - never mind billionaires. Calculations can be found on my thread here.

Again, this is in total individual wealth in all forms, and with the poorest person in the world possessing just under $455 (including $41 in coins, banknotes, accounts, savings and deposits, $17 of which is in readily available money).

Sounds crazy compared to the truth, right? But I've explained how you can work it out yourself: don't just take my word for it.

As I say in the thread: "This principle is used from business to sports to health and safety, to optimise all walks of life for the best possible outcome."
Yet apparently "this widely utilised principle for optimisation must be best applied to everything but wealth..."

[MagsJ]

I ain't about to vote because the choices miss an in between condition, that may enhance motives to sustain the poll.

I would, in all fairness, vote yes, definitely yes, in the event of a near bankruptcy of supplies would result in my literal inability to feed my family .
That not being the case personally , even if the homeless population here does scavenge the garbage cans for anything resembling edible fodder.

Well, the restaurants are scavenging the supermarket bins for us, in order to serve us up tasty zero waste treats, but what of allergies and such? I like the way the sustainability drive doesn’t take such considerations into account when they are shoving their message, along with their allergy-unfriendly food, down our throats.

I wouldn’t be able to partake in any zero waste feasts, so those of us who couldn’t would have to survive by being drip-fed, if famine prevailed. So that sustainability life, could never be for me.

93C06F06-D9FB-4945-9DB1-260C72597D1D.jpeg (87.34 KiB) Viewed 5297 times

But that can certainly change in case of a catastrophe, such as sudden forfeiture of food supplies, do to bad harvests or other things which may happen in agriculture.
I would hazard that even in the exponential case of 30 or even 50 billion human population, feeding the earth, would still not be impossible.
Any guesses on that?
In the event of gross undersupply, people would need to minimize their eating habits, and terminate the practice of wasteful food consumption, among with the wasteful throwing out if food not consumed.

Seeing that I only have a breakfast of eggs, and then eat only one main meal a day.. and sometimes the odd orange here and there, cutting back on eating would be a breeze for me, but I wouldn’t like to survive on less than I already am.

I doubt that a 30 billion+ population could be sustained, and if we tried, I perish the thought of what that food would contain.

[MagsJ]

But is it the politicians behind this sustainability drive?

The deep state is.
It's funding the education system, the MSM and the political establishment.

..and probably behind the climate change over-reaction too, so more money for their coffers, instead of going towards taxes.

Academia, the MSM and political establishment, and the wealthy think tanks, round table groups and lobbyists behind them, don't give two shits about the environment.
If they did, they'd voluntarily relinquish their affluent lifestyle, instead of punishing Jane and Joe average for trying to get from home to work and school.
Carbon taxes are a power grab by the overclass, nothing more.

The overclass obviously love the feel of other peoples’ money, in their pockets and their bank accounts.. do you think they laugh about it over drinks?

So called sustainable food is an attempt to get the proletariat accustomed to an increasingly lower quality of life, while they live the high life.
The overclass rarely pay their taxes, they find ways of skirting around them.
Most of the money will go directly into their pockets, no matter where they're telling you it'll go.
Just like most charities are corrupt as fuck, government is too.
They're bullshit artists.

Life is Monopoly.. accruing, gaining, profiting.. an addictive game, no? so much thrills and excitement to be had, that they’re not going to give that up, for anyone.

[MagsJ]

The optimum amount of billionaires on the planet is about 0.

I worked out mathematically, in accordance with the Pareto Principle, that in a world of 7.7 billion people, with estimated global wealth (in all its forms, including derivatives) amounting to roughly $1 quadrillion, there should be 1 or less millionaires in the entire world - never mind billionaires. Calculations can be found on my thread here.

Again, this is in total individual wealth in all forms, and with the poorest person in the world possessing just under $455 (including $41 in coins, banknotes, accounts, savings and deposits, $17 of which is in readily available money).

Sounds crazy compared to the truth, right? But I've explained how you can work it out yourself: don't just take my word for it.

As I say in the thread: "This principle is used from business to sports to health and safety, to optimise all walks of life for the best possible outcome."
Yet apparently "this widely utilised principle for optimisation must be best applied to everything but wealth..."

Wealth is power, and on that basis, not everyone will be afforded it.. that’s why it’s not easy to accumulate wealth in these current times.