Comments on: Strategies to save the only planet we have http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/11/03/strategies-to-save-the-only-planet-we-have/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: PageOne http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/11/03/strategies-to-save-the-only-planet-we-have/#comment-39144 Fri, 04 Nov 2011 00:58:00 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=10901#comment-39144 There are other options.
We as a species could stop procreating like so many cancer cells on the face of the planet.
Or there’s always old reliable warfare.

]]>
By: OneOfTheSheep http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/11/03/strategies-to-save-the-only-planet-we-have/#comment-39141 Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:51:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=10901#comment-39141 Wish there were a way to correct inadvertent duplication, as in the last seven of above paragraphs…sorry.

]]>
By: OneOfTheSheep http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/11/03/strategies-to-save-the-only-planet-we-have/#comment-39140 Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:46:06 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=10901#comment-39140 I respectfully suggest that “the magician has your eye on the wrong hand”. You suggest that “…the only answer is to use resources more sparingly”. Well, duh? What specific “resources”? What about goals and priorities?

Governments cannot continue to shovel out money without end on the presumption that “if we spend it, they (taxpayers) will pay”. We, the people, MUST make politicians adopt certain non-negotiable steps to a fiscally responsible and sustainable government through a process that will both define and fund such priorities as will define our dynamic society now and into the future..

First is to resolve to reduce any debt that threatens long term financial sustainability.

Second is to agree to budget for each year no more than predictable revenues expected during that year. The budgetary process is then not of dollars, but of percentages of predicted revenue. If, halfway thru said period revenues are less, expenditures must be reduced such that at the end of the year there is NO “red ink”.

Third, every legislator, starting with a blank sheet lists all “line items” to be considered for funding. Each is to be catagorized as a “want” or a “need”. These would be run through a computer for a preliminary listing that would be considered for adjustment during limited debate, after which there would be a limited period for adoption of either the preliminary listing or the adjusted listing by majority consensus. An asterisk should identify long term commitments the consensus agrees to fund at some rate.

Fourth, every legislator gets a copy of #3, to which they may choose a percentile of #2 for each need and for each want. These would be run through a computer for a preliminary budget that would be considered for adjustment during limited debate, after which there would be a limited period for adoption of either the preliminary budget or the adjusted budget by majority consensus. Up or down.

Mathematics has no heart. Too many stomachs for too little food = hunger, unhappiness, maybe death. So the third worlds says, no problem, we’ll increase production of the only thing we can make – babies. It doesn’t MATTER if women in the poorest countries give birth to healthy babies if those babies have no food, no education, no productive future other than more babies, urine and feces.

An intelligent provider will make it a priority to move their family to a better neighborhood if and when their own neighborhood becomes too dangerous. Our Earth in the nuclear age is too dangerous a basket for all of mankind’s eggs. The clock is ticking as to whether we can build self-sustaining colonies on the moon, Mars, etc. before idiots turn this big blue marble into a big brown marble.

If all will not come together to bring about such “diversification” into our solar system, it will be up to those who can and will “provide the opportunity for a livable future for those who live and have yet to live.
Second is to agree to budget for each year no more than predictable revenues expected during that year. The budgetary process is then not of dollars, but of percentages of predicted revenue. If, halfway thru said period revenues are less, expenditures must be reduced such that at the end of the year there is NO “red ink”.

Third, starting with a blank sheet, all “line items” to be considered for funding must be listed. This list must be separated into two categories…wants and needs. This is to be again decided by consensus for each coming annual period. An asterisk should identify long term commitments the consensus agrees to fund at some rate.

Fourth, every legislator gets a copy of #3, to which they may choose a percentile of #2 for each need and for each want. These would be run through a computer for a preliminary budget that would be considered for adjustment during limited debate, after which there would be a limited period for adoption of either the preliminary budget or the adjusted budget. Up or down.

Such a process is appropriate to the definition and funding of priorities as will define our dynamic society.

Mathematics has no heart.  Too many stomachs for too little food = hunger, unhappiness, maybe death.  So the third worlds says, no problem, we’ll increase production of the only thing we can make – babies.  It doesn’t MATTER if women in the poorest countries give birth to healthy babies if those babies have no food, no education, no productive future other than more babies, urine and feces.

An intelligent provider will make it a priority to move their family to a better neighborhood if and when their own neighborhood becomes too dangerous. Our Earth in the nuclear age is too dangerous a basket for all of mankind’s eggs. The clock is ticking as to whether we can build self-sustaining colonies on the moon, Mars, etc. before idiots turn this big blue marble into a big brown marble.

If all peoples and all nations will not come together to bring about such “diversification” into our solar system, it will be up to those who can and will “provide the opportunity for a livable future for those who live and have yet to live.

]]>