Originally posted by Ristar:
your example is flawed. there are only 2 variables in your example.
the population, and the energy consumption per person. if u change
these 2 variables at the same time in the same example without
looking at other scenarios, the result u get is meaningless.
if everyone chips in and saves 50%, its a lot saved.
if population increases 3 X, its a lot more energy used.
if everyone chips in and saves 50% while increasing population by 3
X, u use [b]significantly less energy than u would without
saving.
therefore, saving is better than not.
people reproduce for the sake of doing it? 
wrong again.
in China, people want sons. that is a legitimate reason because
they want somebody to continue their blood name.
islamic countries... because Allah will get mad if they used
condoms/contraceptives.
back to Singapore, if people reproduced so much, the govt wouldnt
need so many FTs.[/b]
ultimately, there is only so much honey in a pot.
if 2 ants can empty the pot in 10 days. 4 ants can do likewise in
10 days even if they are selfless enough to
consume only 50% each.
perhaps i am less optimistic about human nature, but i dont think
many people around us having such virtue these days:
selflessness
i deem it's a good effort if we can convince half the world to be
environmentally conscious, no?
even so, it means 2 outta 4 ants are selfless, and the pot will be
emptied in less than 7 days nevertheless.
i agree with you that saving is better than not.
what i am saying is that if we are multiplying at this rate, energy
saving can only go this far, despite all sorta justification for
reproducing.
