The way we will live in 2032...

The Guardian ^ | 23/05/2 | Paul Brown

[nravoter]

Two thirds of the population, about 4 billion people, live on less than $2 a day

Wow! That beats the hell out of those Europe on $10 a Day books!

[AmusedBystander]

So what!

There is NOTHING that humans can do to the Earth that will destroy the Earth. Mankind may or may not wipe itself out, or an asteroid can start the next cycle of animal/plant domination, but the planet will live out its natural life either way.

[fourdeuce82d]

For any tree-uggers out there prepared to say "See! Is that how you want to leave the world for your grandchildren?", see "The Polulation Bomb" to see how the world should have looked in 1985

"In 1968, Dr Ehrlich predicted in his best selling book, "The Population Bomb", that "the battle to feed humanity is over. In the course of the 1970s the world will experience starvation of tragic proportions; hundreds of millions of people will starve to death."

says it all.

[shadowman99]

AAAHHHH!!!! AAHH!!! AHHH!!! AHHH!!! AAAAHHH!!!!! AAHH!!!!

[Mr. Peabody]

Emissions of most air pollutants in Europe have declined since the early 80s

Notice how it excludes environmental progress taking place in the United States for decades: reforestation, cleaner water and air, etc.

[monkeyshine]

I was just going to say that.

Instead, I'll say "The Sun revolves around the Earth".

[SunStar]

THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

GLOBAL COOLING WILL DESTROY THE EARTH BY 1995!!!

[Wolfie]

Same ol' crap, they just keep tacking 20 or 30 years on to the gloom and doom year. We were supposed be living in an ice age by now, according to the Chicken Littles of the 1970's.

[sauropod]

Another thumbsucking article by a pick-nose newspaper.

[monkeyshine]

sustainable development

Sustainable development is not development at all. It's an oxymoron. Development is a form of sustenence. By making development "sustainable" it implies that there will be no more progress... as if we will only know what we know now, and can only use what we know how to use now.

The future should bring us new developments (which is called progress), and that progress will enable us to throw away the concepts we embrace today. In other words, there will be no reason to "sustain" the current "developments" because they will become obsolete and inefficient.

I'm surprised the scientists think in terms of stagnation instead of progress.

[Wolfie]

2.2 million deaths from diarrhea...man, that's a shi**y way to go.

[TMD]

All the chicken-littles will explain that the only reason the sky hasn't fallen yet was because the "annointed ones" heeded the warnings and implemented the recommendations from previous doom and gloom studies, thus we just need to work harder to save the world and the poor people and if we don't then the world will be destroyed and if we do then the world will be saved!! It's sort of like fleas arguing about how they're going to save the life of dog they live on...

Round and round it goes.......

[Wolfie]

In 2032, I'll be 68 years old, and looking forward to retiring and collecting my Social Security benefits in 20 years.

[Cyber Liberty]

There it is, right upfront in the second graph:

"Unless the world changes its current "markets first" approach..."

What a coinky dink! The Guardian is anti-market, and the "solution" to the "problem" is to eliminate the "markets first" approach.

[Fedupwithit]

Wolfie, I wouldn't hold your breath on collecting anything!!

: )

[Peter Porcupine]

Is it possible that nature works best when humans don't try and manipulate it?

Had to single this out for especial praise. Excellent question. I'm inclined to think the answer is yes.

[tm22721]

That beats the hell out of those Europe on $10 a Day books!

LOL!

BUMP

[Psycho_Bunny]

The only thing they're the “Guardian” of is the Realm of Infinite Stupidity and Blather Spewing.