Wildlife Gardeners - North American Wildlife Gardening  

Go Back   Wildlife Gardeners - North American Wildlife Gardening > Wildlife Gardeners of North America Unite > Biodiversity

View Poll Results: If you had a trillion dollars that…. YOU could only spend on ONE of 6 “pots”…. which pot would it be
Cleaning up invasive species 4 10.53%
Cleaning up known environmental pollutants 9 23.68%
population reduction on a "global" scale 16 42.11%
Land acquisition… the purchase of “habitat” 6 15.79%
Cleaning up carbon dioxide 0 0%
Ecologically responsible alternative energy 3 7.89%
Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-18-2010, 03:34 AM   #1
Official Plant Nerd
 
Equilibrium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Default If you had a trillion dollars that….

If you had a trillion dollars that…. YOU could only spend on ONE of 6 “pots”….meaning all the $$$ you’d get would have to go in one pot and just one pot….. which of the following pots would you toss your trillion into… which one do think could give this weary old earth and all the flora and fauna it supports the biggest bang for the buck….>>>? Here’s your choices;
1st)Control, management, and eradication of invasive species, (kudzu, Plum Px Potyvirus from Bulgaria that’s killing off our stone fruit crops, Cryphonectria parasitica from Asia that’s still killing our chestnuts, emerald ash borer, phragmites, imported fire ants, Salt Cedar, West Nile Virus from Uganda, Cane Toad, Phytophthora ramorum bacteria from Europe killing our oaks, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis which is the African fungus killing our frogs, rats, Geomyces destructans which is the fungus from Europe killing our bats, English house sparrows, cheat grass, Asian carp, etc.)
2nd)Cleaning up known environmental pollutants… not carbon dioxide (hydrocarbons, lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, CFC’s, dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls, genetically modified organisms, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, benzene, xylene, tolune, etc.).
3rd)Ethical and humane culturally “appropriate” population reduction on a "global" scale.
4th)Land acquisition… the purchase of “habitat” that could be protected into perpetuity…. I mean habitat that can’t be fragmented or logged or mined or drilled or used as landfills or grazed by livestock or exploited by humans in any manner or or or….
5th)Cleaning up carbon dioxide by regulating and “sequestering” it.
6th)Placing ecologically responsible alternative energy in the hands of the world’s people not BigGov, BigCorps, or BigUN’s hands.
__________________
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
- Dr. Seuss
Equilibrium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2010, 03:42 AM   #2
Official Plant Nerd
 
Equilibrium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Default

I guess you can see which one I picked since I went 1st!!!
__________________
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
- Dr. Seuss
Equilibrium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2010, 12:49 PM   #3
WG Facebook Administrator
 
amelanchier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Lyme, NH
Default

I went with land acquisition, because I see that as the precursor to many of these other things. Once you have a responsible owner of vast tracts of land and ocean, they will be able & willing to clean them up - of pollutants, invasive species, or anything else harmful. Also, population density in the inhabited areas is not such a huge problem if there are lots of places for wildlife too.
__________________
"I take the part of the trees as against all their enemies." -J.R.R. Tolkien
amelanchier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2010, 03:14 PM   #4
Great Horned Owl
 
jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Northeastern MA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amelanchier View Post
I went with land acquisition, because I see that as the precursor to many of these other things. Once you have a responsible owner of vast tracts of land and ocean, they will be able & willing to clean them up - of pollutants, invasive species, or anything else harmful. Also, population density in the inhabited areas is not such a huge problem if there are lots of places for wildlife too.

I chose controlling population. I'm never reassured, beyond the short term, by land acquisition. Governments change, local politics change, and mineral rights pressures change, all of which could put unbearable stress on original land sequestration laws.

Population control, as I view it, would remove the future pressure on protected lands and thereby insure their continued existence.
__________________
"Know thyself."

Oracle at Delphi
jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2010, 03:34 PM   #5
Salamander
 
philip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North Bergen / Cliffside Park New Jersey
Default

how do you control population though?

I suppose one way would be to give people wealth for not having children once they are older than a certain age. And giving them condoms and The Pill for free.

This amount decreases if you have one child, and goes to zero if you have two.

The free Pill and condoms would go on forever.

Population reduction just has some scary overtones. Although, yeah, there are too many humans.
philip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2010, 03:47 PM   #6
Salamander
 
philip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North Bergen / Cliffside Park New Jersey
Default

My gut reaction is though buy land.

But, then I realise that there is this weird thing that I believe, that money is a figment of our imagination, and land is real. Land exists and has actual value in my mind.

I feel the original americans had it right, land cannot be owned by anyone. Land is a resource that we all share. Buying tracts of land is sort of nonsensical. You cant run around this land making sure its all kosher, all you can do it throw money at some guy who in reality should not own the land in the first place. And in the mean time you can't police the land. You will have dudes in there wrecking the place anyway.


Interesting thread Equi.
philip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2010, 04:19 PM   #7
Great Horned Owl
 
jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Northeastern MA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philip View Post
how do you control population though?

I suppose one way would be to give people wealth for not having children once they are older than a certain age. And giving them condoms and The Pill for free.

This amount decreases if you have one child, and goes to zero if you have two.

The free Pill and condoms would go on forever.

Population reduction just has some scary overtones. Although, yeah, there are too many humans.
Yes, with a trillion dollars one could certainly motivate with both education and financial encouragement - as well as plenty of condoms and pills!
__________________
"Know thyself."

Oracle at Delphi
jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2010, 05:57 PM   #8
Fox
 
benj1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Chesterfield, Virginia
Default

I think the biggest bang for the buck could come from responsible alternative energy, although a trillion dollars may not be enough to make it feasible. It's a selfish choice: I would like to be able to untilize it for myself.
benj1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2010, 06:09 PM   #9
WG Operations, Facilitator
 
BooBooBearBecky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Northern Wisconsin
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by benj1 View Post
I think the biggest bang for the buck could come from responsible alternative energy, although a trillion dollars may not be enough to make it feasible. It's a selfish choice: I would like to be able to untilize it for myself.
I agree benj1. Alernative sources of cheap, envionmentally safe energy would have a huge ripple affect. It would change so many other things for the better. I chose it, because I thought it was the one item that would have the most impact world wide.
__________________
"Getting your hands dirty is the best way to keep your head clean."
BooBooBearBecky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2010, 07:19 PM   #10
Fox
 
Calliandra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philip View Post
how do you control population though?... Population reduction just has some scary overtones. Although, yeah, there are too many humans.
I took a demographics class 20-something years ago. My professor mentioned something that has stuck with me all these years:
When a culture shifts to a more egalitarian stance, with universal education and good health care for all, family size automatically drops. No draconian population control measures are necessary. Individual people making personal decisions will result in a birthrate decline for the country.

Even if birthrate stops its stratopheric rise, though, wealthier people simply use more resources... so that's still a problem.

The ideal situation would be a well-educated citizenry, with lifelong quality healthcare, but a much lower rate of consumption (perhaps with a new emphasis on quality over quantity, as seen in the Not So Big House book). Smaller families with a high investment in each child, and a willingness to limit their ecological footprint.
Calliandra is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
alternative energy, cleanup, conservation, control invasives, dollars, earth, eco-friendy, energy, energy alternatives, environmental, environmental pollutants, invasive control, land, land acquisition, land ownership, pollutants, pollution, population, problems, projects, reduction, save, solutions, trillion, world problems

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2