Page 1 of 2

OMG! i should have died long time ago!

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:03 pm
by Fear Of The Duck

Re: OMG! i should have died long time ago!

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:07 pm
by KnowLedge
age of 77 :) maybe its cause im only 16 right now :(

Re: OMG! i should have died long time ago!

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:18 pm
by Evilevi777
11.3 8)

Re: OMG! i should have died long time ago!

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:26 pm
by Legendary Apophis
wooot 26.5 I win! :D

Dang not really <_< :lol:
If it was like 20 years more it would be what I don't mind rofl

This test is UTTER BS!!
Hlow can one consume MORE if (s)he's alone than if (s)he is with 3 others in the house?

Re: OMG! i should have died long time ago!

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:31 pm
by weilandsmith
I should have died 29 years ago.

Re: OMG! i should have died long time ago!

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:38 pm
by Evilevi777
:o why not me :(

Re: OMG! i should have died long time ago!

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:39 pm
by Friend and Foe
Jack wrote:Says I can live forever. :-D


Same here :lol: :D

Re: OMG! i should have died long time ago!

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:55 pm
by Eternal Usul
Legendary Apophis wrote:wooot 26.5 I win! :D

Dang not really <_< :lol:
If it was like 20 years more it would be what I don't mind rofl

This test is UTTER BS!!
Hlow can one consume MORE if (s)he's alone than if (s)he is with 3 others in the house?



Many decades of study have now proven that when people live together, they (on average) consume less resources per capita.


One of the strange twists that reality has thrown at us is this...


For decades environmentalists were under the impression that big cities put more strain on the ecosystem then small communities...and while that is true of the "local" environment, it is completely untrue of the ecosystem as a whole. This is all because, when you live in a large city, you tend to live with others...this causes you to pool your resources, and as a result of feeling like you have more...you use less...

Furthermore, large cities tend to offer more services with greater accessibility...such as recycling programs and efficient, and more effective (than small cities at least) waste treatment facilities...also, living costs are higher typically...forcing people to be somewhat more frugal with their resources...and thus encouraging an all around cut in waste production...

The direct meaning of this, is that it is far, far more efficient and evironmentally friendly to live in a large city than in a small commune...directly contrary to popular belief...


The problem is that while small communes put large stress on the overall ecosystem of the earth...they put less stress on the local environment (as I recall)...while on the other hand...large cities put far less stress on the ecosystem of the earth as a whole...and more on the local evironment...


The solution will lie in finding a balancing act wherin we manage to achieve the efficiency of a large city...with the low local impact of a small community...and it will happen...it's just a question of time...and not having enough...
....................................................................................................................................................................................

Put simply: Consider population density, a large city will (per acre), have more people...whereas a small farming community will (per acre) have far less people...what this means is that in a large city more people are living on roughly the same amount of land and are consuming a comprable amount of resources as half the number of people in sprawled out farming communities...

It may look worse in a city...but the land and resources are being utilized more efficiently, and waste is handled more effectively...after all...you're far more likely to find a couch on the side of the road in a farming community than you are in a city...
....................................................................................................................................................................................




Also...for the record...it says I should die at the age of 50.2

Probably because I'm a broke dude living with family...which means we live more efficiently...

Re: OMG! i should have died long time ago!

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:57 pm
by Evilevi777
way too much to read usul, i skimmed the first 5 or 10 words though :D

Re: OMG! i should have died long time ago!

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:10 pm
by Juliette
Says it supports me for my natural life, so that's fine.
I actually had less than -3.0

Re: OMG! i should have died long time ago!

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:10 pm
by Phoenix of Terra
Apparently, I'm on death's doorstep.

*watches for commando squirrels in the forest behind his house*

Re: OMG! i should have died long time ago!

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:15 pm
by Juliette
Hrm.. my parents expenditure kills me, if I include them. :lol:

Re: OMG! i should have died long time ago!

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:16 pm
by Evilevi777
Jack wrote:So why do I consume more by walking/riding a bike vs riding a bus or taking a taxi? Also how does taking a taxi as opposed to riding a bus consume less?


good question jack, maybe some faults in the test :o

Re: OMG! i should have died long time ago!

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:19 pm
by Evilevi777
:lol:

Re: OMG! i should have died long time ago!

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:35 pm
by Phoenix of Terra
Jack wrote:The Russians have sent their finest after you, Tollan!



Image


Wait, I've seen him before!

*runs to go get a solar energy panel for heating*