I'd be interested in finding out how they calculate it. I wouldn't surprised if it was "+1 for every radio button lower than 1 and add 20% guilt tax on the end".
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1606301:date=Feb 13 2007, 06:44 PM:name=enf0rcer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(enf0rcer @ Feb 13 2007, 06:44 PM) [snapback]1606301[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Quanaut how can you have a footprint of 9 and only need ~2 planets
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
<!--quoteo(post=1606195:date=Feb 13 2007, 01:20 PM:name=DiscoZombie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DiscoZombie @ Feb 13 2007, 01:20 PM) [snapback]1606195[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> tbh I don't have any hard reason, my mother said I just stopped eating meat when I was just a toddler, and the idea of meat just grosses me out still. It was probably because I loved animals as a kid and couldn't reconcile eating them. It's just reflex/habit at this point, I'm not really your stereotypical hippie vegetarian (not as bad as some people, anyway)... <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
<!--quoteo(post=1606346:date=Feb 13 2007, 08:46 PM:name=T_h_e_m)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(T_h_e_m @ Feb 13 2007, 08:46 PM) [snapback]1606346[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, when you think about it. We seem to be doing fine with 1 planet.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1606377:date=Feb 13 2007, 10:31 PM:name=T_h_e_m)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(T_h_e_m @ Feb 13 2007, 10:31 PM) [snapback]1606377[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Everyone who's alive right now is sharing already sharing one planet. How (details please) is it not enough? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the Westerns said it best:
There ain't room enough in this town for the both of us.
Just stick planets in there somewhere, and you get the idea. Greed and stupidity are gonna force it all over again('cause remember, there were successful bandit towns).
Does this test inherently imply that everyone is going to build a house on fertile soil? Does it imply that we all need a home cover 2+ acres of land (maybe it's implying space need for lumber, but last I checked trees grow back)? How does it figure in the double calculation of fuel and energy if youre commuting with more people (sure, everyone's living like me, but if I'm a passenger and there's 6 billions of me, who the hell is driving the 6 billion of me around?)? What's the basis for their footprint calculation for public transportation (trams, buses, trains, subways - all have different energy requirements)? Space requirements differ greatly for a 2-floor and a 20-floor apartment building, and that's a drastic differenc in need for habitable space, so what constitutes a "multi-story apartment building"? What defines "much less" waste than my neighbors? Are they implying that, if I was isolated onto my land, milking a cow and having occasional chicken eggs would be equivalent to butchering that chicken? Do we not care about fish? How much energy does it take to maintain a conservation website? Is the viewing of this website impacting my ecological footprint? Should I stop viewing this website?
Something seemed fundamentally wrong with this quiz when I took it in geography class, and that same problem still persists <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> .
[edit] And what's up with Faskalia? Apparently there's room enough for 4.5 habitable acres/person, but if we all lived like him and only used 3.9 we'd still apparenty need 2.2 planets. Maybe my math skills have dulled since high school, but last I checked 3.9 < 4.5 . [/edit]
IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.0 PLANETS.
The answers were exactly the same!!! ----------------------------------------------- Some fun facts: USA: WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.
NIGER: WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.
This is because it averages out depending on the nation you choose: Or in other words: Even if you daily eat meat in Niger, you are still having a much smaller footprint than the average American vegan. Simply because a large percentage of the Nigerian population is more or less starving, meaning that the average mass of food consumed per person is much lower than in the USA, so that even if you eat alot of meat, compared to the average Nigerian, you still eat much less and because of the way that food is produced (again on an average basis) your footprint is much smaller <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
So the sentence IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.0 PLANETS. is flawed.
If EVERYONE IN YOUR NATION ADAPTED THEIR LIFESTYLE IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY LIVED LIKE YOU, COMPARED TO THE WAY THE AVERAGE CITIZEN OF YOUR NATION USED TO LIVE, THEN WE WOULD NEED X PLANETS.
would be more correct.
<!--quoteo(post=1606424:date=Feb 14 2007, 10:44 AM:name=UltimaGecko)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(UltimaGecko @ Feb 14 2007, 10:44 AM) [snapback]1606424[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> [edit] And what's up with Faskalia? Apparently there's room enough for 4.5 habitable acres/person, but if we all lived like him and only used 3.9 we'd still apparenty need 2.2 planets. Maybe my math skills have dulled since high school, but last I checked 3.9 < 4.5 . [/edit] <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The acres thing can explained, cause it goes the the nations average. And because germany has less acres per head than the usa...
Hmm. So if you answer "best" on all questions, you end up with needing 1.0 planets. So if everyone lived like that, we'd be good. But since obviously not everyone lives like that, we need far more. So in short, a lot of us don't exist, because if we did, we couldn't all live here, so a lot of us would die due to lack of resources.
Nope, I don't get it. Somebody please explain this to me.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1606658:date=Feb 14 2007, 06:25 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Feb 14 2007, 06:25 PM) [snapback]1606658[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Hmm. So if you answer "best" on all questions, you end up with needing 1.0 planets. So if everyone lived like that, we'd be good. But since obviously not everyone lives like that, we need far more. So in short, a lot of us don't exist, because if we did, we couldn't all live here, so a lot of us would die due to lack of resources.
Nope, I don't get it. Somebody please explain this to me. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What its saying is, eventually were gonna run out of resources in the world. To have a constant upkeep = growth, we'd need so many earths.
Or we could just get more planets. I think I recently heard that realistically, if we started working on it now, Mars could be inhabitable in about a thousand years.
You'll regret that in a milliard years or so when the earth becomes too hot to support life. The sun's ever agin', y'know. I don't remember if it grows hotter as it ages or whether earth just grows hotter because the sun expands (I think it's the latter - in fact, I think the sun cools out as it ages, which is what causes the expansion), but at any rate earth will become hotter and hotter over time. Sooner or later *I* will be living on prime estate while your "blue" planet will just be a charred rock! Nyah!
Edit: It actually heats up as it ages and expands. And it enters the red giant phase in four to five milliard years, not one milliard years or so. But I'm a patient man. Also, I can write "willing to make long-term investments" on my resume.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
heck, can't I just tow it to jupiter or something <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1606988:date=Feb 16 2007, 02:59 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Feb 16 2007, 02:59 AM) [snapback]1606988[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> You'll regret that in a milliard years or so when the earth becomes too hot to support life. The sun's ever agin', y'know. I don't remember if it grows hotter as it ages or whether earth just grows hotter because the sun expands (I think it's the latter - in fact, I think the sun cools out as it ages, which is what causes the expansion), but at any rate earth will become hotter and hotter over time. Sooner or later *I* will be living on prime estate while your "blue" planet will just be a charred rock! Nyah!
Edit: It actually heats up as it ages and expands. And it enters the red giant phase in four to five milliard years, not one milliard years or so. But I'm a patient man. Also, I can write "willing to make long-term investments" on my resume. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You do realize after it's become a supernova it'll either become a black hole or a white dwarf right? And that there'll be no heat to even support life on mars?
<!--quoteo(post=1607020:date=Feb 16 2007, 05:17 AM:name=emperor_awesome)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(emperor_awesome @ Feb 16 2007, 05:17 AM) [snapback]1607020[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Our sun isn't going supernova. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Details. Right, it's too light, but that doesn't change the rest of what I said <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1607024:date=Feb 16 2007, 05:39 AM:name=emperor_awesome)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(emperor_awesome @ Feb 16 2007, 05:39 AM) [snapback]1607024[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> But there'll still be a long period of time while it's still a red giant and a white dwarf where it's still outputting heat.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=1606988:date=Feb 16 2007, 02:59 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Feb 16 2007, 02:59 AM) [snapback]1606988[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->long-term investments<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey, nothing lasts forever. See, once Terra is uninhabitable, I'll be sitting on the very prime of real estate in the solar system. I'll be the only one with supply, and demand will be downright crazy. I'll be rich beyond my wildest dreams. At the same time, people are incredibly short-sighted, so most likely no-one will be looking beyond Mars for a while.
Now, I'll have immense financial weight after having sold an entire planet of prime real-estate, coupled with some financial backing from daring young investors wondering "can he pull it off again?" This should be enough to purchase several promising planets in other solar systems, planets that will seem worthless to people due to their baackwater locations "in the middle of nowhere." But don't you see? Sooner or later, Sol will terminate (should be quite spectacular - not the sheer unbridled apocalypse of a good supernova, but certainly a firework of cataclysmic proportions) and Mars too will become uninhabitable (and possibly also dust). Again, I'll be holding all the cards, sitting on all the prime real-estate. Sooner or later the universe will come to an end, and who has really planned for that?! Me, I'l have bought a couple of others, and people will be desperate to flee this one as it collapses, or tears apart, or cools out, or who knows what else.
Comments
MOBILITY 0
SHELTER 1
GOODS/SERVICES 1.1
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 3.3
IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 6.7 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.8 PLANETS
Quanaut how can you have a footprint of 9 and only need ~2 planets
I've got
FOOD 3.1
MOBILITY 0
SHELTER 1.6
GOODS/SERVICES 1.2
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 5.9
and still have 3.3
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm guessing because my things are easier to grow/make?
tbh I don't have any hard reason, my mother said I just stopped eating meat when I was just a toddler, and the idea of meat just grosses me out still. It was probably because I loved animals as a kid and couldn't reconcile eating them. It's just reflex/habit at this point, I'm not really your stereotypical hippie vegetarian (not as bad as some people, anyway)...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
<img src="http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/4112/hitlerdrugfreevegetariasp7.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
anyway... I am 2.1 earths.
FOOD 4.9
MOBILITY 1
SHELTER 4.2
GOODS/SERVICES 4.7
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 15
IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 24 ACRES PER PERSON.
WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.
IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3.3 PLANETS.
Honestly though, if everyone lived like me there'd be a lot fewer people.
Also, when you think about it. We seem to be doing fine with 1 planet.
Not really.. :/
Not really.. :/
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Everyone who's alive right now is sharing already sharing one planet. How (details please) is it not enough?
Everyone who's alive right now is sharing already sharing one planet. How (details please) is it not enough?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the Westerns said it best:
There ain't room enough in this town for the both of us.
Just stick planets in there somewhere, and you get the idea. Greed and stupidity are gonna force it all over again('cause remember, there were successful bandit towns).
MOBILITY 0.9
SHELTER 1
GOODS/SERVICES 2.5
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 5.4
IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3 PLANETS
MOBILITY 0.0
SHELTER 1.5
GOODS/SERVICES 1.2
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 3.9
IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2.2 PLANETS
I think the number of planets strongly depends on the country you select and your total footprint.
Seeing that some of you have a footprint >13, but yet they only need 3 planets and I need 2.2 with 3.9 footprints. Thats bollocks.
Something seemed fundamentally wrong with this quiz when I took it in geography class, and that same problem still persists <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> .
[edit] And what's up with Faskalia? Apparently there's room enough for 4.5 habitable acres/person, but if we all lived like him and only used 3.9 we'd still apparenty need 2.2 planets. Maybe my math skills have dulled since high school, but last I checked 3.9 < 4.5 . [/edit]
NIGER:
FOOD 0.2
MOBILITY 0
SHELTER 0.1
GOODS/SERVICES 0
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 0.3
IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.0 PLANETS.
USA:
FOOD 1.7
MOBILITY 0
SHELTER 0.5
GOODS/SERVICES 0.2
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 2
IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.0 PLANETS.
The answers were exactly the same!!!
-----------------------------------------------
Some fun facts:
USA: WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.
NIGER: WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.
but 1.8 != 4.5 <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
This is because it averages out depending on the nation you choose: Or in other words: Even if you daily eat meat in Niger, you are still having a much smaller footprint than the average American vegan. Simply because a large percentage of the Nigerian population is more or less starving, meaning that the average mass of food consumed per person is much lower than in the USA, so that even if you eat alot of meat, compared to the average Nigerian, you still eat much less and because of the way that food is produced (again on an average basis) your footprint is much smaller <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
So the sentence IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.0 PLANETS. is flawed.
If EVERYONE IN YOUR NATION ADAPTED THEIR LIFESTYLE IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY LIVED LIKE YOU, COMPARED TO THE WAY THE AVERAGE CITIZEN OF YOUR NATION USED TO LIVE, THEN WE WOULD NEED X PLANETS.
would be more correct.
<!--quoteo(post=1606424:date=Feb 14 2007, 10:44 AM:name=UltimaGecko)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(UltimaGecko @ Feb 14 2007, 10:44 AM) [snapback]1606424[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
[edit] And what's up with Faskalia? Apparently there's room enough for 4.5 habitable acres/person, but if we all lived like him and only used 3.9 we'd still apparenty need 2.2 planets. Maybe my math skills have dulled since high school, but last I checked 3.9 < 4.5 . [/edit]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The acres thing can explained, cause it goes the the nations average. And because germany has less acres per head than the usa...
Nope, I don't get it. Somebody please explain this to me.
Hmm. So if you answer "best" on all questions, you end up with needing 1.0 planets. So if everyone lived like that, we'd be good. But since obviously not everyone lives like that, we need far more. So in short, a lot of us don't exist, because if we did, we couldn't all live here, so a lot of us would die due to lack of resources.
Nope, I don't get it. Somebody please explain this to me.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What its saying is, eventually were gonna run out of resources in the world. To have a constant upkeep = growth, we'd need so many earths.
Deal?
Edit: It actually heats up as it ages and expands. And it enters the red giant phase in four to five milliard years, not one milliard years or so. But I'm a patient man. Also, I can write "willing to make long-term investments" on my resume.
You'll regret that in a milliard years or so when the earth becomes too hot to support life. The sun's ever agin', y'know. I don't remember if it grows hotter as it ages or whether earth just grows hotter because the sun expands (I think it's the latter - in fact, I think the sun cools out as it ages, which is what causes the expansion), but at any rate earth will become hotter and hotter over time. Sooner or later *I* will be living on prime estate while your "blue" planet will just be a charred rock! Nyah!
Edit: It actually heats up as it ages and expands. And it enters the red giant phase in four to five milliard years, not one milliard years or so. But I'm a patient man. Also, I can write "willing to make long-term investments" on my resume.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You do realize after it's become a supernova it'll either become a black hole or a white dwarf right? And that there'll be no heat to even support life on mars?
Our sun isn't going supernova.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Details. Right, it's too light, but that doesn't change the rest of what I said <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
But there'll still be a long period of time while it's still a red giant and a white dwarf where it's still outputting heat.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1606988:date=Feb 16 2007, 02:59 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Feb 16 2007, 02:59 AM) [snapback]1606988[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->long-term investments<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mobility 0.3
Shelter 0.6
Goods/Services 0.7
Footprint 4.4
2.4 planets
<!--fontc--></span><!--/fontc-->
I have no ides what these numbers mean.
Now, I'll have immense financial weight after having sold an entire planet of prime real-estate, coupled with some financial backing from daring young investors wondering "can he pull it off again?" This should be enough to purchase several promising planets in other solar systems, planets that will seem worthless to people due to their baackwater locations "in the middle of nowhere." But don't you see? Sooner or later, Sol will terminate (should be quite spectacular - not the sheer unbridled apocalypse of a good supernova, but certainly a firework of cataclysmic proportions) and Mars too will become uninhabitable (and possibly also dust). Again, I'll be holding all the cards, sitting on all the prime real-estate. Sooner or later the universe will come to an end, and who has really planned for that?! Me, I'l have bought a couple of others, and people will be desperate to flee this one as it collapses, or tears apart, or cools out, or who knows what else.
It's ALL about the long-term investments.