yay, another gift from god

[puppychow]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

*roll of the eyes* We are the only creatures on the planet who are intentionally trying to not consume all the resources they can. We are the only creatures that are being careful and attempting to change their environment for the better.

Scuzzy

no, we are trying to reverse our bad habits and fuckups that out of greed should have never happened in the first place. most of the animal population has a harmonious relationship with nature; humans sadly do not.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by puppychow

no, we are trying to reverse our bad habits and fuckups that out of greed should have never happened in the first place. most of the animal population has a harmonious relationship with nature; humans sadly do not.

No puppy, I completely disagree. Nothing in nature is "harmonious" with one another, that's a complete mith. Animals consume and screw unless something else in nature prevents it, period. The only difference is they do not have the ability to adapt to their environment the way we do.

Case in point: If you put a male and female lion on an island with 10 sheep, those sheep will be dead in under two weeks and the lions will eventually starve to death. The lions aren't going to harmoniously decide not to eat all of them to keep from starving in the long run.

The only balance that truly exists in nature is supply and demand. Dogs don't stop screwing because they can't feed their young. Birds don't decide to not eat every last bit of bird seed out of a bird feeder because they want to pace their food supply. If one gorilla tries to mate with another's lady, he's killed.

We have just as much right to consume as many resources as we wish as any other creature on this planet. There is nothing good or bad about it.

Scuzzy

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Player

Regardless of any of your stances, none of you should disagree with this: we need to sort out our life style; we need to become a far cleaner, far more natural species instead of pumping out toxins for every lifeform to enjoy: air, land and water...

I have no problem with this at all.

[puppychow]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

No puppy, I completely disagree. Nothing in nature is "harmonious" with one another, that's a complete mith. Animals consume and screw unless something else in nature prevents it, period. The only difference is they do not have the ability to adapt to their environment the way we do.

Case in point: If you put a male and female lion on an island with 10 sheep, those sheep will be dead in under two weeks and the lions will eventually starve to death. The lions aren't going to harmoniously decide not to eat all of them to keep from starving in the long run.

The only balance that truly exists in nature is supply and demand. Dogs don't stop screwing because they can't feed their young. Birds don't decide to not eat every last bit of bird seed out of a bird feeder because they want to pace their food supply. If one gorilla tries to mate with another's lady, he's killed.

We have just as much right to consume as many resources as we wish as any other creature on this planet. There is nothing good or bad about it.

Scuzzy

imo you're confusing a threat vs supply and the need to eat. even though the sheep will get owned and provide no real threat physically, they are still embedded in the lion's brain as a threat and thusly will be removed as quickly as possible.

herbivores and omnivores in an area rich with resources will stop eating when full and just take whats needed at the time (unless it's a hoard and store animal that needs to do so). don't really see fat animals too often (except humans thats what i meant by harmony.

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by Innoc

No, what I have said over and over and over is that mentioning one city or one country does not make it true Globally. It's not a fascade it's fact. I can't tell if you're just being difficult or if what I am saying is something you're truly not grasping.

No, what I said is that while I'm discussing a global phenomenon you keep mentioning regional aspects. Do you see where the strawman arises? If anyone, it's you who's using regional information, such as the U.S. where it is not a serious problem, and saying therefore it's not a problem. Just as one negative isn't representative of the global, nor is one positive. But it's curious, because you live in Nevada I reckon, where there are ongoing water disputes. The effects of global warming on the major Colorado River and ultimately water supply in your region is apparent, but still not acknowledged by you.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Uber, you haven't proven anything yet for me to concede too. Help me understand why the process of water filtration that is applied in cities like Singapore and Chicago could not be applied all over the world.

I don't know whether or not Chicago desalinates ocean water, but I don't see a reason for them to because they live right next to a huge freshwater source. I'm not surprised that Singapore does though--because they're right next to the whole ocean! There's a really big reason non-coastal cities don't desalinate ocean water: it's too damn expensive. Just transporting the water inland (or upland) would cost more than the desalination process. The foremost problem with desalination is the cost; it's not effective. (Again, I'm willing to bet 100 to 1 you wouldn't be willing to pay the premium. After all, only 1% of people do.) The energy to desalinate salt water is enormous. Many people see the vast oceans that cover 75% of the Earth as a source of potable water. It's not. Less than one half of one percent of water here on Earth is freshwater. Now that's a lot of water, but then consider demand is higher than what can be produced, and our use per capita keeps increasing. It doesn't state a mathematician to figure out what will happen in the future. But I don't think even a complete lack of clean water would convince either you or Innoc that this is a global (and growing) problem. Of course, with desalination comes issues like salination of the ocean, pollution, and entrainment, but because you can't be bothered by issues like those, we'll skip over that.

[YomMamasHouse]

When do you all think we should consider over population an issue? How many humans does it take? We vastly outnumber other animal populations, why should we continue to rip down forests to support more of humans?

Is it the fact that we are smarter makes us more important or more worthy of space, fuck the rest of them. Or maybe it is because those animals don't have souls like us, God's chosen children? I know how some of you people think, and frankly, it is pompous and disgusting.

It is easy to pass off problems as "regional", but in the end the population issue, along with other ones like Global warming and Pollution have only ever been something that requires an effort on the part of humankind because the negative effects they have don't just stay "regional", the water we dirty, the air we pollute and the excess of people we may produce all travel and will end up becoming someone, far across the world, else's problem.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

The energy to desalinate salt water is enormous.

Get a glass of water, put salt in it. Take that glass, put inside two bowls, one on top of the other, put the bowl in the sun. In a very short amount of time you'll have a bowl of fresh water and a glass full of salt. Can this be used on a large scale? No. Can water be filter for salt just like it is for waste products? Yes. Either way, I'm not saying that Chicago/Singapore use ocean water, I was talking strickly filtration of existing dirty water.

Originally Posted by uber

But I don't think even a complete lack of clean water would convince either you or Innoc that this is a global (and growing) problem. Of course, with desalination comes issues like salination of the ocean, pollution, and entrainment, but because you can't be bothered by issues like those, we'll skip over that.

I'm not bothered by issues like those because people in old western towns said the same thing. "Why, This town will never hold more then 100 people ma, the water supply will plum dry up or get too darn dirty!" Ah.. technology, a wonderful thing. The earth, whether you like it or not, is continually creating fresh water. Man, when he has needed too, filters that water for reuse. If your country/town/etc isn't doing that properly, the people to blame are the people in charge of filtering the water, not the people making more babies. Eventually we may have to find a way to cheaply filter and use ocean water on a massive scale. I think that is far more likely than a global water crisis.

However, you never answered my question. In order to stop this global water crisis that is being cause by too may people having babies, at what point should a government begin instituting state forced abortions? At what population density per square km should that begin?

Scuzzy

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse

Or maybe it is because those animals don't have souls like us, God's chosen children? I know how some of you people think, and frankly, it is pompous and disgusting.

Not only is that comment presumptuous and bigoted, but it is also incorrect.

I did not say that water polution itself is a regional issue. The issue with a group of people not having an adaquate water filtration system to clean their water is a regional issue with government.

[Zydell]

Scuzzy, dont you agree that balance in nature is being distorted by humans? In nature there is balance between species, humans distort that by introducing new species, chopping down trees and whatever else. We are the only species on earth that are rapidly increasing, continuing to distort balance even more; we're born to adapt and we're the most intelligent animal on earth. Just the fact that we're more intelligent and we can think for ourselves and (morally) judge situations/decisions/etc makes us different from animals, don't you agree? — by the way (contra-question), there are humans who lack these skills/features, why are they in your view different from animals?, just the fact that they belong to the animal species ‘homo sapiens*’? — so we will likely find solutions to overcome problems but that doesn't mean that we should reproduce like rabbits.

A very simple solution is the condom, it prevents unwanted children from being born just the same as abortion does, why is it morally so different from abortion? Also, I can't bevieve that you even dare to suggest that ‘in our view’ we should enforce abortions. That makes absolutely no sense, maybe you should look at the term ‘pro-choice’ again, certain ‘non-christians’ believe in a choice to prevent unwanted babies from being born, it doesn't mean enforcing it on others, it means that individuals are given the choice to decide for themselves.

* Whoops it was kind of late :P

[zSilver_Fox]

Originally Posted by puppychow

imo you're confusing a threat vs supply and the need to eat. even though the sheep will get owned and provide no real threat physically, they are still embedded in the lion's brain as a threat and thusly will be removed as quickly as possible.

herbivores and omnivores in an area rich with resources will stop eating when full and just take whats needed at the time (unless it's a hoard and store animal that needs to do so). don't really see fat animals too often (except humans thats what i meant by harmony.

A lion views the sheep as a food supply, not a threat...

That's one of the worst arguments I've seen in this thread.

[uBeR]

Salination, pollution, and entrainment don't have to do with overpopulation; they have to do with desalination. But I was right about you not caring anyway.

Evaporation and condensation of seawater is not an effective desalination process, solar induced or otherwise, simply because the amount of water it produces and length of time it takes. By all means, however, use it for your household.

I don't know why one would not like Earth replenishing water. The problem, of course, arises because there is more demand than can be replenished. It's pretty simple mathematics to figure out that when more people want a slowly renewable commodity (oil, e.g.), the supply will run out within a matter of time. The scarcity of freshwater is well documented. That's all there is to it.

I haven't the right to dictate other's lives. If you want to control population, you have to do so with full regards to human rights. But the problem isn't state-enforced abortions. The premise of your question is wrong and simply loaded. The idea isn't that we abort the babies, the idea is that they don't come to conception in the first place. But again, the problem is twofold. To slow depletion of resources is probably more desirable than actual population control. Global warming, a large contributor to drought and water shortages, is something that can quickly exacerbate a problem. Just simple conservation is also highly effective, economically and environmentally.

Two links I suggest if you're interested in both demographic entrapment and carrying capacity (and a lot of reading) are here, here and here

There are what's called Cairo Conferences, which discuss the issue of population and population control.
Some links that relate to the conferences and population control:
http://www.now.org/nnt/01-95/eshoo.html
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/demographic_e...htm#Cairo%20II
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/demographic_entrapment/page2.htm

[shadow]

Originally Posted by Zydell

Scuzzy, dont you agree that balance in nature is being distorted by humans? In nature there is balance between species, humans distort that by introducing new species, chopping down trees and whatever else. We are the only species on earth that are rapidly increasing, continuing to distort balance even more; we're born to adapt and we're the most intelligent animal on earth. Just the fact that we're more intelligent and we can think for ourselves and (morally) judge situations/decisions/etc makes us different from animals, don't you agree? — by the way (contra-question), there are humans who lack these skills/features, why are they in your view different from animals?, just the fact that they belong to the animal species ‘homo erectus’? — so we will likely find solutions to overcome problems but that doesn't mean that we should reproduce like rabbits.

A very simple solution is the condom, it prevents unwanted children from being born just the same as abortion does, why is it morally so different from abortion? Also, I can't bevieve that you even dare to suggest that ‘in our view’ we should enforce abortions. That makes absolutely no sense, maybe you should look at the term ‘pro-choice’ again, certain ‘non-christians’ believe in a choice to prevent unwanted babies from being born, it doesn't mean enforcing it on others, it means that individuals are given the choice to decide for themselves.

homo sapiens sapiens*

[puppychow]

Originally Posted by zSilver_Fox

A lion views the sheep as a food supply, not a threat...

That's one of the worst arguments I've seen in this thread.

its a threat to territory, which is of upmost importance to lions. dont think its as far of as you might think. i am the lion whisperer - don't ever forget it.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Salination, pollution, and entrainment don't have to do with overpopulation; they have to do with desalination. But I was right about you not caring anyway.

I'm completely lost on the point you're making here, You're the one who equated pollution and clean water to overpopulation... I'm unsure why you're changing your mind here.

Originally Posted by uBeR

Evaporation and condensation of seawater is not an effective desalination process, solar induced or otherwise, simply because the amount of water it produces and length of time it takes. By all means, however, use it for your household.

That wasn't my point, my point was man will adapt and be able to clean water (in one form or another) better in the future.

Originally Posted by uBeR

I don't know why one would not like Earth replenishing water. The problem, of course, arises because there is more demand than can be replenished. It's pretty simple mathematics to figure out that when more people want a slowly renewable commodity (oil, e.g.), the supply will run out within a matter of time. The scarcity of freshwater is well documented. That's all there is to it.

No, that isn't all there is to it. In the past water was not plentiful, it was a scare resource. It became scarce enough that man learned to filter and reuse the water with waste treatment plants. That means the slow renewable resource was not being renewed much faster to meet the demand of man. Why do you refuse to believe that the same thing can not continue to occur, that we couldn't get incredibly better at it?

Originally Posted by uBeR

I haven't the right to dictate other's lives. If you want to control population, you have to do so with full regards to human rights. But the problem isn't state-enforced abortions. The premise of your question is wrong and simply loaded. The idea isn't that we abort the babies, the idea is that they don't come to conception in the first place.

So you believe that the overpopulation problem which causes water shortages will be solved by contraception? Why are we bothering to discuss this problem if you've already solved it? I was under the impression you believed that overpopulation causing water shortages wasn't solved and that's why it was a "problem".

However, let's take it a step farther uBer, and believe it is still a problem. Let's assume the following which you have stated in one way or another is true:

1) That uBer is right and overpopulation is the cause of water shortages.
2) Man will not learn to filter water anymore efficiently then they do now, ever.
3) Contraception doesn't prevent an exponential increase in population.

If these three things are true, and more and more people are being created, but water continues to be the limited resource you claim it to be, In this situation wouldn't government, at some point, have to step in? Wouldn't forced sterilization, force abortion, or euthanasia be the solutions?

Scuzzy

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by puppychow

its a threat to territory, which is of upmost importance to lions. dont think its as far of as you might think. i am the lion whisperer - don't ever forget it.

Fine, it's an island with grass and sheep. Eventually the sheep will eat all the grass and die of starvation. The harmony of nature.

[YomMamasHouse]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Not only is that comment presumptuous and bigoted, but it is also incorrect.

I think the reason we have a hard time communicating is because when arguing I don't say that I think something someone believes is stupid, I say it as though it is true and agree with them and let them figure out that they are giant ass wads without saying it myself. Of course I could be looking at what you said the wrong way as well. What I meant to say was that anybody who regards humans as being more ensouled than animals is undeserving of the soul they have if souls do exist. Were you referring to what I meant or what I said as being bigoted?

[zSilver_Fox]

Because lions only eat things that come onto their territory.


Yup.

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I'm completely lost on the point you're making here, You're the one who equated pollution and clean water to overpopulation... I'm unsure why you're changing your mind here.

Scuzzy, I think you are deeply confused. I'm not sure if it's on purpose or not though.

Pollution is related to overpopulation, yes. But what I was talking about was pollution coming from the desalination process. Why? Because you were talking about it like a cureall. I was talking about why desalination was not an effective means of hydrating the globe. Do you understand now?

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

That wasn't my point, my point was man will adapt and be able to clean water (in one form or another) better in the future.

It looked like your point was that we were going to use giant ("large scale") cups and bowls to collect clean water.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

No, that isn't all there is to it. In the past water was not plentiful, it was a scare resource. It became scarce enough that man learned to filter and reuse the water with waste treatment plants. That means the slow renewable resource was not being renewed much faster to meet the demand of man. Why do you refuse to believe that the same thing can not continue to occur, that we couldn't get incredibly better at it?



So you believe that the overpopulation problem which causes water shortages will be solved by contraception? Why are we bothering to discuss this problem if you've already solved it? I was under the impression you believed that overpopulation causing water shortages wasn't solved and that's why it was a "problem".

However, let's take it a step farther uBer, and believe it is still a problem. Let's assume the following which you have stated in one way or another is true:

1) That uBer is right and overpopulation is the cause of water shortages.
2) Man will not learn to filter water anymore efficiently then they do now, ever.
3) Contraception doesn't prevent an exponential increase in population.

If these three things are true, and more and more people are being created, but water continues to be the limited resource you claim it to be, In this situation wouldn't government, at some point, have to step in? Wouldn't forced sterilization, force abortion, or euthanasia be the solutions?

Scuzzy

In the past, there was more water than we have today and there was less demand than now; it's not a great comparison. The problem is that we aren't taking the necessary steps to alleviate freshwater demand.

No, I don't believe water shortages (or overpopulation) can be solved through contraceptive alone. I've never said I've solved the problem, nor have I stated the problem is solved. It's far from. And, no, government forced abortions or sterilizations (as occurred in Puerto Rico decades ago), or euthanasia would not be acceptable. I don't know how you draw such conclusion.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Scuzzy, I think you are deeply confused. I'm not sure if it's on purpose or not though.

Pollution is related to overpopulation, yes. But what I was talking about was pollution coming from the desalination process. Why? Because you were talking about it like a cureall. I was talking about why desalination was not an effective means of hydrating the globe. Do you understand now?

Gotcha, we were talking about two different things. I agree (and I believe I clarified) that desalination wasn't a viable solution today, but there is no reason why it could not be (much in the same way we learned to filter water in the first place) in the future.

Originally Posted by uBer

It looked like your point was that we were going to use giant ("large scale") cups and bowls to collect clean water.

No, but I'd pay good money to see that.

Originally Posted by uBeR

In the past, there was more water than we have today and there was less demand than now; it's not a great comparison. The problem is that we aren't taking the necessary steps to alleviate freshwater demand.

I agree, but I don't believe that neccessarily is an overpopulation problem but rather a govenmental/scientific problem to be solved.

Originally Posted by uBeR

No, I don't believe water shortages (or overpopulation) can be solved through contraceptive alone. I've never said I've solved the problem, nor have I stated the problem is solved. It's far from. And, no, government forced abortions or sterilizations (as occurred in Puerto Rico decades ago), or euthanasia would not be acceptable. I don't know how you draw such conclusion.

You stated, "Four billion people could face freshwater shortages by 2050." Without adaquate fresh water, people will die. You blamed this issue on overpopulation. I've offered the possibility that man would be able to filter the water more efficiently (not just talking desalination, talking filtering of any water), you shot that idea down. IF overpopulation is the probem causing water shortages in 2050, then decreasing the population is the solution. If contraception doesn't work, then what would the other alternatives to lowering the population are there?


Scuzzy

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse

I think the reason we have a hard time communicating is because when arguing I don't say that I think something someone believes is stupid, I say it as though it is true and agree with them and let them figure out that they are giant ass wads without saying it myself. Of course I could be looking at what you said the wrong way as well. What I meant to say was that anybody who regards humans as being more ensouled than animals is undeserving of the soul they have if souls do exist. Were you referring to what I meant or what I said as being bigoted?

You said:

Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse

When do you all think we should consider over population an issue? How many humans does it take? We vastly outnumber other animal populations, why should we continue to rip down forests to support more of humans?

Is it the fact that we are smarter makes us more important or more worthy of space, fuck the rest of them. Or maybe it is because those animals don't have souls like us, God's chosen children? I know how some of you people think, and frankly, it is pompous and disgusting.

Which I take to say, "You people, because you are Christians, believe in destroying nature and killing off animals because you believe yourself to be superior because your so-called God gave you a soul."

So, to break down what I said "presumptuous and bigoted, but it is also incorrect."

Presumptuous - You believe you know how other people think, because they are Christians.

Bigoted - You're making general assumtions on how and what Christians believe, and base your accusations against people arguing this point because of their religion.

Incorrect - That isn't what Christians believe.

Did you mean what I thought you meant, or did I read something into "Or maybe it is because those animals don't have souls like us, God's chosen children? I know how some of you people think" that wasn't there?

Scuzzy