Fortress Forever

Go Back   Fortress Forever > Off Topic > Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-10-2007, 08:12 PM   #101
uBeR
Not ****** Yet
D&A Member
 
uBeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Minnesota
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Increasing the supply (or reducing the rate at which it is depleting) is necessary.

That's, in my opinion, the solution. There are multiple ways to do this. One is reducing consumption--conservation, stop wasting water. One is to reduce external factors that deplete it, such global warming. (These two solutions are hampered by growing populations.) One is increasing the effectiveness of reusing water through technology. These insofar are interlinked. One is reducing (or slowing) demand. And there are multiple ways to do that. It's not a one-solution-fix-all process.
__________________
OCCUPATION 101.

One would think a simple task would be, well, simple. Maybe not for simpletons.
uBeR is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-10-2007, 08:14 PM   #102
zSilver_Fox
IRL Combat Medic
 
zSilver_Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ethanol Land
Class/Position: D Medic
Gametype: Conca Jumping
Affiliations: ^iv
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Just because of this debate, I'm going to start dumping my car oil into the river.

Enjoy drinking it, southern boys.
__________________
I have a nasopharyngeal and webcam...

First infraction! Flaming!
zSilver_Fox is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-10-2007, 08:58 PM   #103
Scuzzy
D&A Member
Retired FF Staff
 
Scuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Server: 206.217.134.170:27016
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by uBeR
Increasing the supply (or reducing the rate at which it is depleting) is necessary.

That's, in my opinion, the solution. There are multiple ways to do this. One is reducing consumption--conservation, stop wasting water. One is to reduce external factors that deplete it, such global warming. (These two solutions are hampered by growing populations.) One is increasing the effectiveness of reusing water through technology. These insofar are interlinked. One is reducing (or slowing) demand. And there are multiple ways to do that. It's not a one-solution-fix-all process.
Then it isn't an human overpopulation problem, it's a production issue, which we would agree on.
__________________
"Player Quality, not Quantity, is what we strive for." - The LLama Wrangler
"A clan is defined by the nature of it's enemies. - The Llama Wrangler
Scuzzy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-10-2007, 10:54 PM   #104
uBeR
Not ****** Yet
D&A Member
 
uBeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Minnesota
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
At the heart of is the overpopulation problem, simply because it hampers any effort aimed at preserving freshwater resources. But as stated before, freshwater scarcity is just one ailment of overpopulation (and part of many others).
__________________
OCCUPATION 101.

One would think a simple task would be, well, simple. Maybe not for simpletons.
uBeR is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-11-2007, 03:27 AM   #105
YomMamasHouse
 
YomMamasHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Your Mom's House
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
I know how some of you people think
There I found the problem Scuzzy, you missed this word.

Here is how you should take it.
"Some of you people, because you are asshats(a group of them within Christianity, not to leave out the possibility of Islam as well), are not overly concerned with destroying nature and killing off animals because you believe yourself to be superior because your so-called God gave you a soul."

The only problems I had with how you took it were the way you implied all as being the group and that the people were for killing nature instead of simply not giving a shit.

Last edited by YomMamasHouse; 08-11-2007 at 03:33 AM.
YomMamasHouse is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-11-2007, 03:29 AM   #106
Innoc
Hitman 2 1 Actual
 
Innoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: "Oscar Mike"
Gametype: FPS or RTS (just say NO to MMO)
Affiliations: Your Mom
Posts Rated Helpful 8 Times
Send a message via ICQ to Innoc Send a message via AIM to Innoc Send a message via MSN to Innoc Send a message via Yahoo to Innoc
This is a chicken or egg situation with each on opposite sides. Hostile agreement.

Silver fox...lol...you need help.
__________________
Mooga on Obama: He can cut taxes. Actually do something useful. Punch Nancy Pelosi in the face. Just to name a few.

You eventually run out of other people's money to spend.
Innoc is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-11-2007, 05:11 AM   #107
SkynYrd
Cry some more.
 
SkynYrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bogart's Tater Patch
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHISH
How is it selfish? Did I miss the part of the article where the kids were malnourished or something?
Sigh... this thread should have ended here.

Overpopulation is such a convenient way to take a jab at someone for not living in a manner that pleases you personally.

I'll make a bold statement... there is no such thing as overpopulation... it is a myth.

Want to know why? Simple... overpopulation suggests that there are too many of a species in a given area, and that there are not enough resources to support all of them. Anyone want to take a guess at what happens to the ones who don't get the resources they need? They die...

They die because the stronger ones got the resources first, leaving them empty-handed. And after they die, guess what? The balance is restored, and the amount of resources exactly fits the population until some more organisms are born that raises them above the "quota," if you will. Then the whole cycle repeats itself.

One important conclusion can be drawn from such a simple argument: the state of overpopulation cannot be a permanent one, because the situation itself involves an imbalance that is inevitably "fixed" very quickly.

You can only oscillate back and forth between perfectly balanced and overpopulated. The higher you go beyond the limit, the more will die to put it back to normal. On and on and on and on...

Thus, puppychow and uber, your argument has no weight whatsoever. Having 16 children does not cause or contribute to overpopulation. The worst it can do is initiate a struggle if the species is teetering at the very end of the balance.
SkynYrd is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-11-2007, 03:02 PM   #108
Scuzzy
D&A Member
Retired FF Staff
 
Scuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Server: 206.217.134.170:27016
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by uBeR
At the heart of is the overpopulation problem, simply because it hampers any effort aimed at preserving freshwater resources. But as stated before, freshwater scarcity is just one ailment of overpopulation (and part of many others).
Maybe we're defining things differently. When you say the world is overpopulated that phrase, to me and many others, means that there are too many people on the globe at this moment in time and the globe can not sustain that exact number, much less any more, no matter what is done, other then reducing the population. That would be a true definition of overpopulation on a global scale. If there are many people in an area, but resources are not being managed or renewed properly (but could be) then that isn't overpopulation, it's a resource management issue. The globe is not overpopulated. On a global scale water resources are not a problem, in certain regions yes it is, but not on a global scale.

Scuzzy
__________________
"Player Quality, not Quantity, is what we strive for." - The LLama Wrangler
"A clan is defined by the nature of it's enemies. - The Llama Wrangler
Scuzzy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-11-2007, 03:09 PM   #109
Scuzzy
D&A Member
Retired FF Staff
 
Scuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Server: 206.217.134.170:27016
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse
There I found the problem Scuzzy, you missed this word.

Here is how you should take it.
"Some of you people, because you are asshats(a group of them within Christianity, not to leave out the possibility of Islam as well), are not overly concerned with destroying nature and killing off animals because you believe yourself to be superior because your so-called God gave you a soul."

The only problems I had with how you took it were the way you implied all as being the group and that the people were for killing nature instead of simply not giving a shit.
No, I got the word "some" and I did see that. If I told you that I know how you only, personally (but not everyone), think because you hold some atheist views, wouldn't that be a presumptuous, bigoted, and incorrect?

On a side note, nature is survival of the fittest, is it not? Doesn't that indicate some sort of self centered behavior by definition? Wouldn't, in that scenario, define "caring" only to what the individual person wanted/needed? Anything else would be a waste of energy, wouldn't it?
__________________
"Player Quality, not Quantity, is what we strive for." - The LLama Wrangler
"A clan is defined by the nature of it's enemies. - The Llama Wrangler
Scuzzy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-11-2007, 03:28 PM   #110
Zydell
Ex-king
D&A Member
 
Zydell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Affiliations: Knights of the Round
Posts Rated Helpful 1 Times
Send a message via MSN to Zydell Send a message via Skype™ to Zydell
So what is your point Scuzzy, that it's ok for humans to take whatever they want? How can you live so unharmonious with what ‘God’ gave you?

And are you now seriously using evolution as an argument why it's ok to take what we need. It's an observation from nature; a process. Just because it exist and just because we (humans) are pretty damn good at adapting (which is totally different than being the strongest), doesn't mean that we should have this as some sort ideal that we should hold up or whatever.
Zydell is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-11-2007, 03:58 PM   #111
Deadly Furby
Elder Scroll
 
Deadly Furby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cell Block 17
Posts Rated Helpful 13 Times
Proof of overpopulation:
"The total amount of intelligence on the earth is a constant. it's just that the human population is growing."
Deadly Furby is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-11-2007, 05:39 PM   #112
Scuzzy
D&A Member
Retired FF Staff
 
Scuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Server: 206.217.134.170:27016
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zydell
So what is your point Scuzzy, that it's ok for humans to take whatever they want? How can you live so unharmonious with what ‘God’ gave you?

And are you now seriously using evolution as an argument why it's ok to take what we need. It's an observation from nature; a process. Just because it exist and just because we (humans) are pretty damn good at adapting (which is totally different than being the strongest), doesn't mean that we should have this as some sort ideal that we should hold up or whatever.
Zydell, you need to re-read my posts. First, I haven't brought up God as a defense in this thread whatsoever. Second, I haven't brough up evolution as a defense in this thread. Three, I have not made the point that humans can take whatever they want. What you've stated above would be like me saying something like, "Oh come on Zydell, how are you equating abortion to global warming, how can you be serious." Re-read my arguments.

Now, as for my question (which was not my point, but a question towards someone else's point), it was a simple one. If we are only looking at nature, do not animals take what they want and what they need? How is that different from man? Animals impact their environment. Animals can, and have, consumed enough resources to negatively impact their species life cycle, as well as those of other animals. Am I saying man should do what they want? No. Am I saying that man should not do what they want? No. I'm just stating a fact.

Scuzzy
__________________
"Player Quality, not Quantity, is what we strive for." - The LLama Wrangler
"A clan is defined by the nature of it's enemies. - The Llama Wrangler
Scuzzy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-11-2007, 05:43 PM   #113
uBeR
Not ****** Yet
D&A Member
 
uBeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Minnesota
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy
Maybe we're defining things differently. When you say the world is overpopulated that phrase, to me and many others, means that there are too many people on the globe at this moment in time and the globe can not sustain that exact number, much less any more, no matter what is done, other then reducing the population. That would be a true definition of overpopulation on a global scale. If there are many people in an area, but resources are not being managed or renewed properly (but could be) then that isn't overpopulation, it's a resource management issue. The globe is not overpopulated. On a global scale water resources are not a problem, in certain regions yes it is, but not on a global scale.

Scuzzy
No, I've been discussing it on a global scale, not a regional scale. I think it's you who's trying to see it at a regional scale. That is, because you feel the U.S. or some other area is not at risk of running out of freshwater, there is no water scarcity problem.
__________________
OCCUPATION 101.

One would think a simple task would be, well, simple. Maybe not for simpletons.
uBeR is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-11-2007, 05:45 PM   #114
Zydell
Ex-king
D&A Member
 
Zydell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Affiliations: Knights of the Round
Posts Rated Helpful 1 Times
Send a message via MSN to Zydell Send a message via Skype™ to Zydell
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy
Zydell, you need to re-read my posts. First, I haven't brought up God as a defense in this thread whatsoever.
No, but I did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy
Second, I haven't brough up evolution as a defense in this thread.
Then what are you saying this for:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy
On a side note, nature is survival of the fittest, is it not? Doesn't that indicate some sort of self centered behavior by definition? Wouldn't, in that scenario, define "caring" only to what the individual person wanted/needed? Anything else would be a waste of energy, wouldn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy
Three, I have not made the point that humans can take whatever they want. What you've stated above would be like me saying something like, "Oh come on Zydell, how are you equating abortion to global warming, how can you be serious." Re-read my arguments.
But you are saying that it's ok to take as much as we need, and you do believe that we're not damaging anything at this moment now? You are denying overpopulation and you are saying that there are plently of resources at this moment. I am saying that this is ignorance, look at endangered animal species, look at cutting rainforests. etc. Just because we're living and because in your local environment everything is ok, doesn't mean that it is globally. So it is therefor that I think that you are ok with the current situation which in my view is taking what we want and not caring for the results. It's my interpretation I never said it's yours, you can deny it, fine with me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy
Now, as for my question (which was not my point, but a question towards someone else's point), it was a simple one. If we are only looking at nature, do not animals take what they want and what they need? How is that different from man? Animals impact their environment. Animals can, and have, consumed enough resources to negatively impact their species life cycle, as well as those of other animals. Am I saying man should do what they want? No. Am I saying that man should not do what they want? No. I'm just stating a fact.

Scuzzy
The answer is in my previous post, anyways; animals act on instinct, man don't, man can think for themselves, make judgements, decisions, etc.

This is slightly offtopic but still related.

And what I previously asked/stated (even though maybe unrelated). You state here that there is no/little difference between us and animals. So if animals in fact are equal to man, than why is it ok to kill animals and not to prevent (human) birth, why is killing human life so different. And if you accept the fact that we are different (more intelligent whatever) and that this is the reason why we are special, then why is it a crime to prevent the birth of those people who are not like us and therefor in skill comparable with animals.

This, in my view is christian arrogance: always value human life higher than animal life.

Last edited by Zydell; 08-11-2007 at 05:59 PM.
Zydell is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-11-2007, 06:45 PM   #115
Scuzzy
D&A Member
Retired FF Staff
 
Scuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Server: 206.217.134.170:27016
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zydell
look at endangered animal species
Is it ok for a species to become extinct, and if so, when?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zydell
You state here that there is no/little difference between us and animals. So if animals in fact are equal to man, than why is it ok to kill animals and not to prevent (human) birth, why is killing human life so different.
Zydell, you're trying to deflect the discussion into a different topic of philosophy on the value of life. Let's stay on track. I stated that animals take what resources they want or need. How is that, and that alone, different from the way man consumes resources?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zydell
This, in my view is christian arrogance: always value human life higher than animal life.
You're more then welcome to that opinion, but it has nothing to do with this topic.

Scuzzy
__________________
"Player Quality, not Quantity, is what we strive for." - The LLama Wrangler
"A clan is defined by the nature of it's enemies. - The Llama Wrangler
Scuzzy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-11-2007, 06:52 PM   #116
Scuzzy
D&A Member
Retired FF Staff
 
Scuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Server: 206.217.134.170:27016
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by uBeR
No, I've been discussing it on a global scale, not a regional scale. I think it's you who's trying to see it at a regional scale. That is, because you feel the U.S. or some other area is not at risk of running out of freshwater, there is no water scarcity problem.
That isn't exactly my point.

Are there specific areas in the world where supplies of fresh water, either by nature or by man are scare? Yep.

Is there enough freshwater in the United States today to take care of all the people in the country? Absolutely not.

Does the United States filter their water and make it a reusable resource? Yes.

Could this practice be put in place, event on a bigger scale elsewere in the world? Yes.

Could man become more and more efficient at filtering and reusing fresh water to handle growing populations? Yes, and more then likely.

Are some countries putting these water filtration methods into practice? - No.

^^^^^^^^ Does that make it a global issue? No, it makes it a regional one.

Scuzzy
__________________
"Player Quality, not Quantity, is what we strive for." - The LLama Wrangler
"A clan is defined by the nature of it's enemies. - The Llama Wrangler
Scuzzy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-11-2007, 07:13 PM   #117
uBeR
Not ****** Yet
D&A Member
 
uBeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Minnesota
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
No, it's a global issue because it has global implications.
__________________
OCCUPATION 101.

One would think a simple task would be, well, simple. Maybe not for simpletons.
uBeR is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-11-2007, 07:14 PM   #118
Zydell
Ex-king
D&A Member
 
Zydell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Affiliations: Knights of the Round
Posts Rated Helpful 1 Times
Send a message via MSN to Zydell Send a message via Skype™ to Zydell
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy
Is it ok for a species to become extinct, and if so, when?
(...) Is it OK to eleminate a animal species, to be the very reason of it even though you can prevent it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy
Zydell, you're trying to deflect the discussion into a different topic of philosophy on the value of life. Let's stay on track. I stated that animals take what resources they want or need. How is that, and that alone, different from the way man consumes resources?
It is a very relevant topic. Besides I told you twice before that it is different because we humans have been blessed to act by reason rather than instinct. Denying it is like denying the very thing that sets us apart from animals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy
You're more then welcome to that opinion, but it has nothing to do with this topic.
As stated before it has everything to do with this topic allthough I am now not to sure if you see why.
Zydell is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-11-2007, 07:38 PM   #119
YomMamasHouse
 
YomMamasHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Your Mom's House
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
the state of overpopulation cannot be a permanent one, because the situation itself involves an imbalance that is inevitably "fixed" very quickly.
While you are correct about populations naturally leveling themselves out from extremes the problem with that is, as many people have said, humans do not have their spot in the balance of nature. When you put an excess of predators in an ecosystem you will see the numbers teeter back and forth then balance, but the problem with humans is that nature does not recover from us the way it does from having too many predators, or too many herbivores overeating. When humans reach the breaking point the earth is going to be damaged a lot more than it would be from any other animal. Other animals cannot lay concrete, pollute water and air, or clear cut entire stretches of forest like us.
YomMamasHouse is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-11-2007, 08:05 PM   #120
Scuzzy
D&A Member
Retired FF Staff
 
Scuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Server: 206.217.134.170:27016
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zydell
(...) Is it OK to eleminate a animal species, to be the very reason of it even though you can prevent it?
Zydell, again, you're dodging and deflecting by asking a loaded question. Mine was simple and I'd like to hear your take on it: Is it ok for a species to become extinct, and if so, when?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zydell
It is a very relevant topic. Besides I told you twice before that it is different because we humans have been blessed to act by reason rather than instinct. Denying it is like denying the very thing that sets us apart from animals.
You're saying man is bless to act by reason, help me understand where you want this debate to go. Are you arguing that since God blessed man with soul (and his ability to reason) we should be responsible with what he gave us? Or, are you saying that man does not have a soul, but we have evolved to use reason, and therefor have a responsibility to take care of the earth?

Scuzzy
__________________
"Player Quality, not Quantity, is what we strive for." - The LLama Wrangler
"A clan is defined by the nature of it's enemies. - The Llama Wrangler
Scuzzy is offline   Reply With Quote


Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
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 On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.