User Tag List

First 123412 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 142

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    1. I see you are arguing from the global warming camp, and in light of that, I am not going to service this debate by addressing it, thereby recognizing global warming as a viable theory worthy of debate, BECAUSE IT IS NOT.
    You might as well deny Evolution while you're at it, or more relevantly Chemistry. I'm not usually a pest on terms, but the correct term is "Climate Change." And even if the climate change we are experiencing is completely natural (which has been proven wrong empirically), that has no effect on the fact that our population growth is unacceptable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    2. My argument is that the data you brought up was incomparable to the type and magnitude of development in the points I brought up with oil/electricity and comparable technologies awaiting us in the future. Not that it was completely irrelevant, but that it's a square peg in a round hole as far as this debate is concerned. it doesn't quite fit.
    I cannot stess enough the nature of exponential growth. Maybe this will hit you: By the year 2600 the world's population will be standing shoulder to shoulder if the current trend of growth continues.

    Also, my data was 100% relevant because it incorporated technological advancement alongside of population growth! And even with technological advancement of massive proportions, the earth is still limited by size in many ways (which I have covered), and is limited in resources. The new technology will be very demanding in resources and will be limited as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    3. When I said light, I meant the use of ARTIFICIAL light; you know, like those little compact fluorescent bulbs that CA is now forced to use to help the environment and curb Global Cooling/warming/fart/excrement, despite the oh so friendly toxic chemicals within them. Plants could theoretically be grown in controlled environments like greenhouses (and no, stop thinking about the "greenhouse effect") in environments formerly useless for crop production, DURING ANY SEASON. This isn't typically done now (especially not in poorer countries) because there are vast limits in the amount of energy that can be used to maintain such environments in the large spaces required. Artificial heating, cooling, and lighting all require and energy source, and that is what makes such agriculture methods completely impractical because of the costs. An advance in energy technology on the scale I'm talking about, however, would all but eliminate that problem and open the doors for MASSIVE advancements in artificial agricultural techniques. Add to that plants don't technically REQUIRE soil. They require nutrients. That is why we have something called hydroponics where nutrients are provided with nothing but water. It's a very good alternative to using soil, and is even used in space. I know what I'm talking about with this stuff. I've been in horticulture for nearly a decade, and I know how this ish works.
    Your speculation that suddenly everything will suddenly change and everything will be okay is highly optimistic. I do however find the prospect of growing food in space as interesting, though it would be highly impractical and resource dependent. And once again, a massive improvement in technology of epic proportions doesn't stop people from having too many babies, you have to accept the finitude of resources and space on our planet...

    Only 17% of earth's land surface remains unaffected by human beings.

    Almost all usable agricultural land (3.7 billion acres, some sources say more, others less) is already being cultivated (remember, not all land is suitable to grow crops, and greenhouses will not be practical on a global scale), this number could increase (by approx. 13% at current technological growth levels) but would be resource dependent and therefore costly.

    One acre of farmland grows enough food for two people for a year.. think about it.. there is only so far we can improve this statistic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    4. Are we really debating about the merits of eugenics? I mean really???
    It is highly important to the future of our species, unless we want to just let our population get out of hand and then regulate itself the natural way (starvation, famine, disease, war).

  2. #12
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    BY THE YEAR 2600!? DO YOU REALLY THINK WE WILL NOT HAVE COLONIZED OTHER PLANETS BY THE YEAR 2600!?!!!?! IF WE DON'T I GUARANTEE YOU WE WILL HAVE BEEN DEPOPULATED BY SOME NATURAL DISASTER IN THOSE 600 FREAKING YEARS! Jeez... As for the rest of it, I've grown tired of it. Hopefully someone else can chime in in my place, pro-depopulation or not -_- .

    *and no I'm not yelling, my capslock was on, and I don't feel like retyping.*

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    BY THE YEAR 2600!? DO YOU REALLY THINK WE WILL NOT HAVE COLONIZED OTHER PLANETS BY THE YEAR 2600!?!!!?! IF WE DON'T I GUARANTEE YOU WE WILL HAVE BEEN DEPOPULATED BY SOME NATURAL DISASTER IN THOSE 600 FREAKING YEARS! Jeez... As for the rest of it, I've grown tired of it. Hopefully someone else can chime in in my place, pro-depopulation or not -_- .

    *and no I'm not yelling, my capslock was on, and I don't feel like retyping.*
    Colonizing other planets will be quite difficult if Mars doesn't work out, the distances we're talking of here are astronomically large, even with spaceships that travel relatively close to the speed of light.

    As for depopulation, yes, there are many things that can go wrong. War, famine, plague, starvation, natural disasters, etc, what we need to do is prevent catastrophe from happening in the future (obviously the natural disaster element is independent), it is unacceptable to pursue instant gratification (cheap oil, using resources inefficiently or wasting them, etc) at the cost of making future generations suffer or possibly be wiped out completely by drastic climate change that could have been prevented.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Also, I understand that you do not believe in said climate change, so that is where we will end this I guess, because as you said before it is a different debate.

    Edit: In hindsight, I should have brought up Water availiability

  5. #15
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,670

    Default

    To be honest I think that world as it is can't support as much people as there are.
    At this moment things are more or less fine but we are destroying more then it can be created what will destabilize the system. On much higher tech. level it can be done but on current tech level draining of the planet is inevitable. Which of course leads to capital problems.

  6. #16
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Thank God that 1) population growth rates do NOT increase or hold for half-millennia at a time; and 2) people have less children as their societies become wealthier.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  7. #17
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    2) people have less children as their societies become wealthier.
    That is the actuall problem we created populations that are made of billions of people and now we are trying to get them more wealthy.
    I am sorry but from chemical perspective this is nonsense strategy.

  8. #18
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,908

    Default

    Well, it has been shown that countries with rampant and inscure reproduction are also generally more impoverished...

    As with all corelative findings, we will now debate which came first.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  9. #19
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Well, it has been shown that countries with rampant and inscure reproduction are also generally more impoverished...

    As with all corelative findings, we will now debate which came first.
    I believe the answer is that wealth causes lower incentives to have children. I remember reading about how more people also lowers the incentive for technological change, due to the abundance of lower cost labor. The interactive effect is that higher wealth leads to a higher cost of raising children, as they return less to their parents (this summarizes a lot of factors), which leads to a smaller growing and more costly workforce, which leads to technological growth.

    As for the OP, it's not eugenics. Making something available to those that can not afford it when it is available at a reasonable cost for the rest of the population (relative to income in both cases) is not selective, not identifying genes and is not interventionary. It fails all parts of the definition.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Erudur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    Y...And even if the climate change we are experiencing is completely natural (which has been proven wrong empirically)
    I now use phrases like this to identify those who have no idea what they are talking about. Spend a little time reading about all the falsifying of temperature data, ocean level data, dubious selction of data sets, etc.

    Then look at all the satellite temperature data and look at its correlation to solar activity...I could go on and on. Just spend some time reading the critical response to the anthropogenic global warming alarmists.

    At a minimum, the debate still has many questions left unanswered.

    The data actually suggests we are entering into a multi-decade cooling trend that started about 8 years ago and should completely wipe out all the temperature change that has occurred since the 70s and more.

Similar Threads

  1. SCOTUS ruling clears the way to free birth control for women with religious employers
    By Kheledon in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 05-20-2016, 11:34 PM
  2. [NT] So.. if life's a bitch, then am I wrong for trying to enjoy the ride?
    By mysavior in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 07-03-2011, 06:59 PM
  3. Was it “politically expedient” for Obama to “accept” the Nobel Peace Prize
    By Vizconde in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 169
    Last Post: 10-13-2009, 05:28 PM
  4. Happy Birth-Day to the MacBaby!
    By Geoff in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 01-18-2009, 11:26 PM
  5. Who/What is to blame for McCain's decline in the polls?
    By ajblaise in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 10-28-2008, 07:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO