Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6  [ show all ]
InvisibleYellow Pants
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc: Flag
Re: Does it make any sense to say that Earth is not overpopulated? [Re: nooneman]
    #26875047 - 08/11/20 12:38 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

nooneman said:
The earth is clearly overpopulated relative to our current technological and social advancement. If we were more advanced technologically or socially then we could sustain more people, but we're not (yet). Lucky for us, the population in most developed countries is falling rapidly, likely because generally when an animal species has a higher population than its environment can sustain, it's population falls. I think we're subject to the same basic rule, except that the population we can sustain is dependent upon our technology and the nature of our society.

Ancient civilizations, for example, could only support much smaller populations (and even ran into problems sustaining these populations) with the same amount of resources that we sustain much larger populations. What changed and allowed us to support larger populations was the development of technology (factories, civil engineering, cars/trucks/trains, systems of massive national and international trade, more efficient economies, etc. etc.) and our society. Now, once again we've reached and surpassed the limit of the number of people that our current level of advancement will allow us to sustain, and so naturally our population will decrease over time. This could all be turned around with the invention of new technology, or major social progress, but since we seem to be stalled on both fronts...




I fear that social progress isn't going anywhere for awhile.  Technology will probably keep humming along, but without the perceptual and philosophical progress it could spell disaster.  Granted, disaster might be a fun time, so long as the spirits keep up, but probably not.  Not sure what actually develops that sphere anyway.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,851
Re: Does it make any sense to say that Earth is not overpopulated? [Re: nooneman]
    #26875072 - 08/11/20 12:52 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

nooneman said:
The earth is clearly overpopulated relative to our current technological and social advancement. If we were more advanced technologically or socially then we could sustain more people, but we're not (yet). Lucky for us, the population in most developed countries is falling rapidly, likely because generally when an animal species has a higher population than its environment can sustain, it's population falls. I think we're subject to the same basic rule, except that the population we can sustain is dependent upon our technology and the nature of our society.

Ancient civilizations, for example, could only support much smaller populations (and even ran into problems sustaining these populations) with the same amount of resources that we sustain much larger populations. What changed and allowed us to support larger populations was the development of technology (factories, civil engineering, cars/trucks/trains, systems of massive national and international trade, more efficient economies, etc. etc.) and our society. Now, once again we've reached and surpassed the limit of the number of people that our current level of advancement will allow us to sustain, and so naturally our population will decrease over time. This could all be turned around with the invention of new technology, or major social progress, but since we seem to be stalled on both fronts...





Good points. I'm often annoyed when people say, "aw hell yeah, let's have a couple billion more. We have the resources to support them!" But as you point out, neither the social infrastructure, nor the appropriate technology, exist to bring everyone in the world to a higher standard of living. One could even make the argument that this is physically impossible, but that's the subject of another thread. But the argument, it seems, for the last several decades is that we can support everyone and more. And I always wonder: When is this going to happen?!


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: Does it make any sense to say that Earth is not overpopulated? [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26876970 - 08/12/20 02:14 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)

.    An aspect that is ignored in all such discussions, has 2 sub aspects, but one head

.    Vast populations don't like each other
from the micro level to the macro level

.    Once this is pointed out, we all, can realize this is more the reality, than the opposite - and it is found on both the trivial level - of sports teams - to the Middle East situation - to the inability of the UN to accomplish much.

.    One might say there are 2 aspects
and that the 2nd confirms the first  -- What follows is a quote & statement, and a few links to show I am not just being negative.

"Furthermore, unless you define wars to exclude conflicts between tribes and clans, it is hard to image a period of no wars. Someone was fighting someone some place on this planet since modern man appears in the fossil record about 100,000 years ago."
https://www.quora.com/Has-there-ever-been-a-period-in-history-in-which-war-didnt-exist-If-so-how-do-we-know?share=1

and ... for example:
America Has Been at War 93% of the Time – 222 out of 239 Years – Since 1776
https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/5565946

and ... for example:

https://www.ancient.eu/war/

.    So due to the reality, that humans are the most aggressive species (true some animals  are more cannibalistic (and some parasites are truly horrible (but they have no self awareness)) - but no other animals have the following constellation of violent and cruel behaviors ( although ants have war and slavery):

torture
constant war
periodic genocide
slavery


things animals can't do - but never-the-less show human nature for what it is:
human trafficking
prisons
racism at many levels
child labor
genital mutilation of women
invention of many machines for torture
(including factory farms)
a religion who's main image is of a man being tortured
invention of many machines for killing on the individual level
invention of many machines for killing at various massive scales
bio weapons
chemical weapons
invention of weapons for creating nuclear winter, and making the entire planet uninhabitable for all (radioactivity) causing a constant potential threat of constant total annihilation….

.  What Jung called the shadow or
.  What Robert Lewis Stevenson called "Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" or
.  What Stanley Milgram & Philip Zimbardo found from their experiments

.    This is the stuff we prefer to ignore, which is proven by the fact that the subject of how many humans are ideal on the planet has just been taken seriously for pages, while ignoring the fact that most adult humans, (just like small children), can't be left alone together, for any great length of time, without multiple control mechanisms, like government, police, and religion, in place to curb their murderous impulses.

(  by 2 aspects or heads I mean:
1 ) all individual violence, or violence below the level of war. and
2)  war itself involving armies and nations. I suppose all the industries that support these efforts could be called a 3rd aspect, and then the poisoning of the planet a 4th...but so what? 
.  The main point is very simple, it is that the human brain freed homo sapiens from control by nature, which regulates all animal populations, (so that, for example) rabbits and foxes stay in balance, cycling from year to year - but within a stable range.
.  So then being free, due to power of intellect, but not having any mechanisms for emotional balance or control, or a strong enough intellect for self insight and repair, and having a very aggressive pedigree, due to being naked, and being fairly small, and having no large teeth or claws, and needing to compensate for vulnerability, with aggressiveness and having no control over it, homo sapiens has a really mean streak, as all the action movies in the US for example reflect.
.    In the case of frogs, toads, and some lizards, the animals compensate for small size and vulnerability, by inflating a throat sack and / or hissing. It is a sudden threatening response. And certainly must be accompanied by a flood of adrenaline or its equivalent in their species.
.  Humans on the African Savana a million or so years ago were in a similar position, with the Savana being well populated with both large carnivorous predators, and other large and poisonous animals. We have changed little - just substituted all the forms of aggression listed above for an inflated throat sack, along with an inability to control stress. The inability to control stress, is the achilles heel, of a only partially refurbished brain; but the result is that human aggression is as often as not on a hair trigger.

.    In conclusion it seems to me the invention of weapons for creating nuclear winter, and making the entire planet uninhabitable for all (radioactivity) causing a constant potential threat of constant total annihilation, which would show this whole question to be .... chose your own word______.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,851
Re: Does it make any sense to say that Earth is not overpopulated? [Re: laughingdog]
    #26877244 - 08/12/20 05:35 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)

Well I maintain, and it seems there are only a few of us left who do, that nuclear holocaust is the number one threat of extinction to our species, and that, therefore, nuclear non-proliferation is essentially still the most central issue. Humans have built these things, and as t approaches a statistically large enough number, the whole shithouse will have to go up, based purely upon mathematical principles coupled with known human behavior. Humans usually, sooner or later, find uses for what they create. Who knows what the time variable is, but all things being equal, I think this thinking is accurate.

And they're not going anywhere. So the only way, that I can see, for humans to become disengaged from "the button," is for artificial intelligence to reach an independent and sophisticated enough state to forbid us from ever using nukes. They would be like a circuit-breaker for man's uncheckable instincts. How plausible such a thing is is, of course, a matter of opinion. But the threat of nuclear holocaust makes things like climate change, ecological devastation and overpopulation look like simple trifles. Those could with high likelihood be survived by a number of people. Nuclear holocaust cannot be survived by a single soul.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: Does it make any sense to say that Earth is not overpopulated? [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26877336 - 08/12/20 06:41 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)

.  A particularly scary thing about nukes is that like Russian roulette, the risk cannot be quantified.
There are a number of wild cards.

1) Nuclear subs with nuclear missiles, raise a number of questions:
number of subs, number of nations with them, & number of missiles unknown.
But what is known, is that as you say DQ, they can go on firing, long after all the bases on land are wiped out, so that no one is left.

2) the role of computers, in controlling all types of nuclear weapons is unknown, and their hackibility is unknown

3) the stability of the 9 governments,  that have these weapons,
are in question: the United States, Russia , the United Kingdom, France, China. India, Pakistan, North Korea, & Israel. As is the mental stability of some of the leaders of these countries.

4) How age has effected the guidance systems, and computers in the missiles is unknown

5) How age has effected the guidance systems that are in related satellites is unknown

6) how EMF from solar flares might effect such systems is unknown

7) how vulnerable nuclear power plants are to terrorism and earthquakes is unknown.

8) whether all nuclear material was accounted for after the fall of the Soviet Union is unknown

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,851
Re: Does it make any sense to say that Earth is not overpopulated? [Re: laughingdog]
    #26877408 - 08/12/20 07:28 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)

Yes it's depressing and scary.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,953
Last seen: 2 days, 14 hours
Re: Does it make any sense to say that Earth is not overpopulated? [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26877461 - 08/12/20 08:08 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)

Maybe some of you are already familiar with the Kardashev scale but I just was introduced to it the other day.

In my short time learning this, it seems a shifted perspective would place the operable terms not as under or overpopulated. But rather under and over utilized. If we have maximized our utilization of energy on Earth, then expansion is on deck. If expansion fails, then the energy on earth will be over-utilized and result in issues and civilization be considered a net failure. If expansion succeeds, then new sources of energy are being under-utilized and offer new paths forwards for civilization.

I like this because it plays into human nature. We are expansionist creatures. We do gobble up resources at increasing rates when we can. And so it does seem as though a human civilization will thrive on expansionism and resource growth regardless of starting or ending population. 


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: Does it make any sense to say that Earth is not overpopulated? [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26878295 - 08/13/20 10:58 AM (3 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Yes it's depressing and scary.





apparently a reactor in England fucked up:
"The Dounreay Materials Test Reactor (DMTR) achieved criticality, a nuclear term referring to the balance of neutrons in the system, in 1958."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-53763880?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology&link_location=live-reporting-story

so "#7)  how vulnerable nuclear power plants are to terrorism and earthquakes is unknown."

needs to be expanded to include:  failures of nuclear power plants themselves,

I only knew of 2 such cases previously -- boy was I mistaken:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country

"Globally, there have been at least 99 (civilian and military) recorded nuclear power plant accidents from 1952 to 2009"

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=list+of+failure+of+nuclear+power+plants&t=hx&ia=web&iai=r1-0&page=1&adx=prdsdc&sexp=%7B%22v7exp%22%3A%22a%22%2C%22sltexp%22%3A%22b%22%2C%22prodexp%22%3A%22b%22%2C%22prdsdexp%22%3A%22c%22%2C%22wiadrk%22%3A%22b%22%2C%22langexp%22%3A%22b%22%7D

as well as numerous problems with nuclear waste disposal itself

Edited by laughingdog (08/13/20 11:00 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,851
Re: Does it make any sense to say that Earth is not overpopulated? [Re: laughingdog]
    #26878359 - 08/13/20 11:35 AM (3 years, 7 months ago)

Oh God, the nuclear waste problem is catastrophic. I only know about it in the U.S., but my Mom worked for the Department of Energy for decades, and we still have not properly stored our waste from weapons development 40s-present. There are huge vats of plutonium by-products at Hanford, in Washington State. Just sitting there. For decades.

One idea was to store some of it in salt-lined caverns in New Mexico, but that was never finalized. The main idea was to store it all (getting it there by rail and truck, carefully) at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but the locals would always balk and stonewall. The politicians pandered to this. Now, we've got to put it somewhere -- high-level waste is not safe just sitting in temporary containers at various places in the country. Yucca Mountain was legitimately thought to be a viable spot, because of its minimal seismic activity and total desolation.

The plan was to dig down thousands of feet, put it all in there and seal it, finding every way possible for it to remain there untouched for 40,000 years (the minimum safe disposal period, after which it becomes low-level). I guess that means a lot of signs? I don't know, but Nevadans aren't having it, and the problem remains unresolved.

Some of the shit this country has done is really staggering.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,851
Re: Does it make any sense to say that Earth is not overpopulated? [Re: Kickle]
    #26878893 - 08/13/20 04:36 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Kickle said:
Maybe some of you are already familiar with the Kardashev scale but I just was introduced to it the other day.

In my short time learning this, it seems a shifted perspective would place the operable terms not as under or overpopulated. But rather under and over utilized. If we have maximized our utilization of energy on Earth, then expansion is on deck. If expansion fails, then the energy on earth will be over-utilized and result in issues and civilization be considered a net failure. If expansion succeeds, then new sources of energy are being under-utilized and offer new paths forwards for civilization.

I like this because it plays into human nature. We are expansionist creatures. We do gobble up resources at increasing rates when we can. And so it does seem as though a human civilization will thrive on expansionism and resource growth regardless of starting or ending population. 





I am not familiar with it, but it's clearly logical. Marvin Harris talks about the four key factors in developing societies: production, reproduction, intensification and depletion. It is his contention that almost all elements of cultural evolution can be explained through these factors, although of course the permutations and specifics can be complex and vary across cultures.

It does seem that growth in humans societies is a salient theme, although there have been several that remained approximately level or even declined over time. Certainly, most historical societies, both East and West, have been involved with a continuous and more or less steady rate of growth, and therefore  escalating modes of production, higher populations and intensification of producing resources.

Of course the Earth is finite, so even with brilliant modes of production and intensification, it will have to top out at some point. The current estimates are 10-12 billion I believe. So we have the choice of exporting unending growth to other planets, or getting our civilization a bit more balanced. I think the latter approach is clearly more pressing.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: Does it make any sense to say that Earth is not overpopulated? [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26879387 - 08/13/20 11:21 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
...., and the problem remains unresolved.

Some of the shit this country has done is really staggering.




indeed -- and transporting the stuff (if a place is found that accepts it) on public roads, is also not without serious hazards

and yet it is still taken seriously as a safe alternative power source.

- - - - - -

Are there too many humans?, if by this we mean intelligent & educated (mature, kind & responsible beings, that are also free of nationalism, pride, superstitious beliefs, greed, & fear) animals on the planet, there are no such beings, that occur regularly in isolation, or  that occur regularly in small groups.
Such more awakened beings only occur as exceptions, and often prefer to remain unnoticed. So the question doesn't really apply to what is usually meant by a human population.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: Does it make any sense to say that Earth is not overpopulated? [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26879397 - 08/13/20 11:35 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
...I am not familiar with it, but it's clearly logical. Marvin Harris talks about the four key factors in developing societies: production, reproduction, intensification and depletion. ...




Well they all end with depletion. And all empires end. Endless expansion is a sci-fi fantasy, or a religion for capitalists, which makes no sense.

Marvin Harris goes into details about the stages of depletion of resources and environmental degradation in culture after culture, location after location, & time after time -- and of course we already see the pattern repeating in the current generations world wide.

The consumption of processed foods and resultant declining health (even pre covid) as a result, in the richest country on the planet, is just an ironic twist on the same old pattern.

see for example, on youtube, if interested:
"Is a Calorie a Calorie? Processed Food, Experiment Gone Wrong"
with
Robert Lustig, MD, is Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at University of California, San Francisco, and the author of Fat Chance: Beating the Odds against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease.

Christopher Gardner, PhD, Professor (Research) of Medicine is a nutrition researcher at the Stanford Prevention Research Center whose research has been investigating the potential health benefits of various dietary components or food patterns, explored in the context of randomized controlled trials in free-living adult populations

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,851
Re: Does it make any sense to say that Earth is not overpopulated? [Re: laughingdog]
    #26879743 - 08/14/20 08:29 AM (3 years, 7 months ago)

All good points.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,953
Last seen: 2 days, 14 hours
Re: Does it make any sense to say that Earth is not overpopulated? [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #26880545 - 08/14/20 06:25 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
I am not familiar with it, but it's clearly logical. Marvin Harris talks about the four key factors in developing societies: production, reproduction, intensification and depletion. It is his contention that almost all elements of cultural evolution can be explained through these factors, although of course the permutations and specifics can be complex and vary across cultures.

It does seem that growth in humans societies is a salient theme, although there have been several that remained approximately level or even declined over time. Certainly, most historical societies, both East and West, have been involved with a continuous and more or less steady rate of growth, and therefore  escalating modes of production, higher populations and intensification of producing resources.

Of course the Earth is finite, so even with brilliant modes of production and intensification, it will have to top out at some point. The current estimates are 10-12 billion I believe. So we have the choice of exporting unending growth to other planets, or getting our civilization a bit more balanced. I think the latter approach is clearly more pressing.




What is happening right now is humanity at work. Growth and expansion won the day and the process continues. Natural selection has shown it's hand on desirable traits in humans. I don't think anyone can deny that the traits which thrive in humanity are the one's which oppose stagnation. And if anyone here doesn't possess a propensity towards growth and expansion in some area of their life I'd be very surprised.

As it stands the predominant nations which determine the course right now are much more invested in expansion than sustainability. How many countries just launched rockets to Mars? It just lines up with what's going on IMO

And if expansionist tendencies are destined for failure, then no inter-stellar species could ever meet. In which case I'm going to go play with the Dolphins :peace:


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Does it make any sense to say that Earth is not overpopulated? [Re: Kickle] * 1
    #26881065 - 08/15/20 05:20 AM (3 years, 7 months ago)

let's climb out of covid, then xenophobia, then the environment, and everything else that is not fair or wise


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: Does it make any sense to say that Earth is not overpopulated? [Re: Kickle]
    #26883633 - 08/16/20 03:17 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Kickle said:
Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
I am not familiar with it, but it's clearly logical. Marvin Harris talks about the four key factors in developing societies: production, reproduction, intensification and depletion. It is his contention that almost all elements of cultural evolution can be explained through these factors, although of course the permutations and specifics can be complex and vary across cultures.

It does seem that growth in humans societies is a salient theme, although there have been several that remained approximately level or even declined over time. Certainly, most historical societies, both East and West, have been involved with a continuous and more or less steady rate of growth, and therefore  escalating modes of production, higher populations and intensification of producing resources.

Of course the Earth is finite, so even with brilliant modes of production and intensification, it will have to top out at some point. The current estimates are 10-12 billion I believe. So we have the choice of exporting unending growth to other planets, or getting our civilization a bit more balanced. I think the latter approach is clearly more pressing.




What is happening right now is humanity at work. Growth and expansion won the day and the process continues. Natural selection has shown it's hand on desirable traits in humans. I don't think anyone can deny that the traits which thrive in humanity are the one's which oppose stagnation. And if anyone here doesn't possess a propensity towards growth and expansion in some area of their life I'd be very surprised.

As it stands the predominant nations which determine the course right now are much more invested in expansion than sustainability. How many countries just launched rockets to Mars? It just lines up with what's going on IMO

And if expansionist tendencies are destined for failure, then no inter-stellar species could ever meet. In which case I'm going to go play with the Dolphins :peace:




.    Who had the most offspring? And thus passed on the most genes, that make up humans today. The answer is the most alpha guy: a rapist, warmonger, pillager, and all around nastiest guy. His name was Genghis Khan. Recent genetics discoveries showed this. Its easy to look up & verify.
.    Whether human's destroy so much of their natural habitat that only hoards of very similar sissified city dwellers think lots of glitzy technology makes a more wonderful world than that of nature with a sparser more differentiated population, really doesn't matter, as the same nasty selfish genes we got, partly from Genghis Khan, and his like, will remain, hard at work just beneath the clothes, of the "hairless" primate: homo sapiens.

Edited by laughingdog (08/16/20 03:23 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepineninja
Dream Weaver
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/14
Posts: 12,468
Loc: South Flag
Re: Does it make any sense to say that Earth is not overpopulated? [Re: laughingdog]
    #26883816 - 08/16/20 06:40 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)

Based on that theory it's amazing we still have the elegance to even question our own destructiveness....almost as surprising as the fact we aren't all much stronger Mongols.


--------------------
Just a fool on the hill.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: Does it make any sense to say that Earth is not overpopulated? [Re: pineninja]
    #26883836 - 08/16/20 07:00 PM (3 years, 7 months ago)

Not so surprising
we are a random mix of aggressive garbage,
and forebrain processing power, that randomly comes online.

But yes, we are not consistent, reliable, or mature,
so what we get at any moment,
is to some degree unexpected or unpredictable.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Overpopulation and Philosophy (of the Future) *DELETED*
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Lakefingers 8,054 125 11/16/09 02:52 PM
by Conaman12
* world overpopulation
( 1 2 3 all )
dalorean 5,234 59 07/16/02 02:29 PM
by francisco
* Overpopulation and Diminishing Resources
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Swami 5,937 88 06/05/04 07:50 PM
by Swami
* Poobles...(musings on solving the overpopulation problem)
( 1 2 3 all )
MJF 2,925 45 03/27/09 04:50 PM
by Kukaracha
* Overpopulation is not a problem.
( 1 2 all )
xFrockx 1,947 36 07/01/18 12:35 AM
by Peyote Road
* overpopulation true or false?
( 1 2 all )
fuzzysig 3,482 35 10/06/15 12:13 AM
by laughingdog
* Overpopulation Myths
( 1 2 all )
spud 2,623 32 05/18/05 11:59 AM
by question_for_joo
* Overpopulation?
( 1 2 all )
Mr.Monsanto 2,380 29 04/24/12 02:42 PM
by Freedom

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,752 topic views. 1 members, 4 guests and 19 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.