|
Madtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers


Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
|
Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about?
#5478645 - 04/04/06 10:30 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Interesting story. The guy is totally correct. We are "Breeding our brains out", and nobody wants to do anything about it....
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/04/04/doomsday.professor.ap/index.html
Quote:
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Talk radio and blogs are taking aim at a University of Texas biology professor because of a published report suggesting he advocates death for most of the human population as a means of saving the Earth.
However, Eric Pianka says his remarks about his beliefs were taken out of context, that he was just raising a warning that deadly disease epidemics are a threat if population growth isn't contained.
"What we really need to do is start thinking about controlling our population before it's too late," he said Monday. "It's already too late, but we're not even thinking about it. We're just mindlessly rushing ahead breeding our brains out."
Pianka, who has gotten vitriolic e-mails and even a death threat, said he believes the Earth would be better off if there were fewer people using up natural resources and destroying habitats.
The furor began when The Gazette-Enterprise of Seguin, Texas, reported Sunday on two speeches Pianka made last month to groups of scientists and students about vanishing animal habitats and the exploding human population.
That report was circulated widely and posted on "The Drudge Report," then quickly became talk radio fodder.
The Gazette-Enterprise quoted Pianka as saying disease "will control the scourge of humanity. We're looking forward to a huge collapse."
It said he weighed the killing power of various diseases such as bird flu and HIV but decided neither would yield the needed results.
"HIV is too slow. It's no good," he said.
Pianka said that doesn't mean he wants most humans to die.
However, Forrest Mims, an amateur scientist, author and chairman of the Texas Academy of Science's environmental science section, told The Associated Press there was no mistaking Pianka's disdain for humans and desire for their elimination in the speech he heard.
"He wishes for it. He hopes for it. He laughs about it. He jokes about it," Mims said. "It's got to happen because we are the scourge of humanity."
Pianka was expressing his own opinion, University of Texas spokesman Don Hale said.
"Dr. Pianka has First Amendment rights to express his point of view," Hale said. "We have plenty of faculty with a lot of different points of view and they have the right to express that point of view, but they're expressing their personal point of view."
-------------------- After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action. If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it. - Ernest Hemingway If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it. In the law courts, in business, in government. There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent. -Cormac MacCarthy He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus
|
daimyo
Monticello

Registered: 05/13/04
Posts: 7,751
Last seen: 12 years, 20 hours
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Madtowntripper]
#5478656 - 04/04/06 10:33 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Everyone that complained about it should be on top of the list of people to go.
--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: daimyo]
#5478699 - 04/04/06 10:52 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I have no problem with pre-conception population control, but I don't like the idea of playing mother nature and selecting which babies get to live and which do not. China has gotten their problem mostly under control, but India is going to be a world wide nightmare in the next twenty years or so... no way around it without a good crisis to kill off a large portion of the population.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
curenado
73rd Man


Registered: 04/01/03
Posts: 2,603
Loc: North Central Arkansas
Last seen: 8 months, 23 days
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Seuss]
#5478715 - 04/04/06 10:59 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
<<The Gazette-Enterprise quoted Pianka as saying disease "will control the scourge of humanity. We're looking forward to a huge collapse." It said he weighed the killing power of various diseases such as bird flu and HIV but decided neither would yield the needed results.>>
That is true I think. Disease epidemic by itself cannot destroy enough of us and even if it did, what a corpse dump it would create. I wonder if he ever figured what the mass corpse impact would have on the air, environment, remaining animals and humans? Also, IF there is to be a huge collapse - where is it? why hasn't it happened already? China is a perfect example - yet they live???? I remain uncertain that this thing has been sighted correctly.
-------------------- Yours in the Natural State! "The woods are lovely, dark and deep; but I have patches to keep, and jars to sterilize before I sleep...."
|
automan
blasted chipmunk


Registered: 09/18/03
Posts: 8,272
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Seuss]
#5478782 - 04/04/06 11:25 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
i have never seen a problem with population sizes. i remember about 20 years ago there was a huge advertising campaign saying the world was going to go to crap soon if it wasnt handled. but we developed crops that yielded sooo much more food and what not. i think mother nature will always provide a path towards equilibrium.... even if that means killing 20% of the worlds population via disease.
as for disposal of bodies as mentioned above, if would be like it has been in every other great pandemic in the past. there would be fires running 24/7 until all the bodies were burned. i imagine we put more harmful agents in the air everyday than would be the result of burning one billion human bodies.
-------------------- No, no, you're not thinking, you're just being logical. ~ Niels Bohr
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: automan]
#5479182 - 04/04/06 01:23 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
> i have never seen a problem with population sizes
Visit India... 'nuff said.
> i remember about 20 years ago there was a huge advertising campaign saying the world was going to go to crap soon if it wasnt handled.
... and, you think the world isn't going downhill pretty quickly? We have already crossed the peak and are picking up speed on the downhill swing.
> i think mother nature will always provide a path towards equilibrium....
I agree with you here, 100%. I doubt humans will be around once mother nature balances the equation.
> if would be like it has been in every other great pandemic in the past.
No, it wouldn't. There are several billion more people today than there were during the last flu pandemic. If the same percentage of people died today as died the last time around, the bodies would be stacked much, much higher. However, because people live so much closer together, and because of global travel, the percentage of people would also be much higher. The only saving grace is if science/medicine can mitigate the effects, which I find highly doubtful without more time.
> i imagine we put more harmful agents in the air everyday than would be the result of burning one billion human bodies.
The least of my concerns with corpse disposal is air pollution. It takes a lot of energy to burn a human body. That is a lot oil, coal, etc. It also takes a lot of time to burn a human body. Multiple the time it takes, the energy it takes, and the number of bodies, and you will start to see the problem. The system would fall apart leaving corpses rotting in the streets. Large pits and natural fungi would probably be the best disposal method... though I wouldn't want to be pulling ground water from the area. Not a very pleasent thought, but such is the reality of having to dispose of hundreds of millions of bodies.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
curenado
73rd Man


Registered: 04/01/03
Posts: 2,603
Loc: North Central Arkansas
Last seen: 8 months, 23 days
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Seuss]
#5479447 - 04/04/06 02:43 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
<<i think mother nature will always provide a path towards equilibrium....>>
<<I agree with you here, 100%. I doubt humans will be around once mother nature balances the equation>>
LOL! I think the traditional formula is: - GAIA provoked slays offending Adam -
or that's what it was when I went to school...
There are a large number of borderline areas in our current bio environment. The real crunch occurs when too many of these coincide. Flu, and any other virus cannot equal more than 30% of our imminent health threats. Bacteria of nasty and pernicious nature are rising along with fungi and molds. Some we have not seen before and rapidly invading the brain. They gave new definition to "antibiotic resistant". In natural environments like ours here, bacteria in the wild are becoming increasingly "resistant" also. at any rate and on subject - I cannot think that more than 1/3 of the human population - varying percentages in varying sites - but no more than 1/3 not only by the epidemics, but also with attending casulaties from famine/violence/exposure etc. The hundred other things that get people as a result of the first thing they avoided...
-------------------- Yours in the Natural State! "The woods are lovely, dark and deep; but I have patches to keep, and jars to sterilize before I sleep...."
|
automan
blasted chipmunk


Registered: 09/18/03
Posts: 8,272
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Seuss]
#5479472 - 04/04/06 02:58 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > i have never seen a problem with population sizes
Visit India... 'nuff said.
visit siberia... 'nuff said
Quote:
> i remember about 20 years ago there was a huge advertising campaign saying the world was going to go to crap soon if it wasnt handled.
... and, you think the world isn't going downhill pretty quickly? We have already crossed the peak and are picking up speed on the downhill swing.
i dont see that at all. some areas of the world have huge populations, but some HUGE parts of the world have very little people.
Quote:
> i think mother nature will always provide a path towards equilibrium....
I agree with you here, 100%. I doubt humans will be around once mother nature balances the equation.
i suspect we are more resiliant than you think
Quote:
> if would be like it has been in every other great pandemic in the past.
No, it wouldn't. There are several billion more people today than there were during the last flu pandemic. If the same percentage of people died today as died the last time around, the bodies would be stacked much, much higher. However, because people live so much closer together, and because of global travel, the percentage of people would also be much higher. The only saving grace is if science/medicine can mitigate the effects, which I find highly doubtful without more time.
while we would have more people dead, we also would have more people working on disposal. we also have technologies now that they didnt have then... plastic comes to mind. in a strange universe, i could see teams driving pickup trucks through the streets with big vacuum sealers sealing bodies until the disposal team comes through.
Quote:
> i imagine we put more harmful agents in the air everyday than would be the result of burning one billion human bodies.
The least of my concerns with corpse disposal is air pollution. It takes a lot of energy to burn a human body. That is a lot oil, coal, etc. It also takes a lot of time to burn a human body. Multiple the time it takes, the energy it takes, and the number of bodies, and you will start to see the problem. The system would fall apart leaving corpses rotting in the streets. Large pits and natural fungi would probably be the best disposal method... though I wouldn't want to be pulling ground water from the area. Not a very pleasent thought, but such is the reality of having to dispose of hundreds of millions of bodies.
see above.
-------------------- No, no, you're not thinking, you're just being logical. ~ Niels Bohr
|
badchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: automan]
#5479658 - 04/04/06 03:54 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
It's not necessarily about disposing of bodies. It's more about resources.
google "world population growth" and you'll see that the population is growing exponentially. With this in mind you'll see that the amount of time it takes the population to double is decreasing.
Look at how many people are impoverished due to lack of resources today. Now imagine that the population will double in a (relatively) short time.
-------------------- ...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did. Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27. ...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely. Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: automan]
#5479693 - 04/04/06 04:03 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I remember seeing a chart of population growth in the 60's in elementary school. The chart almost looked like it was going straight up by the year 2000. It looked scary. So far, the population explosion hasn't lead to any mass epidemics or famines.
Over the weekend I saw something on the history channel about the plague that swept through Europe in the 1300's. They even had a lot of scenes of the Flagelletes whipping themselves, roaming the country side, taking over churches and attacking Jews. A lot of Jews were burnt at the stake because of religious fanaticism. It looked pretty scary. Years later, it turned out to be good for laborers since there was a labor shortage and a lot of serfs could leave the land and even own their own land. This also helped lead to the Renaissance, too, according to the TV show. So a good ethnic cleansing seemed to be a good thing at the time.
|
ZombieJesus
Strangest

Registered: 03/10/06
Posts: 59
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: automan]
#5479866 - 04/04/06 05:03 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
visit siberia... 'nuff said
i dont see that at all. some areas of the world have huge populations, but some HUGE parts of the world have very little people.
Overpopulation isn't neccessarily about availability of living space. It's about availability and access to resources like clean water and airable land. We're never going to reach the point where we run out of livable space.
-------------------- This is an exercise in narcissistic paranoia.
|
automan
blasted chipmunk


Registered: 09/18/03
Posts: 8,272
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: ZombieJesus]
#5480018 - 04/04/06 06:06 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
when we cant feed everyone, people will naturally starve to death. there is a reason there isnt over population of wolves... when too many wolves are born, the deer population (food) shrinks... and visa versa.
-------------------- No, no, you're not thinking, you're just being logical. ~ Niels Bohr
|
Colonel Kurtz Ph.D
What What?

Registered: 07/22/04
Posts: 11,113
Loc: Shadow Moses
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: automan]
#5480764 - 04/04/06 09:32 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
But it doesn't work that way with humas -yet. It might start soon if overpopulation and destruction of natural resources aren't stopped tho. But I still prefer to think that even tho it could stabilize itself like you said, it's not the best metod of living, and thus population control is an important matter to take into account if we want to leave a potentially comfortable place for our descendents
--------------------
There's no better way to rock out than with your cock out!!
|
deryl
Stranger


Registered: 10/21/04
Posts: 1,220
Loc: Uncle Tom's
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
|
Read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.
Over time, humans have accepted the idea that the Earth is ours for the taking, almost as if evolution stopped in it's tracks once man became aware of himself and his surroundings.
Man possesses a trait no other species on the planet has, the ability to drastically manipulate his own environment, and that of his co-inhabitants. With this ability comes great responsibility, one which few are up for assuming.
Population growth out-paces agricultural advances greatly, and that gap gets larger with every human born.
The Agricultural, Industrial, Medical, Technological, and Biotechnological revolutions have created a scenario where the number of babies being born (and surviving) and the number of people living much longer lives have skyrocketed. The less developed countries of the world (India, China, Mexico, North Africa, etc.) have imported technology from the modern world which make these advances possible, yet in many regions of the world, even with the technological advances, people lack the natural resources and infrastructure to properly use the technology they have been given.
This leads to dependency on weather seasons, and intensive subsistence agriculture (IE: slash and burn). If a crop doesn't come in, then millions die. If a plot of land is over worked and improperly cared for, desertification occurs, which means there is even less land for people to survive on.
Essentially, in order to support a population with the quickest doubling time in history, we are scavenging the Earth and setting ourselves up for a momentous crash.
The areas of the world where the population is most rapidly growing are the areas least suited to support more people, and they are becoming less suited daily.
I could go on much longer on the implications of such a collapse, which would span over every aspect of our lives, but in the interest of avoiding a ramble (too late) I'll finish by saying....
If we don't figure out how either support our future population, or do something to make the growth stop, we're screwed.
|
makaveli8x8
Stranger

Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 21,636
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: deryl]
#5481296 - 04/05/06 12:02 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
The way i see it
Humans increasing All other life decreasing
whats really happening is that our needs are increasing so we have been growing more crops which takes land and leaves less food for animals- killing off other life...all kinds of animals are going extinct, lots of fish washing up, so that we have more food for ourselves.
it won't be long and all that will be left on earth is just us. NO DOUBT; think about it
well there still might be our slave species, cows and such but thats about it. i imagine zoo's will become popular once again. we will have some more bones to put next to dino's.
but honestly i think at about the time we start starving we will prob start eating each other. after that we will prob burn up due to no ozone, since we demo'ed all them tree's for more food.
the real point is, if we cann't support ourselves in just OUR own houses...provide food for ourselves....without stepping outside...thats when we are doomed. right now i see hydro as a small attempt towards that but houses are to small to support 1 human year round.
i dunno but we are screwed, we stupid, all we care about is the moment. we are selfish. lets all just get gangbanged in college and call it good seems the attitude.
what we need to be doing is teaching kids in school how to treat the earth that would be a good "start". all i remember was one day we had earthday wtf? forgot that shit as quick as it came.
--------------------
  We were sent to hell for eternity Ø h® We play on earth to pass the time Over-population the root of all Evil-brings the Elites Closer to the gates.
|
makaveli8x8
Stranger

Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 21,636
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: makaveli8x8]
#5481303 - 04/05/06 12:08 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
oh speaking of ozone, i just remembered its alege in the ocean that provides like 98% of our air. so as our fish die, and these HUGE FUCKING DEAD ZONES where no life can live in the ocean get even BIGGER. and we just sit and watch this shit i cann't believe it. and wHY because all we are thinking about is money, well i think we can like um sell people air some day and,
water we can sell that shit for some major cash too.
oh yeah we are going to power cars off of water....because we want to save earth right....well that makes alot of sence except we are SEARCHIN MARS for more water. so like as these cars burn up our water more money i guess.
everything just seems ass backwards in life...like some complete idiots are coming up with these ideas and laws....oh yeah thats right every law and idea created revolves around money...that sums it up.
--------------------
  We were sent to hell for eternity Ø h® We play on earth to pass the time Over-population the root of all Evil-brings the Elites Closer to the gates.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: automan]
#5481647 - 04/05/06 05:30 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
> when we cant feed everyone, people will naturally starve to death.
The problem isn't with what we put in our mouths, but rather what comes out the other side. Pollution is our killer, not lack of food. Well, pollution will lead to lack of food, but that is still a ways off yet.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
automan
blasted chipmunk


Registered: 09/18/03
Posts: 8,272
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Seuss]
#5482077 - 04/05/06 09:14 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
i agree with you totally. i think that the best and most overlooked step people can do to help future generations is to only use biodegradable products... especially as the population grows. people come and go but things that we do that will be around for thousands of years is a very bad thing because it builds upon itself and doesnt return to the cycle of life. i dont eat at some fast food restaraunts that i love because they give me my drink or food in styrofoam. i try to do that in alot of areas in my life.
-------------------- No, no, you're not thinking, you're just being logical. ~ Niels Bohr
|
zgbzgb1
Stranger
Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 50
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Madtowntripper]
#14317415 - 04/19/11 01:20 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
thats some fucked up shit
|
Joe Joe
2nd Level Meditator


Registered: 10/29/10
Posts: 190
Loc: Vortex #4
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Madtowntripper]
#14325241 - 04/20/11 09:57 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Well shit, if we're bumping this thread anyway, I'd like to bring up a point that no one mentioned.
We assume so much - even to the point that we assume that we know how the evolution of the ecoshphere on a planet evolves over billions of years. Who is to say that the rise of an intelligent and resource hungry species isn't the natural on the universal scale? What better motivation for a species to SERIOUSLY pursue space travel and extraterrestrial colonization?
Think about it. The planetary consensus and commitment of resources needed to make a real effort toward colonizing another planet is not present now. The only way that terraforming is going to become economically viable is if the resources are truly tapped (or very close) here on Earth. And for all you idealists, I hate to say it, but commercial interests and the promise of profits are what will take us to the stars - not philosophical or logical motivations.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Joe Joe]
#14325637 - 04/20/11 11:17 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Who's assuming we know the evolution of the ecosphere on a planet over billions of years? Who's assuming human conduct isn't natural and not good motivation for extraterrestrial settlement?
It seems like your post relys upon some sort of naturalistic fallacy that presumes if the course of humanity is 'natural' that it is therefore desirable. It also seems like you might be anthropomorphizing evolutionary trends, the universe, et cet: it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to talk about the universe's preferences and desires or to presume it has any design to encourage particular behavior.
By definition the universe is just what's there. Even if there was some way to arrive at some preferred relationship between humanity and the universe, there's no reason to believe that this would be in the interest of humanity: i.e. entropy seems to indicate humans and all other organized systems are disfavored- does this mean we should blow everyone up and burn the world?
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: johnm214]
#14326216 - 04/21/11 02:51 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
You first must explain the concept of duality to the unaware before you can try and resolve it johnM.
Although it's probably instinctual to worry over more and more humans in your "tribe" just for fear if competition. In this day in age, I'd say the more possibilities (humans) the better the chance of some groundbreaking genetic/astral travel breakthrough allowing for some serious proliferation of homo sapiens.
|
makaveli8x8
Stranger

Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 21,636
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14326364 - 04/21/11 04:55 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
doubtful, anytime there's a baby thats "different" we slice that shit out, melt it down and zip tie it back together until it looks "normal"
and life on earth its getting dumbed down, not "progressing", humans have killed this world.
--------------------
  We were sent to hell for eternity Ø h® We play on earth to pass the time Over-population the root of all Evil-brings the Elites Closer to the gates.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: makaveli8x8]
#14328087 - 04/21/11 02:50 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
It's not that black and white though. True, there's more dumbasses right now on the planet than there have ever been before in history. And tomorrow there will be even more. Stupid people are increasing in numbers no doubt. I still think that were not too many generations away from the genetics that put out Einstein,hawking etc. The good is increasing so slightly compared to the bad that it's easy to overlook it, but it's on a path that will eventually lead to a huge upward spike in progression, discounting any relevance to how long it takes to get there, or how many fucktards we have to deal with along the way. It may not even happen in my lifetime but i think were close enough (genetic engineering/astral travel) that unless we either wipe ourselves out or get wiped out naturally in the next century or 2, mark my word, there will be anti-aging homo sapiens exploring our universe physically.
|
KrizzKaliko
Lurker


Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14333780 - 04/22/11 02:45 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Some people hate me for it, but ive said this for a long time.
If i thought killing myself would also kill another 3 billion people, i would do it in a heartbeat. Yes its sad, yes its kind of mean, but the amount of good that would come from it would be immeasurable imo.
Shy of that, the only way we can secure our foothold as a species, is to get off this godforsaken rock. We are all on it. We've got ALL our eggs in one basket. One asteroid, comet, or global disaster and BAM we're all gone.
Space travel = the spreading of the human genome = colonization of more planets = more resources = ability to sustain more people. It's really the only way, but we are too busy bickering about our petty differences like religion and recreation (war on drugs anyone?) to see that the only real answer is expand, proliferate, explore and learn.
Edited by KrizzKaliko (04/22/11 02:50 PM)
|
PassiveAgressive
Sleepy-_-kinoko!




Registered: 10/16/09
Posts: 924
Loc: Tueri honorare saltus
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
#14360522 - 04/27/11 10:51 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
OP asked is overpopulation dangerous to talk about? I would have to say yes. Many people have agressive sentiment concerning population, especially capitol hill. The vast majority choose not to engage the subject because of the implications. If population is left to it's own devices, ad-infinitum, a time will come where the Easter Island scenario will play out. The inverse would be a virulent or violent, man-made preventive measure. While the population debate is arguably the most dangerous topic in existence, it is a necessary evil.
I would have to say that this is truly a catch 22, rock and a hard place. But I maintain the age old adage, if someone has to make change for you, it won't be as kind as if you had done it for yourself. Unfortunately humanity is largely reactive instead of proactive as a whole, and this is unacceptable if we are to continue as a species.
-------------------- (\___/) (= ‘.’=) (”)__(”) Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared. - Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.
|
Ahab McBathsalts
OTD Windmill Administrator




Registered: 11/25/02
Posts: 35,107
Loc: Wind Turbine, AB
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Madtowntripper]
#14375001 - 04/29/11 10:02 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Robert Malthus Described the effects of over population over 200 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus 
Resources such as oil, food, water and medicine are already divided distinctly across the globe.
-------------------- "Nobody exists on purpose. Nobody belongs anywhere. Everybody's going to die."
|
PassiveAgressive
Sleepy-_-kinoko!




Registered: 10/16/09
Posts: 924
Loc: Tueri honorare saltus
|
|
Quote:
evilnick said: Robert Malthus Described the effects of over population over 200 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus 
Resources such as oil, food, water and medicine are already divided distinctly across the globe.
I read about him in the book, The Coming Population Crash, by Fred Pearce. Apparently Malthus became irrelevant, but still controversial. Time proved many of his theories to be false. The reality he foretold never came to be. He did much to enshroud the poor in suffering. By many accounts, Malthus was an evil man. Despite the controversy, the rhetoric he used is very similar to a lot of what floats around in the here-and-now. History repeats.
Malthuss' case exemplifies why the population topic is horribly dangerous. It has everything to do with theoretical ideals in action vs. the reality of things.
-------------------- (\___/) (= ‘.’=) (”)__(”) Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared. - Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.
|
foliocb
always running



Registered: 07/14/08
Posts: 1,152
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
|
Actually, you don't need deaths, war, or disease to reduce the global population drastically
-------------------- ^v^
|
Vitalux
Stranger from the next universe



Registered: 02/15/11
Posts: 2,695
Loc: Canada
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: foliocb]
#14397858 - 05/04/11 12:49 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I doubt if anyone is really going to read what I am typing. But I will say it anyways. Some might find it insightful.
You and I have a brain about the size of a small marble. We actually are naive enough to actually believe that we harbor much intelligence. 
How you think the world actually works is actually quite false. You have no clue as how things actually operate. We are not much more intelligent than an ape in the grand scheme of life. In fact we are more related intellectually to the parrot. Because much of what we think we know, we have been just parrot what we were told. 
Now lets look at this situation of World Over Population. 
Comparative Reasoning:
India is about one third the size of Canada and they have about 1.13 Billion People over there.
We are not acutely aware that there is a serious over population there.
Considering the landmass of Canada and United States and comparing relative carrying capacities of both continents, USA+ Canada could support about 6.8 Billion people. 
Currently today the estimated accumulated populations of USA and Canada is about 341 Million ( USA 307 Million + ~34 million ).
341 Million:6.8 Billion 
Ok so I don't see any impending current problem. 
Ok now I am going point this out;
Have you ever tried to reverse population growth and actually see if it made sense?
Believe me, you haven't. Why?, because your an idiot....remember....your brain is the size of a fucking marble.
Lets start with a quick lesson on the basics which relates to population growth:
If say you start with a penny; 
double it to 2   double it to 4     than double that to 8         and double it twenty nine more times x35 times
You will have 68 719 476 736 pennies. 
That is 68 Billion, 719 Million, 476 Thousand, seven hundred and thirty six pennies.
So lets look at some history and apply this understanding to population growth and then population reversal.
Every species has a population growth, including humans. Also known as doubling.
Lets say a human family doubles it's population every 50 years.  
You know man and woman - have kids - those kids have kids etc.    Just add up how many people are alive today as a result of your Great Grandparents having kids.        
If you consider that if you go back 17 hundred years ago, there certainly was more than two folks running around. Well, if there was only two people running around about 1700 years ago we should be walking around on a planet with 68 Billion people on it......
But hold on here.......there is only 6 Billion ....Hmmmm...
Lets say then the population doubling growth for humans was oh ... every 100 years. Ok so we say that every 100 years a family doubles it's size.
Ok so ....34 Hundred years ago, there certainly was more than two people. and even if there was, only two people, ....one would wonder again why we are not wallowing around in a group of 68 Billion. 
Now we were taught that humans surely have been running around on this planet in our current ape form for about 250 thousand years.
Something (or someone) has been controlling our population and it sure as hell is not the weather. 
We are not the masters here, but merely the puppet master's puppets
If you have ever listened to Maxwell Jordan, you might understand. 
Population, as well as most of what you think is real, is not. It's all just propaganda designed to fuck with your head. 
Last but least people will say...you never too into consideration about famine, war, etc and low birth rate.
Actually, I did. If you think about it. In North American in 1492 when AMereica was discovered the Indians had lots of food, they were not waring, and there certainly was not an over population problem from the native aboriginals, and most certainly there was no evidence to ever show that there was a population problem. They had plenty of food, land and all the right reason to be able to double their population.
You just have to really think about it...and it should dawn on you. Our history is quite different than what you are told.
Edited by Vitalux (05/04/11 01:14 AM)
|
ReposadoXochipilli
Here, there, inbetween



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 7,501
Loc: Sand and sunshine
Last seen: 19 days, 9 hours
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Vitalux]
#14405164 - 05/05/11 01:02 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
a lot of that context is irrelevant due to our species technological advances, ie longer life, more food, convenience, ect. ect.
i foresee issues between resource needs and availability, as well as wealth consolidation. life might go on modern and wonderful for a few but i highly doubt the majority of the human population will be in good shape in 50 years.
--------------------
|
foliocb
always running



Registered: 07/14/08
Posts: 1,152
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
|
did you guys not watch the video i posted or something
-------------------- ^v^
|
Olympus Mons
esprit de l'univers

Registered: 09/15/09
Posts: 5,777
Loc: ∞
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: deryl]
#14434325 - 05/11/11 10:51 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deryl said: Read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.
Over time, humans have accepted the idea that the Earth is ours for the taking, almost as if evolution stopped in it's tracks once man became aware of himself and his surroundings.
Man possesses a trait no other species on the planet has, the ability to drastically manipulate his own environment, and that of his co-inhabitants. With this ability comes great responsibility, one which few are up for assuming.
Population growth out-paces agricultural advances greatly, and that gap gets larger with every human born.
The Agricultural, Industrial, Medical, Technological, and Biotechnological revolutions have created a scenario where the number of babies being born (and surviving) and the number of people living much longer lives have skyrocketed. The less developed countries of the world (India, China, Mexico, North Africa, etc.) have imported technology from the modern world which make these advances possible, yet in many regions of the world, even with the technological advances, people lack the natural resources and infrastructure to properly use the technology they have been given.
This leads to dependency on weather seasons, and intensive subsistence agriculture (IE: slash and burn). If a crop doesn't come in, then millions die. If a plot of land is over worked and improperly cared for, desertification occurs, which means there is even less land for people to survive on.
Essentially, in order to support a population with the quickest doubling time in history, we are scavenging the Earth and setting ourselves up for a momentous crash.
The areas of the world where the population is most rapidly growing are the areas least suited to support more people, and they are becoming less suited daily.
I could go on much longer on the implications of such a collapse, which would span over every aspect of our lives, but in the interest of avoiding a ramble (too late) I'll finish by saying....
If we don't figure out how either support our future population, or do something to make the growth stop, we're screwed.
yeah someone just let me borrow this book it's very insightful.
--------------------
I close my eyes and seize it I clench my fists and beat it I light my torch and burn it I am the beast I worship....
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: foliocb]
#14437904 - 05/11/11 11:27 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
foliocb said: did you guys not watch the video i posted or something 
As much as I love the man, I gotta disagree with him when he says an easy, simple solution.
My sex drive has already led me to producing 2 offspring at age 22. I don't intend on having more for zpg but I mean how "simple and easy" would it be to get EVERY woman to limit her children to 1. You can claim it's simple and easy for you, or even for anyone but it's not simple and easy to ensure that it happens in every woman's case.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14437909 - 05/11/11 11:30 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Here's a good analogy.
It would be simple and easy IF we legalized all drugs.
It would not be simple and easy TO legalize all drugs.
Strictly because the way of the world.
|
makaveli8x8
Stranger

Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 21,636
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14438286 - 05/12/11 01:28 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
its somewhat hard to hide a child in modern society, if they approached population limits like the war on drugs it wouldn't be that hard
--------------------
  We were sent to hell for eternity Ø h® We play on earth to pass the time Over-population the root of all Evil-brings the Elites Closer to the gates.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: makaveli8x8]
#14440027 - 05/12/11 12:49 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Sure someone could come up with the military force to enforce the rule. How realistic is it though to think that every woman on the the entire globe would limit there children to 1. Terrence said "such a simple and easy solution" and was surprised that every woman wasn't voluntarily limiting child-bearing to one kid. I'm just sayin it's not surprising at all to me considering the nature of sexual attraction.
|
Moonshoe
Blue Mantis


Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 27,202
Loc: Iceland
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Madtowntripper]
#14440347 - 05/12/11 01:58 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Humans are already drastically over-exploiting the Earth's resources, and driving other species into extinction at a massive rate as a result. It is ridiculous to think that a finite earth can support an infinite increase in the number of people, especially as the ecological footprint of each individual person continues to rise.
We are already in the grips of a devastating global ecological collapse and each new person makes the problem worse.
I think that we have a moral imperative and a survival imperative to slow, stop and even reverse the trend of population growth.
I for one have already decided not to have children for the sake of our already exhausted Mother Earth.
If we don't control our own breeding eventually a catastrophic Malthusian re-balancing will occur in the form of world war, global pandemic, mass starvation or total planetary ecological collapse. The latter is already well under way.
Voluntary reduction of the human population through intensive and widespread use of reproductive technologies such as condoms, birth control, vasectomies, and in worst-case scenarios abortions is an absolute survival necessity if humanity and nature are to co-exist for much longer.
The oceans are fished clean, only a fraction of our forests remain, the atmosphere is saturated with greenhouse gas, and each new person exacerbates those problems. The Earth is doing her best, but she just doesn't have much more to give.
of course, existing people need to consume less, but over-population is a huge part of the problem and is slated to get much worse if drastic measures are not taken.
--------------------
Everything I post is fiction.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Moonshoe]
#14440585 - 05/12/11 02:59 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
This is nothing new but....
The earth could comfortably sustain 25 billion humans if they all lived like modern-day bangladeshans. The earth would collapse far quicker than it is today with 6bil if there were only 1billion of them living like Americans do. It's really more about lifestyle here than numbers(not that numbers aren't a small factor, but 1 American has 800 times the impact than someone in Bangladesh so lifestyle is obviously more worthy of considering than numbers).
If you want to have a positive effect, don't hold back your jizzems, but hold back your consumerism. Stop consuming oil (electricity,running water, transportation, electronics [shipping/production] etc.) Grow your own food so you can stop allowing it to e shipped here and there and here again before reaching your mouth.
Lifestyle, not numbers.
It really disturbs me that so many people who are supposedly concerned about the ecology of the planet are so ignorant. They're looking for a simple idea to blame. "oh it's overpopulation. Wow we discovered the key to saving the planet!" rather than facing the truth which is
OUR CONSUMERISM (study history pre- and post-industrial revolution why dont ya) IS THE CAUSE OF THE ECOLOGICAL COLLAPSE!!!
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14441710 - 05/12/11 07:23 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LightShedder said: This is nothing new but....
The earth could comfortably sustain 25 billion humans if they all lived like modern-day bangladeshans. The earth would collapse far quicker than it is today with 6bil if there were only 1billion of them living like Americans do. It's really more about lifestyle here than numbers(not that numbers aren't a small factor, but 1 American has 800 times the impact than someone in Bangladesh so lifestyle is obviously more worthy of considering than numbers).
If you want to have a positive effect, don't hold back your jizzems, but hold back your consumerism. Stop consuming oil (electricity,running water, transportation, electronics [shipping/production] etc.) Grow your own food so you can stop allowing it to e shipped here and there and here again before reaching your mouth.
Lifestyle, not numbers.
It really disturbs me that so many people who are supposedly concerned about the ecology of the planet are so ignorant. They're looking for a simple idea to blame. "oh it's overpopulation. Wow we discovered the key to saving the planet!" rather than facing the truth which is
OUR CONSUMERISM (study history pre- and post-industrial revolution why dont ya) IS THE CAUSE OF THE ECOLOGICAL COLLAPSE!!!
What do you base these conclusions on?
Quote:
It's really more about lifestyle here than numbers(not that numbers aren't a small factor, but 1 American has 800 times the impact than someone in Bangladesh so lifestyle is obviously more worthy of considering than numbers).
Given your equality, it would seem that numbers and lifestyle are equally relevant. How do you justify your claim that "it's really more about lifestyle here" given this? Since you've shown the numbers and lifestyle of an existing population both effect the remaining capacity able to be accomodated, it seems you may be showing some bias here.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: johnm214]
#14443056 - 05/12/11 11:41 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Bias? Towards what? Being the average consumer in America, it appears as though I'm speaking out against my own lifestyle.
I stated that technically speaking, number is a tiny factor. And no, the data I refer to clearly shows that lifestyle is far more important than numbers. I'll show ya
Average American ecological impact=800xyz Average Bangledeshan ecological impact=1xyz
1 billion Americans living on the planet (hypothetical)=800,000,000,000xyz 25 billion bangledeshans living on the planet (hypothetical)=25,000,000,000xyz
http://www.uni.edu/gai/Bangladesh/BackgroundInformation/BangladeshsEcologicalFootprint.htm
According to that chart it's only a 1:20 difference but I find that incredibly hard to believe. It still proves that
In the case of a Bangledeshan, you can have 20 people before they've impacted the ecology of the planet as much as ONE American.
How do you consider this an "equality"? It clearly proves that lifestyle is more important than numbers. If every American lived like your average Bangledeshan, it would reduce the overall ecological impact by 95%!!!
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14443070 - 05/12/11 11:44 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Population control would be ineffective unless applied on the countries at the top of that list.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14443103 - 05/12/11 11:50 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Either that solution (population control in DEVELOPED nations), or start livin off the land.
Take your pick.
Or yes, we are fucking up this gift called earth.
|
Moonshoe
Blue Mantis


Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 27,202
Loc: Iceland
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14444087 - 05/13/11 07:31 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
There is no need for an argument about whether it is population or consumption that is the problem. It is both.
Environmental scientists have formulated it with the famous IPAT equation.
Basically I (environmental impact) = P (population) x A (affluence/consumption) x T (Technology).
So the higher the population, the higher the impact. The higher the affluence/consumption, the higher the impact. Technology can be either an aggravating or a mitigating factor depending. So a high number of people consuming lots but doing so with green and sustainable technology is less of an impact than those consuming the same amount with polluting technology.
But what is not in question is that BOTH P and A, both population and consumption, are important parts of the overall ecological destruction equation.
If we want to reverse the damage done to our planet, we need to reduce both population and consumption as much as possible, simultaneously.
--------------------
Everything I post is fiction.
|
makaveli8x8
Stranger

Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 21,636
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Moonshoe]
#14444199 - 05/13/11 08:14 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
or just reduce the population and let those left live free and to there fullest extent. Large populations "enable" a person to overconsume. Things don't have to be complicated, its very simple, stop reproducing case closed.
--------------------
  We were sent to hell for eternity Ø h® We play on earth to pass the time Over-population the root of all Evil-brings the Elites Closer to the gates.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: makaveli8x8]
#14444497 - 05/13/11 09:38 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
DENIAL!
You guys can't admit that the earth would have no trouble supporting 30billion humans considering they didn't live like you and I. If they stayed in tribes of 100 or less and grew/hunted their own food and collected their own water. Simple, stop consuming. Obviously 50 billion bangledeshans have 50x more of an impact than 1billion. Stop trying to "teach" me this. I'm trying to show you guys that lifestyle is far more important to consider.
Each one of you impacts the planet as much as 20 bangledeshans. Do you guys think the earth will be fine if we continue this consumerism? Even if 90% of the world died off? Check it out,
90% population reduction would leave you guys gratefully with 600million people. If they all lived like Americans, we'd be screwed. Secondly, if we didn't reduce the population at all, yet everyone lived like the bangledeshans, then we would reduce the overall global ecological impact by 85%! (Bangledesh ecological footprint=.5, global average ecological footprint=2.5)
Keep convincing yourself it's "stop reproducing" instead of "stop consuming oil".
Yeah sure, that's the solution, stop fucking??? No thanks. It's far more natural to live appropriately and moderately, raising children to do the same.
|
Moonshoe
Blue Mantis


Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 27,202
Loc: Iceland
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14444507 - 05/13/11 09:40 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
From the Earth's perspective, it is better if we both stop our rate of population growth AND reduce our consumption.
In terms of what is more responsible for the current state of ecological collapse, it is consumption, no question about it.
The problem is that the masses of people in the developing countries (such as bangladesh) are steadily increasing their own rates of consumption towards the standard of the developed world.
So it is imperative that we address both issues simultaneously.
--------------------
Everything I post is fiction.
|
makaveli8x8
Stranger

Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 21,636
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14444563 - 05/13/11 09:57 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LightShedder said: DENIAL!
You guys can't admit that the earth would have no trouble supporting 30billion humans considering they didn't live like you and I. If they stayed in tribes of 100 or less and grew/hunted their own food and collected their own water. Simple, stop consuming. Obviously 50 billion bangledeshans have 50x more of an impact than 1billion. Stop trying to "teach" me this. I'm trying to show you guys that lifestyle is far more important to consider.
Each one of you impacts the planet as much as 20 bangledeshans. Do you guys think the earth will be fine if we continue this consumerism? Even if 90% of the world died off? Check it out,
90% population reduction would leave you guys gratefully with 600million people. If they all lived like Americans, we'd be screwed. Secondly, if we didn't reduce the population at all, yet everyone lived like the bangledeshans, then we would reduce the overall global ecological impact by 85%! (Bangledesh ecological footprint=.5, global average ecological footprint=2.5)
Keep convincing yourself it's "stop reproducing" instead of "stop consuming oil".
Yeah sure, that's the solution, stop fucking??? No thanks. It's far more natural to live appropriately and moderately, raising children to do the same.
no i didn't say stop fucking, i said stop having children there's a big difference. I also mentioned that large populations "enable" people to live outside of there means, i think you missed that part.
if you cut america's population by 90% what kind of footprint do you think an individual would leave behind? its going to completely change the way of life just by changing the population. Why do you think we have wars?
--------------------
  We were sent to hell for eternity Ø h® We play on earth to pass the time Over-population the root of all Evil-brings the Elites Closer to the gates.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: makaveli8x8]
#14444628 - 05/13/11 10:11 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I agree with you completely.
It just has to be mentioned that 2 ways of reducing the global ecological footprint by 85% are
1. Reduce population by 85% (evenly reduced among all nations) Or 2. Everyone start living like a Bangledeshan.
lol I know it's funny because it's unrealistic, if not all out impossible. I would probably agree, if one of those 2 were to ever occur, it's gonna be the first one. Only because it is a choice that 6 billion people don't have to collectively make, but rather a dozen motivated resourceful individuals could accomplish.
Possibly, not realistically.
|
makaveli8x8
Stranger

Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 21,636
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14444678 - 05/13/11 10:19 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
with all the super viruses, designer viruses, radiation, chemicals in our water, im thinking its not even going to be a choice we make, just the consequences of our actions. It was always predicted that the next great extinction would be caused by us all the signs are here. we were given a great gift of intelligence, the problem is they forgot to remove the animal
--------------------
  We were sent to hell for eternity Ø h® We play on earth to pass the time Over-population the root of all Evil-brings the Elites Closer to the gates.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: makaveli8x8]
#14445643 - 05/13/11 01:49 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
lol I guess you're right. Thinking about the extensive nuclear arsenal that requires daily human maintenance just to prevent a complete ecological annihilation from occurring. It'd be silly to think that we could continue the way we are forever, always able to maintain said warheads. When we go out, there's gonna be some nasty shit to follow our extinction on earth.
|
Comradez
stargazer



Registered: 03/21/10
Posts: 615
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14448197 - 05/13/11 09:43 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
In the long run, we have a choice:
We could support 100 million people living a wealthy, industrialized lifestyle, or...
We could support 2 billion people living like people in Bangladesh.
I'd much prefer the first option, and I think most people would.
So let's make a deal with the poor countries: we give every childless couple $4,000/year. We give every couple with only one child $2,000/year.
Case closed.
--------------------
They say that life's a carousel / Spinning fast, you've got to ride it well / The world is full of kings and queens / Who blind your eyes and steal your dreams / It's heaven and hell - Ronnie James Dio (RIP)
|
Spooge
The Nutter
Registered: 04/21/04
Posts: 5,189
Loc: Ice patches that last for...
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Seuss]
#14450993 - 05/14/11 12:15 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: I have no problem with pre-conception population control, but I don't like the idea of playing mother nature and selecting which babies get to live and which do not. China has gotten their problem mostly under control, but India is going to be a world wide nightmare in the next twenty years or so... no way around it without a good crisis to kill off a large portion of the population.
I agree completely.
A lot of people think I'm psychotic because I sound like the guy in the article. People are talking about all these supposed epedemic diseases, floods, earthquakes and so on and I just say...."bring on the chaos".
I don't deserve to be here anymore than anyone else and if it's my time, so be it, but mother nature needs to knock a billion or two off the planet.
And I don't give a shit about the planet. I don't have some holier than thou agenda of saving the planet. It's survival of the fittest. If I can surivive longer than the planet...great. And the odds are stacked in my favour. But I truly believe that I might not to live a full life with so many bloody people on the planet. I can't imagine where the state of things will be if I and the planet make it another 50 years.
|
KrizzKaliko
Lurker



Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Spooge]
#14451620 - 05/14/11 02:21 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ZoooftheMoon said:
Quote:
Seuss said: I have no problem with pre-conception population control, but I don't like the idea of playing mother nature and selecting which babies get to live and which do not. China has gotten their problem mostly under control, but India is going to be a world wide nightmare in the next twenty years or so... no way around it without a good crisis to kill off a large portion of the population.
And I don't give a shit about the planet. I don't have some holier than thou agenda of saving the planet. It's survival of the fittest. If I can surivive longer than the planet...great. And the odds are stacked in my favour. But I truly believe that I might not to live a full life with so many bloody people on the planet. I can't imagine where the state of things will be if I and the planet make it another 50 years.
The whole thing about us ruining the planet is, people don't understand the way our planet works.
Say we kill the planet for, 100,000 years due to radioactive fallout. No fuck that, lets say 10 Million years. EVEN, after 10 million years, the Earth WILL recuperate itself.
As for whether we (or any other life) come back in any of the forms that we know them NOW, is another story.
|
Spooge
The Nutter
Registered: 04/21/04
Posts: 5,189
Loc: Ice patches that last for...
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
#14452208 - 05/14/11 04:27 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
KrizzKaliko said:
Quote:
ZoooftheMoon said:
Quote:
Seuss said: I have no problem with pre-conception population control, but I don't like the idea of playing mother nature and selecting which babies get to live and which do not. China has gotten their problem mostly under control, but India is going to be a world wide nightmare in the next twenty years or so... no way around it without a good crisis to kill off a large portion of the population.
And I don't give a shit about the planet. I don't have some holier than thou agenda of saving the planet. It's survival of the fittest. If I can surivive longer than the planet...great. And the odds are stacked in my favour. But I truly believe that I might not to live a full life with so many bloody people on the planet. I can't imagine where the state of things will be if I and the planet make it another 50 years.
The whole thing about us ruining the planet is, people don't understand the way our planet works.
Say we kill the planet for, 100,000 years due to radioactive fallout. No fuck that, lets say 10 Million years. EVEN, after 10 million years, the Earth WILL recuperate itself.
As for whether we (or any other life) come back in any of the forms that we know them NOW, is another story.
I agree
|
makaveli8x8
Stranger

Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 21,636
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
#14453719 - 05/14/11 09:43 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
KrizzKaliko said:
Quote:
ZoooftheMoon said:
Quote:
Seuss said: I have no problem with pre-conception population control, but I don't like the idea of playing mother nature and selecting which babies get to live and which do not. China has gotten their problem mostly under control, but India is going to be a world wide nightmare in the next twenty years or so... no way around it without a good crisis to kill off a large portion of the population.
And I don't give a shit about the planet. I don't have some holier than thou agenda of saving the planet. It's survival of the fittest. If I can surivive longer than the planet...great. And the odds are stacked in my favour. But I truly believe that I might not to live a full life with so many bloody people on the planet. I can't imagine where the state of things will be if I and the planet make it another 50 years.
The whole thing about us ruining the planet is, people don't understand the way our planet works.
Say we kill the planet for, 100,000 years due to radioactive fallout. No fuck that, lets say 10 Million years. EVEN, after 10 million years, the Earth WILL recuperate itself.
As for whether we (or any other life) come back in any of the forms that we know them NOW, is another story.
when people talk about saving the planet, i think they are referring to life as well as the planets ability to sustain it...
--------------------
  We were sent to hell for eternity Ø h® We play on earth to pass the time Over-population the root of all Evil-brings the Elites Closer to the gates.
|
KrizzKaliko
Lurker



Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: makaveli8x8]
#14453772 - 05/14/11 09:55 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
makaveli8x8 said:
Quote:
KrizzKaliko said:
Quote:
ZoooftheMoon said:
Quote:
Seuss said: I have no problem with pre-conception population control, but I don't like the idea of playing mother nature and selecting which babies get to live and which do not. China has gotten their problem mostly under control, but India is going to be a world wide nightmare in the next twenty years or so... no way around it without a good crisis to kill off a large portion of the population.
And I don't give a shit about the planet. I don't have some holier than thou agenda of saving the planet. It's survival of the fittest. If I can surivive longer than the planet...great. And the odds are stacked in my favour. But I truly believe that I might not to live a full life with so many bloody people on the planet. I can't imagine where the state of things will be if I and the planet make it another 50 years.
The whole thing about us ruining the planet is, people don't understand the way our planet works.
Say we kill the planet for, 100,000 years due to radioactive fallout. No fuck that, lets say 10 Million years. EVEN, after 10 million years, the Earth WILL recuperate itself.
As for whether we (or any other life) come back in any of the forms that we know them NOW, is another story.
when people talk about saving the planet, i think they are referring to life as well as the planets ability to sustain it...
Fair enough.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14454572 - 05/15/11 01:45 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LightShedder said: lol I guess you're right. Thinking about the extensive nuclear arsenal that requires daily human maintenance just to prevent a complete ecological annihilation from occurring. It'd be silly to think that we could continue the way we are forever, always able to maintain said warheads. When we go out, there's gonna be some nasty shit to follow our extinction on earth.
How do you justify your claim that people have an extensive nuclear arsenal that requires daily human maintenance just to prevent a complete ecological annihilation from occuring?
Who exactly has these warheads that are so fragile? How exactly do they cause a catastrophe if not maintained daily? I've never heard of this- what do you base this on?
Quote:
LightShedder said: Bias? Towards what? Being the average consumer in America, it appears as though I'm speaking out against my own lifestyle.
So what? I don't see what your point is here- as if you cannot be biased against your own culture. You see this all the time: how many Americans who know pretty much nothing of history have convinced themselves that the US is some imperialist aggressor? How many soccer moms value "eastern wisdome" and "eastern medicine" despite that shit being pretty much all crap to the extent its any different? How many westerners bitch about "western media" as if it is particularly suspect in advancing agendas and so forth? (actually I only see this on this board, probably because of the demographic here and their unfamiliarity with media in other countries).
Quote:
I stated that technically speaking, number is a tiny factor. And no, the data I refer to clearly shows that lifestyle is far more important than numbers. I'll show ya
Average American ecological impact=800xyz Average Bangledeshan ecological impact=1xyz
1 billion Americans living on the planet (hypothetical)=800,000,000,000xyz 25 billion bangledeshans living on the planet (hypothetical)=25,000,000,000xyz
http://www.uni.edu/gai/Bangladesh/BackgroundInformation/BangladeshsEcologicalFootprint.htm
According to that chart it's only a 1:20 difference but I find that incredibly hard to believe. It still proves that
Okay, well it seems you were incorrect, off by a factor of 40, lol, yet your revised factors equating numbers vs lifestyle still show the equality, obviously. Looking solely at an equality that relates two variables to some third dependant variable, it would seem any preference for one or the other being 'more important' would have to be based on some illogical bias- given that no additional factor or prefernce has been introduced.
How exactly do you come to the conclusion that one of these variables is more important? Without demonstrating this, it seems yoru claim is clearly unsupported.
Quote:
In the case of a Bangledeshan, you can have 20 people before they've impacted the ecology of the planet as much as ONE American.
How do you consider this an "equality"?
?
equality: a statement that two quantities are equal; equation. 20NB = NA; where NB is number Bangladeshi and NA number American. This clearly shows that 20NB= 1NA, an equality.
Quote:
It clearly proves that lifestyle is more important than numbers. If every American lived like your average Bangledeshan, it would reduce the overall ecological impact by 95%!!!
Okay (!!!), Bangladeshi have a 20 times smaller requirement for land per capita than the US to sustain their lifestyle. How does this establish "that lifestyle is more important than numbers"? You simply declare this to be the case without explaining how it is so. Clearly either factor may affect the level of consumption and bring it above or below a particular capacite- to prefer one or the other would seem to require some additional consideration not supposed in your analysis: the math has no 'preference' for a given level of consumption being caused by any particular factor- population or consumption per capita
Regardless, this is only true if nothing else changes, a doubtful premise. Why wouldn't you assume the Bangladeshi would consume more resources if they had them available? Do you think they live how they live by choice or necesity? Would you think the Americans would continue to consume the same resources if they didn't have them available?
|
viktor
psychotechnician



Registered: 11/03/10
Posts: 4,293
Loc: New Zealand
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: johnm214]
#14458475 - 05/15/11 07:33 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
The problem is that is has historically and biologically been to the advantage of a tribe to breed like rabbits.
Those tribes that didn't were conquered by those that did.
France used to beat Germany in wars, then they drew even in WWI with roughly even populations. By WWII the more numerous Germans overran the French.
There's a lesson there: demography is destiny.
-------------------- "They consider me insane but I know that I am a hero living under the eyes of the gods."
|
Soluminia
The mind is god


Registered: 03/18/11
Posts: 3,978
Loc: CO
Last seen: 11 months, 14 days
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: viktor]
#14458497 - 05/15/11 07:36 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
we done fucked up
--------------------
|
KrizzKaliko
Lurker



Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: johnm214]
#14458536 - 05/15/11 07:40 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
LightShedder said: lol I guess you're right. Thinking about the extensive nuclear arsenal that requires daily human maintenance just to prevent a complete ecological annihilation from occurring. It'd be silly to think that we could continue the way we are forever, always able to maintain said warheads. When we go out, there's gonna be some nasty shit to follow our extinction on earth.
How do you justify your claim that people have an extensive nuclear arsenal that requires daily human maintenance just to prevent a complete ecological annihilation from occuring?
Who exactly has these warheads that are so fragile? How exactly do they cause a catastrophe if not maintained daily? I've never heard of this- what do you base this on?
Its funny cuz I instantly thought of that cartoon with the little guy bangin' his hammer on the tips of all the missiles....
Really, as I understand it, those things have very precise ignition mechanisms, and to get one to detonate without doing it properly, is damn near impossible. They aren't as 'unpredictable' and fragile as many seem to think they are.
Edited by KrizzKaliko (05/15/11 07:41 PM)
|
scubared1
Experienced Guide



Registered: 05/12/11
Posts: 44
Loc: Somewhere in the East
Last seen: 11 years, 10 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
#14460192 - 05/16/11 12:50 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
The fact of the matter is this. We as a race are hung up on a materialistic based society and lifestyle (not all, but most). We are dependent on a fossil fuel to provide our means of access to this materialistic paradise. We are inconsiderate, greedy, and conceited. Humans think they own the Earth, when in actuality we do not. Yet, it is human nature to care for those who can not provide for themselves. We pay the price so the worthless people of this world can drive around in SUV's and have three or four kids who inevitably fall prey to the same cycle as their worthless parents and then begins another cycle of ignorance. Until we as humans can learn to love, learn, laugh, covet, forgive, and understand we are doomed to a predetermined end.
Scuba for Prez 2012
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
#14460212 - 05/16/11 12:56 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I should have been more specific. Not so much as the arsenal of warheads but the "arsenal" of the general nuclear technology in place that, if left unmaintained for 24 hours would quickly become that- an arsenal against the global ecology.
Once the power grid goes down, nuclear power plants can run automatically on diesel generators. Until the diesel fuel runs out. At that point, it's only a matter of time before the meltdown.
There are 436 operating NPP in the world.
In addition, all of the manufacturing facilities around the globe that have deadly gases under containment that might be released into the atmosphere should the power fail and or the fuel supply cut off.
Either you, johnM are ignorant of this blatantly obvious fact or as usual you're just annoyingly demand "proof" for a rational claim because it doesn't come with stupid references.
questioning obvious facts and robotically saying "errrr wuddaya base that on, errrr wuddaya base that on, errrr wuddaya base that on?" thats quite annoying bud.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Comradez]
#14460233 - 05/16/11 01:01 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Comradez said: We could support 100 million people living a wealthy, industrialized lifestyle, or...
We could support 2 billion people living like people in Bangladesh.
I'd much prefer the first option, and I think most people would.
Case closed.
Hahaha! To annoyingly attack your idea and quote johnM,
"wudduya base that on errr?"
I beg to differ. I'd suppose 1.9billion would prefer the second option to your .1 billion demanding the first! It's stupid to take a democratic vote on it anyways considering how unfair that is.
"democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote". -Benjamin Franklin
|
KrizzKaliko
Lurker



Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder] 1
#14461566 - 05/16/11 11:23 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LightShedder said: just annoyingly demand "proof" for a rational claim because it doesn't come with stupid references.
This is what keeps people from flat out Making shit up, like you have in this post.
Most Gov weapons buildings are meant to survive unmanned for decades. They are built like Hoover dam, to continue to operate in the face of a disaster.
If you honestly think that 24hrs without supervision and every nuke and deadly gas in the world would be released, you need to stop watching tv.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14462854 - 05/16/11 03:50 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Stop mocking me and making personal remarks. Stick to the issues, please. If you cannot tolerate questioning of your ideas or become this upset when someone doesn't believe your claims simply because you've asserted them, then the science and technology forum might not be the best place for you.
Quote:
Either you, johnM are ignorant of this blatantly obvious fact or as usual you're just annoyingly demand "proof" for a rational claim because it doesn't come with stupid references.
questioning obvious facts and robotically saying "errrr wuddaya base that on, errrr wuddaya base that on, errrr wuddaya base that on?" thats quite annoying bud.
You said *somebody* had an "extensive nuclear arsenal that requires daily human maintenance just to prevent a complete ecological annihilation from occurring". Given that you've now retracted that statement, I'm having difficulty understanding how you attribute all this ignorance and malice to me when you seem to agree your claim was wrong.
Quote:
In addition, all of the manufacturing facilities around the globe that have deadly gases under containment that might be released into the atmosphere should the power fail and or the fuel supply cut off.
What are these "deadly gasses" that manufacturing facilities have that would be released into the atmosphere should the power fail or fuel supply be cut off? I'm not familiar with any kind of storage vessel for particularly nasty gasses that require power to contain. What are you referring to here? Containers that vent anyways, like those for compressed nitrogen, et cet I suppose would release gas more rapidly if cooling isn't supplied, but that's obviously not a big deal for the environment- the gasses get released during use anyways. Just stay out of confined spaces. What are you referring to that manufacturing facilities store like this?
|
KrizzKaliko
Lurker



Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: johnm214]
#14462959 - 05/16/11 04:14 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
What are these "deadly gasses" that manufacturing facilities have that would be released into the atmosphere should the power fail or fuel supply be cut off?
Your missing something important John:
Quote:
you're just annoyingly demand "proof" for a rational claim because it doesn't come with stupid references.
questioning obvious facts and robotically saying "errrr wuddaya base that on, errrr wuddaya base that on, errrr wuddaya base that on?" thats quite annoying bud.
This is all the answer you need. He obviously is ok with making up his own facts, representing them as such, and then shout down anyone who asks for proof.
I would put money on it he is a Creationist as well.
Edited by KrizzKaliko (05/16/11 04:19 PM)
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
#14464747 - 05/16/11 09:02 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I suspect this to be the likely answer as well, he just made it up or it came from a misunderstanding of things he heard in the news, but I try to simply ask first. By now I think its pretty clear what's going on, though.
I just don't get how these guys get so upset at simple questions, however. You ask him why he's saying such outrageous things, like the world will end if nukes aren't maintained daily, and its like you insulted his mother.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: johnm214]
#14464984 - 05/16/11 09:42 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Do you think the deadly gases will just sit around in their happy homes FOREVER? Until the sun bursts or a meteor destroys our planet? I'm less optimistic. Ultimately, without understanding every storage facility on earth, I'd guess they would be released somehow. If I'm incorrect please correct me.
No offense by the mocking John, I just get the feeling sometimes that you demand proof when you actually agree (maybe not in this case) knowing that it is a fact that is unprovable. I mean how can you prove that there aren't any deadly toxins that are stored requiring power? Or that would inevitably be released without human maintenance? Even if were talking 500,000 years, these storage facilities aren't infinite.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14464990 - 05/16/11 09:43 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
And it's irrefutable that there would be a severe nuclear crisis if man or power stopped.
|
KrizzKaliko
Lurker



Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder] 1
#14465124 - 05/16/11 10:04 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LightShedder said: Do you think the deadly gases will just sit around in their happy homes FOREVER? Until the sun bursts or a meteor destroys our planet? I'm less optimistic. Ultimately, without understanding every storage facility on earth, I'd guess they would be released somehow. If I'm incorrect please correct me.
Sure, but its also foolish to think that they would take precautions like they did with the Hoover dam (a dam built in 1936 btw), a dam made to last over 10 years without a single person touching anything, and NOT apply things like that to WMD's and test weapons? Get real. (it is important to note here that i am referring to the US, other 3rd world countries MAY be less careful, but it still does not imply the 'fragility' that you seem to think they have).
Quote:
LightShedder said: No offense by the mocking John, I just get the feeling sometimes that you demand proof when you actually agree (maybe not in this case) knowing that it is a fact that is unprovable. I mean how can you prove that there aren't any deadly toxins that are stored requiring power? Or that would inevitably be released without human maintenance? Even if were talking 500,000 years, these storage facilities aren't infinite.
I think that the problem is that you brush off someone asking for proof as foolish. It is not unreasonable to ask you to provide proof of your claims, or else we could all just go around saying whatever we want about anything whenever we feel the wish to, which we CAN, but you will be greeted like you were.
Google Jon Kyl, and the hashtag #notintendedtobeafactualstatement. He is a perfect example of saying what you want, and not caring about the repercussions.
Quote:
LightShedder said: And it's irrefutable that there would be a severe nuclear crisis if man or power stopped.
No it is not irrefutable, im refuting it right now. Now provide some evidence please.
Edited by KrizzKaliko (05/16/11 10:08 PM)
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
#14465182 - 05/16/11 10:19 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Then you've lost all credibility and earned my contempt sir.
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2011/03/15/rush-hour-read-anatomy-of-a-nuclear-meltdown/
"The key to the crisis is water. In addition to the uranium fuel rods, the fuel assemblies have channels which carry highly purified water between the fuel. The water acts as both a moderator for the nuclear reactions and a coolant for the reactor core. On top of it all, it makes the electricity: as it is heated by the reactor, it turns into steam that drives the power turbines. Once the water passes through the turbines it is cooled and re-injected into the core to do it all again.
It all goes great unless the water stops flowing, and that’s exactly what it appears has happened in the wake of a massive magnitude 9.0 earthquake that shook the region on 11 March. Diesel generators designed to keep feeding water to Fukushima Unit 1 apparently shutdown about an hour after the quake. Yesterday, the water supply to Unit 3 was interrupted. In both cases, the cores began to heat up.
So, without emergency cooling, the temperature at the core of both reactors began to rise. As it did, what water that remained began to boil off, increasing the pressure inside the pellet-shape pod."
Nice recent relevant example. How do you expect the cooling waters to reach the core after were long gone.
http://ngccommunity.nationalgeographic.com/ngcblogs/inside-ngc/2008/03/aftermath-life-after-people-day-10-to-1-year.html
Let me change my statement, it's irrefutable to those with basic knowledge and understanding of how nuclear reactors function that the world will face a nuclear crisis after humans are gone.
I mean there's just too many things that weve created to list. So how long do you guys predict all the nuclear reactors, warheads, biochemical toxins etc. will remain the way it is after were gone. It would seem silly to think that these things will just gently deconstruct themselves.
As for the reactors, it wouldn't take much time at all for contamination to occur. Wont matter for us cause well be gone but it's sad to think that we build all of this technology with no realistic plan on reversing it's inevitable path.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14465202 - 05/16/11 10:22 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I see one end and one end only for all the chemical toxins being stored everywhere. You want to show me proof that they will infinitely be sealed off from the atmosphere?
|
KrizzKaliko
Lurker



Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14465220 - 05/16/11 10:25 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LightShedder said: Then you've lost all credibility and earned my contempt sir.
Why because i asked for proof?
I actually liked that post, you had links, some info i didnt know, and it was presented well. But to say someone lost all credibility and earned contempt because they asked you to provide actual proof for your claims, is absolutely ridiculous.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
#14465242 - 05/16/11 10:29 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
If you were unaware of this, and refuted my claim, you've lost credibility. Not for asking for proof.
And maybe it's an exaggeration to say ALL credibility. Don't be insulted, I don't feel like anyone in this forum considers anything I say as close to credible.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14465251 - 05/16/11 10:32 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
But to stay slightly on topic, I'm genuine when I ask for proof that the wide array of biochemical toxins (to the earth) will be infinitely safely sealed. It is honestly disturbing to think that every toxin we've created and have stored will someday merge with the earth in an irresponsible way. No one thought if this when creating the stuff. Or they at least failed to consider it.
|
KrizzKaliko
Lurker



Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14465257 - 05/16/11 10:33 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LightShedder said: If you were unaware of this, and refuted my claim, you've lost credibility. Not for asking for proof.
And maybe it's an exaggeration to say ALL credibility. Don't be insulted, I don't feel like anyone in this forum considers anything I say as close to credible.
I don't feel insulted. I just wish you would realize the difference between providing opinion and providing fact. Your initial post was nothing more than speculation. THAT post (with the links) actually had some substantiated facts. If you had STARTED with those, then I would have never asked for proof to begin with ;D
|
KrizzKaliko
Lurker



Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14465269 - 05/16/11 10:36 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LightShedder said: But to stay slightly on topic, I'm genuine when I ask for proof that the wide array of biochemical toxins (to the earth) will be infinitely safely sealed.
Again, no one said that, that would be speculation. It was merely said that it would not be as 'instant' as you made it come off in your first post.
Quote:
LightShedder said:It is honestly disturbing to think that every toxin we've created and have stored will someday merge with the earth in an irresponsible way. No one thought if this when creating the stuff. Or they at least failed to consider it.
The key word there and for any manmade disaster like you describe, is 'someday'. Aside from that, I agree that they didn't think it through. Thank god some people are NOW thinking about it, now that another disaster has struck.
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/118064259.html
Edited by KrizzKaliko (05/16/11 10:37 PM)
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
#14465307 - 05/16/11 10:42 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Someday is scary enough. Call me unscientific for involving morality and emotion but shit, we have no regard for the condition of the planet when constructing said toxins. Does the chemist who manufactures said toxin think, "but before I die I'll come destroy this poison by breaking it into simpler molecules". No, they think "this will be safe so long as it stays contained in this here container" (I know this is a generalization John so don't u dare ask for proof). That seems so normal for a chemist but it's incredibly selfish and if earth had a consciousness it would be sad lol.
|
KrizzKaliko
Lurker



Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14465331 - 05/16/11 10:47 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LightShedder said: Someday is scary enough. Call me unscientific for involving morality and emotion but shit, we have no regard for the condition of the planet when constructing said toxins. Does the chemist who manufactures said toxin think, "but before I die I'll come destroy this poison by breaking it into simpler molecules". No, they think "this will be safe so long as it stays contained in this here container" (I know this is a generalization John so don't u dare ask for proof). That seems so normal for a chemist but it's incredibly selfish and if earth had a consciousness it would be sad lol.
Lol, for sure man.
I think a couple people have had their regrets. We know Einstein didn't like what he did (though someone else would have just come along to do it), but who knows about all the others.
Imo, the real problem, is the amount of money those people are paid to do it. It's pretty easy to brush off your own intuitions and morals when a fatty-bomb-batty check is coming to you constantly.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
#14465403 - 05/16/11 11:02 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
true true
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair
|
KrizzKaliko
Lurker



Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14465435 - 05/16/11 11:10 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LightShedder said: true true
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair
I tried to rep ya for that, was an excellent quote! But you've opted out of General kudos, so you get a post for it instead =D
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
#14465562 - 05/16/11 11:39 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
http://www.google.com/m/url?client=safari&ei=QgjSTcC7AaT6sgeykZ68Aw&hl=en&oe=UTF-8&q=http://www.yourdictionary.com/arsenal&ved=0CDYQFjAG&usg=AFQjCNEDu_yHK33fGSw9nJORgg2CtXMXVg
Arsenal is a store or collection.
When I say nuclear arsenal it can be understood as the collection of nuclear programs.
I'm still hoping someone can prove that all will be peaceful with no electricity or humans.
|
KrizzKaliko
Lurker



Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14465586 - 05/16/11 11:47 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LightShedder said:I'm still hoping someone can prove that all will be peaceful with no electricity or humans.
No one CAN prove that, it has been stated plenty of times, it will 'someday' happen. The argument was it would not be as soon as you seem to think it would be.
Your basically asking for proof to prove your claim wrong. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim =P
Dont start with backwards logic now! You were doing so well! 
Edited by KrizzKaliko (05/16/11 11:47 PM)
|
makaveli8x8
Stranger

Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 21,636
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
#14465635 - 05/16/11 11:58 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
but who made the claim first, him or society? The chicken or the egg? we all have a feeling of safety that if the power goes out were not going to just blow up in 24hours, where does that come from? Why hasn't anyone provided proof for that? So when another view comes in we demand proof to even consider it, yet we've already accepted something else without it?
--------------------
  We were sent to hell for eternity Ø h® We play on earth to pass the time Over-population the root of all Evil-brings the Elites Closer to the gates.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
#14465655 - 05/17/11 12:03 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
KrizzKaliko said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
LightShedder said: lol I guess you're right. Thinking about the extensive nuclear arsenal that requires daily human maintenance just to prevent a complete ecological annihilation from occurring. It'd be silly to think that we could continue the way we are forever, always able to maintain said warheads. When we go out, there's gonna be some nasty shit to follow our extinction on earth.
How do you justify your claim that people have an extensive nuclear arsenal that requires daily human maintenance just to prevent a complete ecological annihilation from occuring?
Who exactly has these warheads that are so fragile? How exactly do they cause a catastrophe if not maintained daily? I've never heard of this- what do you base this on?
Its funny cuz I instantly thought of that cartoon with the little guy bangin' his hammer on the tips of all the missiles....
Really, as I understand it, those things have very precise ignition mechanisms, and to get one to detonate without doing it properly, is damn near impossible. They aren't as 'unpredictable' and fragile as many seem to think they are.
"You said *somebody* had an "extensive nuclear arsenal that requires daily human maintenance just to prevent a complete ecological annihilation from occurring". Given that you've now retracted that statement, I'm having difficulty understanding how you attribute all this ignorance and malice to me when you seem to agree your claim was wrong.
Quote:
In addition, all of the manufacturing facilities around the globe that have deadly gases under containment that might be released into the atmosphere should the power fail and or the fuel supply cut off.
What are these "deadly gasses" that manufacturing facilities have that would be released into the atmosphere should the power fail or fuel supply be cut off? I'm not familiar with any kind of storage vessel for particularly nasty gasses that require power to contain. What are you referring to here? Containers that vent anyways, like those for compressed nitrogen, et cet I suppose would release gas more rapidly if cooling isn't supplied, but that's obviously not a big deal for the environment- the gasses get released during use anyways. Just stay out of confined spaces. What are you referring to that manufacturing facilities store like this?"Quote:
KrizzKaliko said:
Quote:
What are these "deadly gasses" that manufacturing facilities have that would be released into the atmosphere should the power fail or fuel supply be cut off?
Your missing something important John:
Quote:
you're just annoyingly demand "proof" for a rational claim because it doesn't come with stupid references.
questioning obvious facts and robotically saying "errrr wuddaya base that on, errrr wuddaya base that on, errrr wuddaya base that on?" thats quite annoying bud.
This is all the answer you need. He obviously is ok with making up his own facts, representing them as such, and then shout down anyone who asks for proof.
I would put money on it he is a Creationist as well.
I'm not demanding someone prove me wrong because I think I'm right, but rather because im honestly hoping I'm wrong.
Based on the above posts I'd day you guys owe some proof unless your admitting I'm right. (again, I dont know or care that this is true, rather I'm hoping it's not and just genuinely asking for proof that it's not, since you and John thought it was such a crazy idea.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
#14465673 - 05/17/11 12:07 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
makaveli8x8 said: but who made the claim first, him or society? The chicken or the egg? we all have a feeling of safety that if the power goes out were not going to just blow up in 24hours, where does that come from? Why hasn't anyone provided proof for that? So when another view comes in we demand proof to even consider it, yet we've already accepted something else without it?
Bingo.
If they believe it to be true, they should provide evidence, as I was expected to.
Quote:
KrizzKaliko said:
Quote:
LightShedder said:I'm still hoping someone can prove that all will be peaceful with no electricity or humans.
No one CAN prove that, it has been stated plenty of times, it will 'someday' happen. The argument was it would not be as soon as you seem to think it would be.
Your basically asking for proof to prove your claim wrong. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim =P
Dont start with backwards logic now! You were doing so well! 

By refuting my claim, you and johnM clearly made your own and now I'm asking for proof.
Not in an offensive way as I feel like y'all asked for mine, but honestly in a "please tell me this really is a crazi idea for the earths sake" kind of way.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14465682 - 05/17/11 12:09 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
BTW it's just as silly to demand that I prove something like my claim as it is when I ask you to prove your claim is correct. There is no body if evidence out there describing what will occur exactly if mankind/electricity cease. That's why it's so annoying to demand proof when it should be obvious.
|
KrizzKaliko
Lurker



Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14465736 - 05/17/11 12:22 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LightShedder said: BTW it's just as silly to demand that I prove something like my claim as it is when I ask you to prove your claim is correct. There is no body if evidence out there describing what will occur exactly if mankind/electricity cease. That's why it's so annoying to demand proof when it should be obvious.
That's slightly true. There IS proof that they have started implementing more safe features and unmanned plenty of stations. Japans reactor was decades behind, that's why it got so bad so fast.
Negative Feedback (through Doppler Broadening), among other safety features, are used in pebble bed reactors. Most US reactors have to be certified to have said 'Negative Feedback' option available to open in modern times.
Heres a link to the wiki on Pebble Bed Reactors, it briefly covers the newer versions of Negative Feedback, but a quick google will bring you even more results. It is because of these features, that i say that it would take longer than you think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
Again, its those Negative Feedback mechanisms, that would cause it to take much longer than you think, barring any natural disaster that could speed up the process (by destroying the building, etc).
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
#14465767 - 05/17/11 12:31 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Well there's a glimpse of hope. At least they're acknowledging the potential dangers. That makes me feel better than believing that those with the power to create such forces are inconsiderate of their effect on the planet. I still think if were to be wiped out, it would likely be spontaneous and therefore we won't be preparing for it. It would take so much reconstructing and preparation to ensure that if we went out, things would just continue naturally without our creations impacting the order of things.
The more I think about it the more hopeless I feel.
|
KrizzKaliko
Lurker



Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14465867 - 05/17/11 12:56 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LightShedder said: Well there's a glimpse of hope. At least they're acknowledging the potential dangers. That makes me feel better than believing that those with the power to create such forces are inconsiderate of their effect on the planet. I still think if were to be wiped out, it would likely be spontaneous and therefore we won't be preparing for it. It would take so much reconstructing and preparation to ensure that if we went out, things would just continue naturally without our creations impacting the order of things.
The more I think about it the more hopeless I feel.
And we find ourselves in complete agreement again 
our universe is so big, so vast, so unknown, we couldnt ever possibly be prepared really. I mean, we could do what we can to keep Earth here after we leave, but really? Doom.
All it would take is some random comet or asteroid moving at speeds we've never seen before, and , Mankind is history. And thats one of the most 'unlikely' scenarios lol
Most likely it will just be on a much more massive scale. Like one of those gasses you are scared of being released BEFORE we are all gone lol
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
#14465944 - 05/17/11 01:22 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Thanks for rubbing the nasty truth in my face! lol
|
KrizzKaliko
Lurker



Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14467308 - 05/17/11 10:43 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I found this mildly on topic, at least to what we had been bantering about for the last page or so, tell me what ya think:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20063570-10391704.html
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
#14470339 - 05/17/11 10:03 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I think if they need a sample to use for vaccine research, they should do a number of logical things
A. Keep a few tiny samples secretly hidden. (<5) B. Not have " the WHO's supply, 451 samples of smallpox virus being held by the CDC, and 120 stored in a remote Siberian town in Russia",
The latter one especially if they are concerned about "terrorists" getting a hold of some. Not to mention, if they were to ever face a sudden outbreak, why are they so confident that they could magically come up with an antidote/vaccine in reasonable effective time? If they could come up with one quickly, then they ought to do it immediately then destroy all the samples of virus. Then we have a world full of smallpox vaccines and void of any smallpox virus! I like that idea!
Also, if smallpox is easy enough for a Muslim nomad to make, why couldn't they just cook up a new batch if an outbreak ever did occur?
Also, I was talkin with a buddy today and I thought of an easy solution to the nuclear power plant issue...
Have a computerized system in place with every facility that requires a password to be typed in every day. If the password is ever not typed in every day, then after 3 non-password-authorized days, the computer engages a deconstruction program on the reactors uranium/plutonium etc. with equipment installed into facility. This way, if were not around for 3 days it'd be a good indicator that it has got to be disabled within 3 weeks or however long the generators would last.
This couldn't be that much extra of a hassle when building a facility. Well worth the effort too. How cone the guys who build and design these things don't think of this?
Duh.
Edited by LightShedder (05/17/11 10:18 PM)
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14470473 - 05/17/11 10:25 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Power plant deconstruction: Phase 1: Deconstruction of machinery and parts, which are not required for "residual" operation. Preparation of further steps and infrastructure. Phase 2: Deconstruction of large components in the containment building Phase 3: Deconstruction of the pressure containment building and the biological shield Phase 4: Deconstruction of the remaining contaminated parts.
I've read in mycelium running (stamets) that psilocybe cubensis mycelium can be applied to uranium to break it down into simpler less toxic compounds.
|
makaveli8x8
Stranger

Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 21,636
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14470513 - 05/17/11 10:31 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
i just thought of one, altho i can't remember what the topic specifically is anymore im thinking it was what would happen if electricity was gone. Anyways what i thought of was undersea oil drilling and the caps and stuff because i remember they were spewing out alot of gas. I think it was mainly methane or something which i can't remember how harmful that stuff is but there's also the oil to think about and the collapse of seabeds, which may screw up faultlines and possibly trigger earthquakes ect ect. There was also a theory about the gases down there exploding or something and whipping out the life on our planet. So anyways thats kind of a big one thats right up there with the nuke reactors altho its most likely more reliant on fuel than anything to keep it going
--------------------
  We were sent to hell for eternity Ø h® We play on earth to pass the time Over-population the root of all Evil-brings the Elites Closer to the gates.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: makaveli8x8]
#14470653 - 05/17/11 10:48 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Im gonna look into that scenario and the design of those ocean oil pumps. There's probably too many things for guys like us to consider.
|
makaveli8x8
Stranger

Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 21,636
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14470720 - 05/17/11 10:58 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
yah im not sure how it all works but i mean without human intervention it seems logical that eventually at least a few will fail. I think i remember them telling us they had that bp well sealed shut and then it started spewing again in another spot or something like that. Just seems like something they have to monitor to me and without electricity or fuel that won't be possible
--------------------
  We were sent to hell for eternity Ø h® We play on earth to pass the time Over-population the root of all Evil-brings the Elites Closer to the gates.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: makaveli8x8]
#14470763 - 05/17/11 11:05 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Maybe without electricity, the pumps would just stop pumping altogether before they caused a spill? That might not be enough to prevent a spill. I'm gonna read about that one.
|
|