An Inconvienent Truth

[HiT-2-TiMeS]

LOL

Do we have the ability to build new homes for more than a billion people?

yes, why the hell not? what is so hard about building a fucking house?

Do we have the ability to feed 10 billion people with 1 billion refugees from sea level rise in a world of rapidly changing climate when we couldn't even feed 3, 4, 5, 6 and now 7 billions in a much more stable climate? Rapidly changing climate = very bad news for agriculture in case you don't know....

yeah why not. the us government already pays farmers to dump out milk and keep farmland fallow, basically subsidizing them. With growing technology food production will also go up.

Do we have the ability to find land where people from Netherland and some island countries can relocate?

again, yeah. there is tons of empty space in the us. tons of empty space in russia and china too. not that fucking hard. you are acting like there is no empty land at all. try looking at google earth and look at all the fucking empty space.

It is that type of "everything will be fine, why bother?" thinking that lead us to the catastrophe

ok nice try dumbass we arent even in a catastrophe yet thats just what al gore wants you to think.

 

[ThaG]

Read what you quoted again. Please R-E-A-D what you quoted again. I am not talking about evolutionists, but the doctrine/dogma of evolution, and YOU are the evolutionist who said our purpose here is to spread our genes as much as possible.

1. it's not dogma but the greatest discovery in human history

2. I never told you "Do it", I only explained you what the natural thing to do is. The natural and the right thing are not necessarily one and the same. I also told you it is natural for you to eat all the food you can find, become 1000 pounds at the age of 20 and die of heart attack. You don't want to do it, I'm sure....

ThaG that IS a form of birth control. Nothing else needs to be said.

It's not, most of these kids do not come from premarital sex. Please, look at the real world, not what your philosophy class tells you about absolute statements...

The bible also says a man is worse than an infidel if he doesn't take care of his kids, yet you see many kids in america that are without their fathers and depend on welfare to sustain themselves. If the bible says "go forth and multiply" why are you putting a limit on it when YOU already said our sole purpose is to spread our genes? At that point isn't the bible simply reaffirming evolution?

See above

Our sole purpose is to spread our genes, that's not going to happen if we kill the planet. Think globally and in the long term, don't be so shortsighted. And again, I never said we should "go forth and multiply", stop misinterpreting me

And I can also argue that practicing early is what contributes to the growth of population. In fact, I can post teh info if you like. :dead:

not if you're educated enough to use condoms... oh, I forgot, the church is opposed to condoms...

LOL! You finally have some wit and humor about yourself. Have you considered that maybe their culture places a stigma on sex and looks at is a "bad" thing? Could that be the reason why they were misinformed?

it is the reason, but where does it come from?

Since you want to play the role of a dummy:

More than three-quarters of Catholics in the United States say the church should allow the use of artificial birth control, according to a recent Gallup Poll. And millions ignore the ban every day.

That's good but what about muslims and southern baptists??

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/06/20/ap3840172.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/washington/20stem.html?_r=1&ref=washington&oref=slogin

I haven't seen this one, I'm on vacation right now, if I was in the lab, I would have heard people's uproar against it, but I'm missing some things when I'm 10,000 kilometers away. Anyway, nothing surprising, we'll keep counting the days until the next elections and hope democrats win, there's nothing else we can do....

 

[ThaG]

yes, why the hell not? what is so hard about building a fucking house?

Nothing, the question is where?

yeah why not. the us government already pays farmers to dump out milk and keep farmland fallow, basically subsidizing them. With growing technology food production will also go up.

Growing food technology production? How much?

again, yeah. there is tons of empty space in the us. tons of empty space in russia and china too. not that fucking hard. you are acting like there is no empty land at all. try looking at google earth and look at all the fucking empty space.

There is plenty of space, is it habitable?

Russia and Alaska:

China:

These are your empty spaces...

And where the hell is wildlife going if we occupy them all???

ok nice try dumbass we arent even in a catastrophe yet thats just what al gore wants you to think.

Al Gore has his info from more knowledgeable people. We are less than 10 years away from the point of no return. If we do something drastic right now...

I don't see anything serious being done and time is ticking

We are essentially in a catastrophe, although it's not obvious yet, it's 99.95% certain

 

[HiT-2-TiMeS]

ok first off, who gives a shit where the refugees live. yeah its cold in russia big fucking deal. they can handle it. secondly, you really think these people know 100% for certain what is going to happen? modeling the climate with computers is a very very very inexact science. otherwise, wouldnt we be able to know when hurricanes are going to happen before there are any signs of them? nope, because the climate is way too damn complicated.

so if what you are saying is life might be more difficult if all these predictions come true, i would agree with you. but the human race is going to survive, believe that. you really think we are going to be wiped out by the sea level rising 20 feet in 100 years or whatever? give me a break.

 

[ThaG]

ok first off, who gives a shit where the refugees live. yeah its cold in russia big fucking deal. they can handle it. secondly, you really think these people know 100% for certain what is going to happen? modeling the climate with computers is a very very very inexact science. otherwise, wouldnt we be able to know when hurricanes are going to happen before there are any signs of them? nope, because the climate is way too damn complicated.

I showed you a picture of melting permafrost (you can't build homes on it if you don't know) and a desert...

Modeling is inexact, but guess what? Scientists know it too so they look at the past and they see exactly the same things, they build different models, etc. All the evidence says the same thing - Anthropogenic Climate Change. Check the IPCC report if you don't believe me

so if what you are saying is life might be more difficult if all these predictions come true, i would agree with you. but the human race is going to survive, believe that. you really think we are going to be wiped out by the sea level rising 20 feet in 100 years or whatever? give me a break.

Sea level is only part of the problem - droughts and famines in an overpopulated and physically shrinking world are bound to bring global chaos. Conflicts are inevitable and they will be over the most basic resources - food and water. Meanwhile, more and more countries develop nuclear weapons... you see where I'm hitting at?

 

[HiT-2-TiMeS]

well you have your opinions, i have mine. i personally think most of this is just hype and scare tactics. we will see who is right in the fairly near future.

 

[HERESY]

lol

1. it's not dogma but the greatest discovery in human history

ok.

2. I never told you "Do it", I only explained you what the natural thing to do is. The natural and the right thing are not necessarily one and the same. I also told you it is natural for you to eat all the food you can find, become 1000 pounds at the age of 20 and die of heart attack. You don't want to do it, I'm sure....

ThaG you and I both know it is not natural to eat all the food you can find, gain 1,000 lbs and die at age 20. Thats not natural. It is a natural process that can occur if one chooses to be foolish, but you and I both know the human body was not designed for that.

Now as far as evolution and spreading the genes, again according to you this is what we are designed to do, so why would you come with your wacky analogy and try to compare the two? Shouldn't evolution put something in us that compensates for all of this? I mean if birds can evolve in order to survive, why can't man evolve in order to survive? Why do we need to resort to other methods to curb what you say is a natural process?

It's not, most of these kids do not come from premarital sex. Please, look at the real world, not what your philosophy class tells you about absolute statements...

If they don't come from premarital sex that should tell you people are considering the wait. That should tell you people are waiting until the time is right instead of fucking at 11 and 12 years of age.

See above

Our sole purpose is to spread our genes, that's not going to happen if we kill the planet. Think globally and in the long term, don't be so shortsighted. And again, I never said we should "go forth and multiply", stop misinterpreting me

No, what you said was to limit what you claim evolution designed us to do, and told us we should do it by killing off a large portion of the population.

not if you're educated enough to use condoms... oh, I forgot, the church is opposed to condoms...

Not all churches, and in both threads I gave you evidence to back my claim. Even in THIS thread you see evidence of people going AGAINST what the catholic church says is right.

it is the reason, but where does it come from?

That is the million dollar question. It could be religion, it could be their cultural upbringing and view of sex outside of religion, it could be some weird moral view they have. I don't know and I can't say.

That's good but what about muslims and southern baptists??

I already told you about muslims in teh otehr thread, and southern baptist are usually divided into two camps when it comes to this issue. The first camp is the "be fruitful and multiply" camp where they don't have an issue with sex and children (as long as it is in the confines of marriage.) The other camp is the "Hellfire and Brimstone" camp that says you can't do any other position other than missionary and that sex is for procreation only. One group usually has no problem against condoms while the other generally sees it as a tool of the devil to promote immorality.

I haven't seen this one, I'm on vacation right now, if I was in the lab, I would have heard people's uproar against it, but I'm missing some things when I'm 10,000 kilometers away. Anyway, nothing surprising, we'll keep counting the days until the next elections and hope democrats win, there's nothing else we can do....

democrats are not going to solve the problem.

Enjoy your vacation.

 

[ThaG]

ThaG you and I both know it is not natural to eat all the food you can find, gain 1,000 lbs and die at age 20. Thats not natural. It is a natural process that can occur if one chooses to be foolish, but you and I both know the human body was not designed for that.

It's a perfectly good analogy - you are "designed" (can't avoid using the word) for storing fat, this is why people get obese. This exact trait helped our ancestors survive and that's what many people continue to do in modern society although there is no need to do it and it is harmful for them. It is exactly the same thing with birth rate. We used to have as many children as we could because most of them didn't survive until adulthood. That helped us be survive and be competitive as a species. But we kept doing it once there was no need for it although it is harmful.

[/quote]Now as far as evolution and spreading the genes, again according to you this is what we are designed to do, so why would you come with your wacky analogy and try to compare the two? Shouldn't evolution put something in us that compensates for all of this? I mean if birds can evolve in order to survive, why can't man evolve in order to survive? Why do we need to resort to other methods to curb what you say is a natural process?[/quote]

Evolution doesn't put things in organisms just because it would be good. It works with what is available as variation and according to what direction natural selection acts in. I don't want to get into the whole adaptationism vs. pluralism issue, this is not the place for this. What you fail to understand is that evolution acts over long periods of time and that "population growth brake" mechanisms can only develop if the need for them appears periodically over very long stretches of time, if these mechanisms provide selective advantage and if the necessary variation is available. These are too many requirements and I am not aware of any examples of such mechanisms (this doesn't mean there aren't). It is impossible for them to evolve over 200 years though. When a population grows exponentially, it exhausts the resources of the environment and its levels drop dramatically very quickly. It's a basic law in ecology. This is what is going to happen with us, the problem is that we have such a huge impact on Earth that in our case exhaustion of the environment means destruction of the whole planet and extinction of us and most of life. These are not hype and scary tactics but very serious warnings.

That's why we need to do something and the more we wait, the more unpleasant measures will be needed. We already waited too long....

You are right that Nature always finds a way to regulate and stabilize things, what you fail to realize is that the way this happens is not always pretty


[/quote]
If they don't come from premarital sex that should tell you people are considering the wait. That should tell you people are waiting until the time is right instead of fucking at 11 and 12 years of age.[/quote]

This is completely irrelevant, stop parroting it. If you have 15 children from your husband it doesn't fucking matter whether you were a virgin or not when you married. Is it so hard to understand?

No, what you said was to limit what you claim evolution designed us to do, and told us we should do it by killing off a large portion of the population.

You have two choices:

1. Somehow eliminate 5 billions right now (right now means in the next 10-20 years, not necessarily all at once, but start in 2010 the latest).

2. Stick to the "business-as-usual" scenario. Billions will die but the global chaos that will result from the global climate change might wipe us all form the face of the Earth

Which one do you pick?

Not all churches, and in both threads I gave you evidence to back my claim. Even in THIS thread you see evidence of people going AGAINST what the catholic church says is right.

Yes, but the church is against birth control and this backs up my claim

That is the million dollar question. It could be religion, it could be their cultural upbringing and view of sex outside of religion, it could be some weird moral view they have. I don't know and I can't say.

Where are culture and moral views derived from?

I already told you about muslims in teh otehr thread, and southern baptist are usually divided into two camps when it comes to this issue. The first camp is the "be fruitful and multiply" camp where they don't have an issue with sex and children (as long as it is in the confines of marriage.) The other camp is the "Hellfire and Brimstone" camp that says you can't do any other position other than missionary and that sex is for procreation only. One group usually has no problem against condoms while the other generally sees it as a tool of the devil to promote immorality.

You can't just say some mulsims sects are pro-birth control. Most muslims are multiplying like pests and their religion is directly reposnsible. This is the hard fact from the real world. Whether some sect has different views is irrelevant, what most people are doing is what matter.

democrats are not going to solve the problem.

Enjoy your vacation.

The problem is easy to solve - just remove all restrictions. Whether they will do it is an open question but what is sure is that republicans will not....

 

[HERESY]

It's a perfectly good analogy - you are "designed" (can't avoid using the word) for storing fat, this is why people get obese. This exact trait helped our ancestors survive and that's what many people continue to do in modern society although there is no need to do it and it is harmful for them.

You are designed to do so until a certain point.

It is exactly the same thing with birth rate. We used to have as many children as we could because most of them didn't survive until adulthood. That helped us be survive and be competitive as a species. But we kept doing it once there was no need for it although it is harmful.

Industrialaztion, technology and science contributed to this.

Evolution doesn't put things in organisms just because it would be good. It works with what is available as variation and according to what direction natural selection acts in. I don't want to get into the whole adaptationism vs. pluralism issue, this is not the place for this.

ok.

What you fail to understand is that evolution acts over long periods of time and that "population growth brake" mechanisms can only develop if the need for them appears periodically over very long stretches of time, if these mechanisms provide selective advantage and if the necessary variation is available. These are too many requirements and I am not aware of any examples of such mechanisms (this doesn't mean there aren't). It is impossible for them to evolve over 200 years though. When a population grows exponentially, it exhausts the resources of the environment and its levels drop dramatically very quickly. It's a basic law in ecology. This is what is going to happen with us, the problem is that we have such a huge impact on Earth that in our case exhaustion of the environment means destruction of the whole planet and extinction of us and most of life. These are not hype and scary tactics but very serious warnings.

No, I don't fail to understand it. I understand that it takes 500 million years to go from stubs to fully working fingers or limbs...

ThaG, I don't see evolution as some random event. In cases where I do see evolution it seems structured, and what you basically implied is that it is structured and based on two things: time and environmental conditions. This is a total spin from what you said in another thread, but we'll forget about that and move on. What I'm saying is if evolution designed us to spread our genes as much as possible, there has to be a safeguard within us that will compensate for population and changes in the environment. The problem with this is evolution did not take into account the fact that humans would utilize CAPITALISM, not religion, and drain the planet of its resources.

Now as far as the threat is concerned, I understand it is real. When we have debates about illegal immigration in america I don't approach it from a racial POV. I approach it from a scientific POV and provide links were a certain scientist explains americas population now, where it will be in 50 years, and what will happen to the resources when we reach the 400-450 million peak. So, I understand what you're saying, I simply don't agree with the methods. I do not believe in killing 5 billion people because the earth is going to explode in 50 years. I believe a more sensible thing to do is to find alternative fuel sources such as hydrogen or solar power, increase the infrastructures in third world countries and do away with eurocentrism, capitalism and imperialism.

Look at this chart and you'll see that the problems can be linked to everything I said. Your claim that religion is the cause of this shows your deep rooted hatred for religion and BELIEF PRESERVERANCE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

That's why we need to do something and the more we wait, the more unpleasant measures will be needed. We already waited too long....You are right that Nature always finds a way to regulate and stabilize things, what you fail to realize is that the way this happens is not always pretty

Who decides who should live and who should die? How does that work? Do we all pick straws? Do we pick the smartest people? Do we pick the most attractive? Do we nuke countries where there are more people of color?

This is completely irrelevant, stop parroting it. If you have 15 children from your husband it doesn't fucking matter whether you were a virgin or not when you married. Is it so hard to understand?

If I am parroting it is because you won't stop bringing it up. It is because you won't stop blaming religion for every single problem on this planet. ThaG, if you WAIT to have children the possibilities of you NOT having children increases. ThaG why is it so hard to understand that waiting offers a decrease?

1. Somehow eliminate 5 billions right now (right now means in the next 10-20 years, not necessarily all at once, but start in 2010 the latest).

Who decides?

2. Stick to the "business-as-usual" scenario. Billions will die but the global chaos that will result from the global climate change might wipe us all form the face of the Earth

Good. We need to be humbled.

Which one do you pick?

3. Find alternative fuel sources such as hydrogen or solar power, increase the infrastructures in third world countries and do away with eurocentrism, capitalism and imperialism

Yes, but the church is against birth control and this backs up my claim

But the MEMBERS, the people HAVING SEX, are AGAINST the church which backs up MY claim. The CATHOLIC church can babble all they want but millions of people are STILL going against them.

You can't just say some mulsims sects are pro-birth control. Most muslims are multiplying like pests and their religion is directly reposnsible.

Pay attention everyone, and you can research and look into this if you want. When people refer to other people as pests/vermin or disease they usually have a superiority complex that is rooted in racism and often times it is nazism.

ThaG, show us how islam is directly responsible.

Where are culture and moral views derived from?

Many things. Economic class, ascribed status, social status, where you live etc. Are you implying that culture and moral views are derived solely from religion? If so...CTFU!

The problem is easy to solve - just remove all restrictions. Whether they will do it is an open question but what is sure is that republicans will not....

Two peas in the pod.

 

[ThaG]

You are designed to do so until a certain point.

there's no "certain point", if there was people would not have problem with their blood vessels

No, I don't fail to understand it. I understand that it takes 500 million years to go from stubs to fully working fingers or limbs...

ThaG, I don't see evolution as some random event. In cases where I do see evolution it seems structured, and what you basically implied is that it is structured and based on two things: time and environmental conditions. This is a total spin from what you said in another thread, but we'll forget about that and move on. What I'm saying is if evolution designed us to spread our genes as much as possible, there has to be a safeguard within us that will compensate for population and changes in the environment. The problem with this is evolution did not take into account the fact that humans would utilize CAPITALISM, not religion, and drain the planet of its resources.

1. There can't be a safeguard is there hasn't been any selective pressure towards it.

2. Please. stop seeing purpose everywhere, especially in evolution. This is the classical creationist's way of thinking. The reason why evolution is the greatest scientific discovery of all time is that it totally changes the way we think about the world. There is no purpose behind anything and evolution is random (adaptationists ignore genetic drift, but genetic drift is essentially random and it is a major force in evolution). I didn't spin off anything, I explained you that if there is no selective pressure the chances of variation in certain direction being stabilized decrease dramatically and that you can't expect humans to evolve safeguard mechanisms over 200 years. It doesn't work that way. What could these mechanisms be? Out of what will they evolve? How will they be stabilized in the population?

No way this can happen other than social evolution. Social evolution is what I suggest, but social evolution consciously directed by us

[/quote]Now as far as the threat is concerned, I understand it is real. When we have debates about illegal immigration in america I don't approach it from a racial POV. I approach it from a scientific POV and provide links were a certain scientist explains americas population now, where it will be in 50 years, and what will happen to the resources when we reach the 400-450 million peak. So, I understand what you're saying, I simply don't agree with the methods. I do not believe in killing 5 billion people because the earth is going to explode in 50 years. I believe a more sensible thing to do is to find alternative fuel sources such as hydrogen or solar power, increase the infrastructures in third world countries and do away with eurocentrism, capitalism and imperialism.[/quote]

Don't get me wrong, these things are absolutely necessary, but they are not enough. The point of no return is 2015!!. If we don't cut our emission at least in half by then there is no way we can prevent meting of Greenland and West Antarctica.

2015...

Honestly, do you see any way the whole infrastructure of the world can be changed in 8 years combined with a drastic change in people's way of thinking about the environment???

Not only that, every time global warming is discussed by politicians, they always leave out the population problem. They can take measure to reduce emissions by 2020, 2030 or some other year (which is terribly late), but they never mention that no positive effects will be observed if meanwhile population rises with 20%.

Don't think I haven't thought about more humanistic solutions, but there simply aren't any. What I propose is the last thing that will be done but I'm afraid that even the measures that will be taken will be completely ineffective

Who decides who should live and who should die? How does that work? Do we all pick straws? Do we pick the smartest people? Do we pick the most attractive? Do we nuke countries where there are more people of color?

1. We don't nuke anybody. We want to preserve the environment

2. We free large areas of land for wildlife preservation so forests can do their job and remove as much CO2 as possible and provide shelter for endangered species. We leave only the indigenous tribes there and forbid any access to these areas to people other than scientists and tourists in some isolated parts. You can make a list of the areas on your own, I won't list them here.

3. We calculate the impact of the average citizen of each country on the environment and the optimal population size of each country assuming its average citizen consumes as much as the average American (we want to solve the poverty problem too)

4. Every country is responsible to bring the size of its population to the optimal whatever way it finds appropriate and ASAP. Certainly smartest people have to be kept, the rest will be randomly selected.

If I am parroting it is because you won't stop bringing it up. It is because you won't stop blaming religion for every single problem on this planet. ThaG, if you WAIT to have children the possibilities of you NOT having children increases. ThaG why is it so hard to understand that waiting offers a decrease?

I would not call abstinence, marriage at 14 and having 10 kids, or abstinence, marriage at 20 and having 6 kids helpful...

3. Find alternative fuel sources such as hydrogen or solar power, increase the infrastructures in third world countries and do away with eurocentrism, capitalism and imperialism

It's too late for that, it has to be done, but it will not happen fast enough to help us

Pay attention everyone, and you can research and look into this if you want. When people refer to other people as pests/vermin or disease they usually have a superiority complex that is rooted in racism and often times it is nazism.

ThaG, show us how islam is directly responsible.

No racism, please

Islam is directly responsible for people rejecting birth control and being ignorant and illiterate. All of these are tightly linked to overpopulation. muslim countries tend to have much higher population growth rates than other. A good example: India went from 500 million to 1.1 billion (doubled), in the same time Pakistan and Bangladesh went from 70 million to 330 combined (more than quadrupled)

 

[HERESY]

there's no "certain point", if there was people would not have problem with their blood vessels

There is a certain point, and teh body is not designed to store an infinate amount of fat. Do you understand what metabolic syndrome is? Have you heard of the term? If not here is a link for you:

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4756

1. There can't be a safeguard is there hasn't been any selective pressure towards it.

Elaborate on your statement.

2. Please. stop seeing purpose everywhere, especially in evolution.

I can see purpose in whatever I want. If I see a purpose in some forms of evolution I am well within my right to do so.

This is the classical creationist's way of thinking.

Inductive or deductive reasoning...take your pick.

The reason why evolution is the greatest scientific discovery of all time is that it totally changes the way we think about the world.

A person who suffers from erectile problems might praise viagra as being the greatest scientific discovery of all time. In other words, you are simply presenting your opinion on the matter.

There is no purpose behind anything and evolution is random (adaptationists ignore genetic drift, but genetic drift is essentially random and it is a major force in evolution).

No purpose behind anything? So far you are the only evolutionist on this board to hold that perception. How can evolution be random if outside influences trigger it?

I didn't spin off anything, I explained you that if there is no selective pressure the chances of variation in certain direction being stabilized decrease dramatically and that you can't expect humans to evolve safeguard mechanisms over 200 years. It doesn't work that way. What could these mechanisms be? Out of what will they evolve? How will they be stabilized in the population?

The words in bold doom your entire argument that it is a random event. Maybe these mechanisms could be a lower sperm count, smaller penis size and less force when ejaculation happens. Maybe it could be the shrinking of ovaries, I don't know. How did it work with dinosaurs? How did it work with early mammals or early man?

No way this can happen other than social evolution. Social evolution is what I suggest, but social evolution consciously directed by us

ok.

Don't get me wrong, these things are absolutely necessary, but they are not enough. The point of no return is 2015!!. If we don't cut our emission at least in half by then there is no way we can prevent meting of Greenland and West Antarctica.

2015...

And who is causing most of the emission? Who uses up the majority of teh worlds resources?

Honestly, do you see any way the whole infrastructure of the world can be changed in 8 years combined with a drastic change in people's way of thinking about the environment???

Nuke war or the collapse of the american economy which would lead to a global collapse.

Not only that, every time global warming is discussed by politicians, they always leave out the population problem. They can take measure to reduce emissions by 2020, 2030 or some other year (which is terribly late), but they never mention that no positive effects will be observed if meanwhile population rises with 20%.

In order to address population they HAVE to address capitalism. Do you think they want to address this? Do you think they want to address their hand in teh destruction of basic infrastructures? Do you think they want to address how the lust for money drives them to cut down forests so they can build homes and business to generate profit?

Don't think I haven't thought about more humanistic solutions, but there simply aren't any. What I propose is the last thing that will be done but I'm afraid that even the measures that will be taken will be completely ineffective

So basically we are doomed?

1. We don't nuke anybody. We want to preserve the environment

Sarcasm bro. PLEASE find a funny bone and put it in your body.

2. We free large areas of land for wildlife preservation so forests can do their job and remove as much CO2 as possible and provide shelter for endangered species. We leave only the indigenous tribes there and forbid any access to these areas to people other than scientists and tourists in some isolated parts. You can make a list of the areas on your own, I won't list them here.

:dead:

3. We calculate the impact of the average citizen of each country on the environment and the optimal population size of each country assuming its average citizen consumes as much as the average American (we want to solve the poverty problem too)

Good luck findging places where the average citizen consumes the same amount as the average american. I was reading something on china and how they import the majority of meat, yet americans eat more per year. america is more of a problem than anything you have listed so far.

4. Every country is responsible to bring the size of its population to the optimal whatever way it finds appropriate and ASAP. Certainly smartest people have to be kept, the rest will be randomly selected.

How do you determine who is the smartest? There are people with degrees that can't find their way out of paper bags.

I would not call abstinence, marriage at 14 and having 10 kids, or abstinence, marriage at 20 and having 6 kids helpful...

I would. Look at their ages and how long it would take them to produce offspring. After that, consider the fact that as your body ages the chances of producing offspring DECREASES.

It's too late for that, it has to be done, but it will not happen fast enough to help us

I don't think it is too late and let me ask you a question. Instead of scientist and creationists arguing about god, evolution etc, do you think both should come to grips with this grim reality, put all differences aside and work on a viable solution?

No racism, please

No, you fit the nazi molde to a "T", and I'm not the only one who see's it.

Islam is directly responsible for people rejecting birth control and being ignorant and illiterate. All of these are tightly linked to overpopulation. muslim countries tend to have much higher population growth rates than other. A good example: India went from 500 million to 1.1 billion (doubled), in the same time Pakistan and Bangladesh went from 70 million to 330 combined (more than quadrupled)

INDUSTRIALIZATION is what is leading to the increase NOT religious doctrine/dogma. These people have been muslim for CENTURIES, yet you see an increase when MODERNIZATION and POST INDUSTRIALIZATION occurs.

Please, STOP blaming religion for every problem and address the FACT that CAPITALISM, INDUSTRIALIZATION, URBANIZATION, IMPERIALISM and EUROCENTRISM are the MAIN factors why we have an increase. LOOK at the chart that I gave you in teh last thread and look atw hen the increases occured. The majority, if not ALL major increases occured in time periods where technology was advancing and INDUSTRIALIZATION was on the rise.

 

[ThaG]

Elaborate on your statement.

No selective advantage = less chance of allele stabilization

basic evolutionary theory, what more do you want?

I can see purpose in whatever I want. If I see a purpose in some forms of evolution I am well within my right to do so.

But that's certainly not scientific....

Inductive or deductive reasoning...take your pick.



A person who suffers from erectile problems might praise viagra as being the greatest scientific discovery of all time. In other words, you are simply presenting your opinion on the matter.

whatever...

No purpose behind anything? So far you are the only evolutionist on this board to hold that perception. How can evolution be random if outside influences trigger it?

It is not random in absolute terms because everything is ultimately caused by something, it is random in the sense that mutations are random we can't predict the outcome of evolution.

The words in bold doom your entire argument that it is a random event. Maybe these mechanisms could be a lower sperm count, smaller penis size and less force when ejaculation happens. Maybe it could be the shrinking of ovaries, I don't know. How did it work with dinosaurs? How did it work with early mammals or early man?

You talk like a person with zero understanding of biology. Sorry

It never worked anyway with early man, mammals or dionsaurs, what kept their numbers in check were natural mechanisms - diseases, parasites, predators, lack of food, etc. That's why there are no "safeguard mechanisms" preventing populations from growing too much, because they balanced each other. We broke the balance because these natural mechanisms mostly do not act on us anymore

And who is causing most of the emission? Who uses up the majority of teh worlds resources?

USA and Western Europe of course

Nuke war or the collapse of the american economy which would lead to a global collapse.

We don't want a nuke war, actually a nuke war become more and more probable the more we keep our heads in the sand and not do anything

In order to address population they HAVE to address capitalism. Do you think they want to address this? Do you think they want to address their hand in teh destruction of basic infrastructures? Do you think they want to address how the lust for money drives them to cut down forests so they can build homes and business to generate profit?

Capitalism is a direct result of the way we see our place in the universe. I am surprised you don't see it

So basically we are doomed?

Yes

Sarcasm bro. PLEASE find a funny bone and put it in your body.

no sarcasm, I'm serious

:dead:



Good luck findging places where the average citizen consumes the same amount as the average american. I was reading something on china and how they import the majority of meat, yet americans eat more per year. america is more of a problem than anything you have listed so far.

OK, I'll have to elaborate more on this one: if we want to reduce poverty we have to let people that are poor now consume more in the future. This means more energy and resources. The other thing to consider is that while these people are getting richer, people who are rich now will also increase their energy demands (thats the way technological progress has changed our lifestyles so far, this will not change in the future). Combining the increase in energy demands with increased energy efficiency and renewable energy sources can allow us to have further technological progress, equal distribution of wealth all over the world and no increase in the impact on the environment per capita. That's why I pick a population size based on everybody consuming as the average american today.

Another very important thing - we can never have an indefinite population growth even if we had limitless absolutely clean energy sources because at some point the total amount of energy we use and which we ultimately release in the environment as heat will cause global warming by itself. Thus unlimited population growth is absolutely unsustainable even in the unlikely situation of limitless supply of energy

How do you determine who is the smartest? There are people with degrees that can't find their way out of paper bags.

Yes, but they have expertise nobody else have. See, scientists are the most valuable people in any society, if you don't agree, something is seriously wrong with your value system

I don't think it is too late and let me ask you a question. Instead of scientist and creationists arguing about god, evolution etc, do you think both should come to grips with this grim reality, put all differences aside and work on a viable solution?

No. We need a radically different way of thinking in order to fight these problems. Religion is the single most significant barrier to this change. Sorry.

I welcome any initiative for battling global warming no matter where it's coming from, but what we have to do first is realize the real scale of the problem and the real scale of the change that has to be done to succesfully solve it. I don't see that happening

 

[HERESY]

No selective advantage = less chance of allele stabilization

basic evolutionary theory, what more do you want?

You still don't get it so I'll move on.

But that's certainly not scientific....

No, because myself and many other people (including those who endorse evolution) do not see it as a random event because in situations where natural selection occur it is the driving factor.

whatever...

likewise...

It is not random in absolute terms because everything is ultimately caused by something, it is random in the sense that mutations are random we can't predict the outcome of evolution.

Now you switch it up. You have a habit of switching things up once the right questions are asked and when it has been shown that your views differ from the majority of your peers.

So now it is not random in absolute terms, yet you never provided us with any other explanation and implied it IS random and absolute.

http://www.physorg.com/news11249.html
http://news.com.com/Is+evolution+predictable/2100-11395_3-6074543.html

You talk like a person with zero understanding of biology. Sorry

This is your opinion. I say you talk like a nazi and impotent shrew who doesn't understand the difference between actual and rhetorical questions. Does it matter? No.

It never worked anyway with early man, mammals or dionsaurs, what kept their numbers in check were natural mechanisms - diseases, parasites, predators, lack of food, etc. That's why there are no "safeguard mechanisms" preventing populations from growing too much, because they balanced each other. We broke the balance because these natural mechanisms mostly do not act on us anymore

So maybe instead of trying to find a cure for aids, cancer and everything else we should just let people die off. Maybe instead of trying to fight hunger we should let people die off. In fact, we all know nothing good has ever come out of florida, so why don't we take a couple of hundred thousand humans and feed them to the gators?

Why don't they act on us anymore? INDUSTRIALAZTION and the ADVANCEMENT of SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY.

USA and Western Europe of course

Yet you want to kill off the majority of people in other areas. Instead of limiting these fools and gluttons you want to murder billions of people in other areas instead of telling these yuppies to lay off the star bucks and SUV's.

We don't want a nuke war, actually a nuke war become more and more probable the more we keep our heads in the sand and not do anything

Of course we don't WANT a nuke war, are you READING what you are replying to? Please go back and READ what you asked me, and after that read my response. You asked me about the infrastructure of the world and if it can change within 8 years, and I gave you two events that can change it.

Capitalism is a direct result of the way we see our place in the universe. I am surprised you don't see it

The fact that we see ourselves as the masters of the universe? In complete control? No god over us? No one to answer to not even ourselves?

Yes

Sit back and enjoy the ride.

no sarcasm, I'm serious

No I'm serious.

OK, I'll have to elaborate more on this one: if we want to reduce poverty we have to let people that are poor now consume more in the future. This means more energy and resources. The other thing to consider is that while these people are getting richer, people who are rich now will also increase their energy demands (thats the way technological progress has changed our lifestyles so far, this will not change in the future).

Communism or socialism can change this. If things were distributed EQUALLY amongst the people and there were not caste systems we wouldn't have to entertain the thought of letting richer people use more resources.

Combining the increase in energy demands with increased energy efficiency and renewable energy sources can allow us to have further technological progress, equal distribution of wealth all over the world and no increase in the impact on the environment per capita. That's why I pick a population size based on everybody consuming as the average american today.

Yet if everyone does what the average american is doing, eventually, there will be little to nothing left.

Another very important thing - we can never have an indefinite population growth even if we had limitless absolutely clean energy sources because at some point the total amount of energy we use and which we ultimately release in the environment as heat will cause global warming by itself. Thus unlimited population growth is absolutely unsustainable even in the unlikely situation of limitless supply of energy

So no matter what the earth is running hot, and we can't stop it unless a certain amount of people die off. So if we can't stop it why even bother with alternative fuel sources as that is simply putting one band aid over 60 bullet wounds from an ak-47?

Yes, but they have expertise nobody else have. See, scientists are the most valuable people in any society, if you don't agree, something is seriously wrong with your value system

Have you ever played the game in your class room where you are given and end of the world scenario, you are given a list of people, but you can only save like 7 of them? You ever play that?

No. We need a radically different way of thinking in order to fight these problems. Religion is the single most significant barrier to this change. Sorry.I welcome any initiative for battling global warming no matter where it's coming from, but what we have to do first is realize the real scale of the problem and the real scale of the change that has to be done to succesfully solve it. I don't see that happening

Your hatred for religion runs so deep, you recognize a problem, yet you aren't willing to put the differences aside for teh greater good of humanity and the survival of teh human race. You would rather KILL 5 billion people rather than putting your ego aside.

ThaG, you will DIE lonely my friend. You are alone in this world and this is why you immerse yourself in science and hate religion with a passion. A creationist can come to you right now and say, "forget about God and evolution lets work on this problem" and you would probably spit in his face (and get KNOCKED THE FUCK OUT afterwards. lol.)

Again, you say religion this, religion that, yet you do NOT address the other issues I presented.

INDUSTRIALIZATION is what is leading to the increase NOT religious doctrine/dogma. These people have been muslim for CENTURIES, yet you see an increase when MODERNIZATION and POST INDUSTRIALIZATION occurs.

Please, STOP blaming religion for every problem and address the FACT that CAPITALISM, INDUSTRIALIZATION, URBANIZATION, IMPERIALISM and EUROCENTRISM are the MAIN factors why we have an increase. LOOK at the chart that I gave you in the last thread and look at when the increases occured. The majority, if not ALL major increases occured in time periods where technology was advancing and INDUSTRIALIZATION was on the rise.

 

[ThaG]

I'll reply to you tomorrow, meanwhile:

Many cases of natural infertility occur because the woman produces antibodies against sperm which are recognized as foreign bodies by her tissues (Bronson, et al, 1984). Vaccines could probably be developed that would stimulate more women to produce such antibodies with a corresponding decrease in their fertility (Primakoff, et al, 1988; Primakoff, 1994). In yet another approach, women have been vaccinated with peptide sequences similar to those found in certain hormones involved in reproduction (Talwar et al, 1993; Talwar et al, 1994). Very effective vaccines can be produced by splicing gene segments for the desired peptide sequences into some of the genes of the vaccinia virus (Moss, et al, 1984; Talwar et al, 1993; Talwar et al, 1994) and then using this virus to vaccinate the subject, just as it was used to vaccinate against smallpox. The peptide sequences produced by the virus stimulate antibody formation, the antibodies would cross react with the naturally occurring hormone in the woman's body, and reproduction could be inhibited. Many such alternatives that harness the immune system in the service of contraception are available.

None of these approaches would represent anything other than an addition to the existing armory of contraceptive systems, except for one thing: vaccinia virus is used as a vehicle for stimulating the immune system because it grows locally in the body, and produces an effective stimulus to the immune system, but very rarely spreads spontaneously to other people. However, there is no reason why the required antigens (the substances that stimulate the immune system) could not be introduced into any other virus, such as one of the more than 200 viruses responsible for the common cold, that would spread spontaneously through the population, and thus could serve as a form of infectious contraceptive. Depending on the nature of the antigen used, and their response to it, infected individuals would have more or less reduced fertility levels for longer or shorter periods of time. The effects would necessarily be uneven and it is unlikely that all individuals or populations would be equally affected. If a variety of antigens and viruses were used, however, these differences would average out and the average global fertility could be reduced to any desired level. The technology to carry out this global fertility regulation is not visionary. All of the knowledge and techniques that would be required are available today. Probably the creation and release of a number of different agents would be necessary to reach the desired level of negative population growth, as the effect of any one would be likely to be partial and geographically uneven due to the random accidents of distribution and infection.

John B. Hall, University of Hawaii

From Population and Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, September 1996

 

[ThaG]

This is the tenth in a series of NPG FORUM papers exploring the idea of optimum population-what would be a desirable population size for the United States? Without any consensus even as to whether the population should be larger or smaller, the country presently creates it demographic future by inadvertence as it makes decisions on other issues that influence population change.

The approach we have adopted is the "foresight " process. We have asked specialists in various fields to examine the connection between alternative population futures and their fields of interest. In this issue of the FORUM, Dr. Weeks discusses how fertility might be consciously influenced if the nation should conclude that lower fertility is desirable.

Dr. Weeks is Professor of Sociology and Director of the International Population Center at San Diego State University. He is the author of the text Population: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues (Belmont: Wadsworth), now in its fourth edition. Currently, he is completing a federally-funded research project on infant health outcomes among low-income immigrants in California.

....

Rational Choice. The first example of policy initiatives confronts the awareness of population issues at both the private and public levels. The principal barrier to recognition of personal freedom in determining reproductive goals is tradition—in particular the attitude that reproduction is in the hands of God or those of a woman's husband. It is a world view that does not admit to self-determination of family size. Rather, the view could be summed up by the phrase "children happen."

This is an attitude that is often associated in the western world with third world nations, especially Islamic nations, #3 but shades of it are evident in all human societies, because it is often associated with religious fundamentalism, regardless of the specific religious preference. In the United States, Christian fundamentalists (including both Catholics and Protestants) argue that certain aspects of reproduction (such as abortion or contraception for unmarried teenagers) should not be under the control of the woman herself.

...

One of the crucial elements of industrialization was that it reversed the flow of income between children and parents—children became economic liabilities rather than assets. Furthermore, it was built on the back of a better educated labor force which has increasingly moved toward maximizing human capital by bringing women into the paid labor force.

....

 

[HERESY]

....



...



....

Now how do these things endorse what you're saying? They don't.

And the mod made a rule that articles such as this need to have a link. Please post the link.

 

[HERESY]

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2106689,00.html

 

[ThaG]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/3109j5615r13l661/?p=bdbaf63a5b5848b58bf5b12e082679cc&pi=2

http://npg.org/forum_series/confronting.htm

http://npg.org/forum_series/influence_fertility.htm

Note that these are from the 90s, we didn't have the 2015 deadline from climatologists back then

 

[HERESY]

I don't know why you posted teh first link.

Here is an excerpt from the second link:

Second, even if a fully effective program of zero population growth were to be implemented immediately, by limiting human fertility to what demographers term the replacement rate (roughly 2.1 children per female), human population would nevertheless continue its rapid rate of expansion. In fact, demographers estimate that it would take at least two to three generations (50 to 75 years) at ZPG fertility levels just to reach a point of population stability, unfortunately at numbers considerably higher than at present. This powerful population momentum results from the fact that an unusually high proportion (nearly 1/3) of the current world population is under the age of 15 and has not yet reproduced. Even more broad-based population profiles are to be found throughout the developing world, where the under-15 age cohort often exceeds 40% and where birth rates have remained high even as mortality rates have fallen. While there are some recent indications that fertility rates are beginning to decline, the global composite (ca. 3.8) is still nearly double that needed for ZPG.

Pay attention to the bold emphasis. No go back and R-E-A-D what I was saying about waiting and the age of those who produce. After you do that, take it back another step and look into what I said about birth rates and mortality (something you never addressed.)

Heres another one for you:

Third, in addition to fertility levels, it is essential to understand that population growth is also significantly affected by changes in mortality rates. In fact, demographic transition theory predicts that the earlier stages of rapid population expansion are typically fueled more by significant reductions in death rates than by changes in birth rates. Nor does recent empirical data suggest that average human life expectancy has reached anywhere near its theoretical upper limit, in either the developing or developed worlds. Consequently, unless there appears a deadly pandemic, a devastating world war or a massive breakdown in public health (or a combination of all three), it is inevitable that ongoing global gains in human longevity will continue to make a major contribution to population expansion over the next half-century, regardless of whatever progress might be made in reducing fertility.

Again, these are subjects I previously introduced. You never addressed how science has paved the way for longevity and you never address death rates vs birth rates.

and another one from the second link:

It is also obvious that these goals will have to address and in some fashion resolve a powerful internal conflict: how to create and sustain an adequate standard of living for all the world's peoples (minimizing the growing distance between rich and poor) while simultaneously not over-stressing (or exceeding) the earth's longer-term carrying capacity.

BTW, the second link is pretty good and endorses what I'm saying. I'll explain later.

 

[ThaG]

I don't know why you posted teh first link.

Here is an excerpt from the second link:




Pay attention to the bold emphasis. No go back and R-E-A-D what I was saying about waiting and the age of those who produce. After you do that, take it back another step and look into what I said about birth rates and mortality (something you never addressed.)

Heres another one for you:



Again, these are subjects I previously introduced. You never addressed how science has paved the way for longevity and you never address death rates vs birth rates.

and another one from the second link:



BTW, the second link is pretty good and endorses what I'm saying. I'll explain later.

Honestly, I don't see how these contradict what I said??

Of course, science is responsible for the increase in longevity, the problem is that we didn't stop having so many children after that...

What is more immoral - decrease birth rate or increase mortality rate? Both are not pleasant things to do, it's just that we don't have the time and the means to achieve population reduction using the former...

P.S. The first link is for the fertility reduction by viruses, you might not have access to it