An Inconvienent Truth

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
HERESY said:
You still don't get it so I'll move on.



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.



likewise...


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
it's not random in absolute terms and it is random for practical purposes - you can't predict the outcome

I don't speak about bacteria here, if mutating one gene gives selective advantage, a mutant is probably available in a large population (such as a bacterial culture) and it will be selected.

Natural selection is not random, but genetic drift is and here it gets too complicated so I usually avoid discussing this with laypersons, but here you go:

http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Evolution_by_Accident.html
http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Random_Genetic_Drift.html

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.
It is extremely hypocritical to blame science for the problems. Sure, science makes industrialization possible, but in the same time scientists are also the people warning about the consequences of our actions. It is not scientists fault that people relentlessly take advantage of science advancements while ignoring the warning message

BTW you can still have an ecological catastrophe even without modern science, I'll post this separately later


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.
Where did I say "other areas only"???? 70% reduction means a lot everywhere, at some places more than others, but everybody will have to reduce their numbers drastically


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.
I didn't ask about how it can change in general, but how it can change in the desired direction


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?
No, the fact that we see ourselves as owners of the planet with complete God-given control over it.


Sit back and enjoy the ride.
likewise, it will not be very enjoyable though


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.
It can't. I claim to know communism better than you and I can tell you it's all one big utopia that just can't happen in the real world, especially if there is capitalism around in other parts of the world.


Yet if everyone does what the average american is doing, eventually, there will be little to nothing left.
Wrong, because we'll reduce the numbers to the sustainable level (<2 billions)


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?
We can stop it if we keep our own numbers in check. It has to be done, there is no other way



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?
we didn't play games in school, we studied science

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.
See, it is not a choice between killing 5 billion and putting my ego aside, it is a choice between killing 5 billions quickly and letting 10 billions die from war, starvation and diseases 50 years later. These 5 billions will die anyway, we want to save the other 2.

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.
What if those people abandon their fairy tale in the modern world?

I don't care how long they were muslims, I care that being a muslim, catholic, baptist, jew or whatever the fuck you believe not only has no place in the modern world, but is extremely dangerous for the stability of this world
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
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.
This deserves a reply on its own:

Easter's End
by Jared Diamond

Published in Discover Magazine on 08/01/95

In just a few centuries, the people of Easter Island wiped out their forest, drove their plants and animals to extinction, and saw their complex society spiral into chaos and cannibalism. Are we about to follow their lead?

Among the most riveting mysteries of human history are those posed by vanished civilizations. Everyone who has seen the abandoned buildings of the Khmer, the Maya, or the Anasazi is immediately moved to ask the same question: Why did the societies that erected those structures disappear?

Their vanishing touches us as the disappearance of other animals, even the dinosaurs, never can. No matter how exotic those lost civilizations seem, their framers were humans like us. Who is to say we won&#8217;t succumb to the same fate? Perhaps someday New York&#8217;s skyscrapers will stand derelict and overgrown with vegetation, like the temples at Angkor Wat and Tikal.

Among all such vanished civilizations, that of the former Polynesian society on Easter Island remains unsurpassed in mystery and isolation. The mystery stems especially from the island&#8217;s gigantic stone statues and its impoverished landscape, but it is enhanced by our associations with the specific people involved: Polynesians represent for us the ultimate in exotic romance, the background for many a child&#8217;s, and an adult&#8217;s, vision of paradise. My own interest in Easter was kindled over 30 years ago when I read Thor Heyerdahl&#8217;s fabulous accounts of his Kon-Tiki voyage.

But my interest has been revived recently by a much more exciting account, one not of heroic voyages but of painstaking research and analysis. My friend David Steadman, a paleontologist, has been working with a number of other researchers who are carrying out the first systematic excavations on Easter intended to identify the animals and plants that once lived there. Their work is contributing to a new interpretation of the island&#8217;s history that makes it a tale not only of wonder but of warning as well.

Easter Island, with an area of only 64 square miles, is the world&#8217;s most isolated scrap of habitable land. It lies in the Pacific Ocean more than 2,000 miles west of the nearest continent (South America), 1,400 miles from even the nearest habitable island (Pitcairn). Its subtropical location and latitude--at 27 degrees south, it is approximately as far below the equator as Houston is north of it--help give it a rather mild climate, while its volcanic origins make its soil fertile. In theory, this combination of blessings should have made Easter a miniature paradise, remote from problems that beset the rest of the world.

The island derives its name from its &#8220;discovery&#8221; by the Dutch explorer Jacob Roggeveen, on Easter (April 5) in 1722. Roggeveen&#8217;s first impression was not of a paradise but of a wasteland: &#8220;We originally, from a further distance, have considered the said Easter Island as sandy; the reason for that is this, that we counted as sand the withered grass, hay, or other scorched and burnt vegetation, because its wasted appearance could give no other impression than of a singular poverty and barrenness.&#8221;

The island Roggeveen saw was a grassland without a single tree or bush over ten feet high. Modern botanists have identified only 47 species of higher plants native to Easter, most of them grasses, sedges, and ferns. The list includes just two species of small trees and two of woody shrubs. With such flora, the islanders Roggeveen encountered had no source of real firewood to warm themselves during Easter&#8217;s cool, wet, windy winters. Their native animals included nothing larger than insects, not even a single species of native bat, land bird, land snail, or lizard. For domestic animals, they had only chickens.

European visitors throughout the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries estimated Easter&#8217;s human population at about 2,000, a modest number considering the island&#8217;s fertility. As Captain James Cook recognized during his brief visit in 1774, the islanders were Polynesians (a Tahitian man accompanying Cook was able to converse with them). Yet despite the Polynesians&#8217; well-deserved fame as a great seafaring people, the Easter Islanders who came out to Roggeveen&#8217;s and Cook&#8217;s ships did so by swimming or paddling canoes that Roggeveen described as &#8220;bad and frail.&#8221; Their craft, he wrote, were &#8220;put together with manifold small planks and light inner timbers, which they cleverly stitched together with very fine twisted threads. . . . But as they lack the knowledge and particularly the materials for caulking and making tight the great number of seams of the canoes, these are accordingly very leaky, for which reason they are compelled to spend half the time in bailing.&#8221; The canoes, only ten feet long, held at most two people, and only three or four canoes were observed on the entire island.

With such flimsy craft, Polynesians could never have colonized Easter from even the nearest island, nor could they have traveled far offshore to fish. The islanders Roggeveen met were totally isolated, unaware that other people existed. Investigators in all the years since his visit have discovered no trace of the islanders&#8217; having any outside contacts: not a single Easter Island rock or product has turned up elsewhere, nor has anything been found on the island that could have been brought by anyone other than the original settlers or the Europeans. Yet the people living on Easter claimed memories of visiting the uninhabited Sala y Gomez reef 260 miles away, far beyond the range of the leaky canoes seen by Roggeveen. How did the islanders&#8217; ancestors reach that reef from Easter, or reach Easter from anywhere else?

Easter Island&#8217;s most famous feature is its huge stone statues, more than 200 of which once stood on massive stone platforms lining the coast. At least 700 more, in all stages of completion, were abandoned in quarries or on ancient roads between the quarries and the coast, as if the carvers and moving crews had thrown down their tools and walked off the job. Most of the erected statues were carved in a single quarry and then somehow transported as far as six miles--despite heights as great as 33 feet and weights up to 82 tons. The abandoned statues, meanwhile, were as much as 65 feet tall and weighed up to 270 tons. The stone platforms were equally gigantic: up to 500 feet long and 10 feet high, with facing slabs weighing up to 10 tons.

Roggeveen himself quickly recognized the problem the statues posed: &#8220;The stone images at first caused us to be struck with astonishment,&#8221; he wrote, &#8220;because we could not comprehend how it was possible that these people, who are devoid of heavy thick timber for making any machines, as well as strong ropes, nevertheless had been able to erect such images.&#8221; Roggeveen might have added that the islanders had no wheels, no draft animals, and no source of power except their own muscles. How did they transport the giant statues for miles, even before erecting them? To deepen the mystery, the statues were still standing in 1770, but by 1864 all of them had been pulled down, by the islanders themselves. Why then did they carve them in the first place? And why did they stop?

The statues imply a society very different from the one Roggeveen saw in 1722. Their sheer number and size suggest a population much larger than 2,000 people. What became of everyone? Furthermore, that society must have been highly organized. Easter&#8217;s resources were scattered across the island: the best stone for the statues was quarried at Rano Raraku near Easter&#8217;s northeast end; red stone, used for large crowns adorning some of the statues, was quarried at Puna Pau, inland in the southwest; stone carving tools came mostly from Aroi in the northwest. Meanwhile, the best farmland lay in the south and east, and the best fishing grounds on the north and west coasts. Extracting and redistributing all those goods required complex political organization. What happened to that organization, and how could it ever have arisen in such a barren landscape?

Easter Island&#8217;s mysteries have spawned volumes of speculation for more than two and a half centuries. Many Europeans were incredulous that Polynesians--commonly characterized as &#8220;mere savages&#8221;--could have created the statues or the beautifully constructed stone platforms. In the 1950s, Heyerdahl argued that Polynesia must have been settled by advanced societies of American Indians, who in turn must have received civilization across the Atlantic from more advanced societies of the Old World. Heyerdahl&#8217;s raft voyages aimed to prove the feasibility of such prehistoric transoceanic contacts. In the 1960s the Swiss writer Erich von D&#228;niken, an ardent believer in Earth visits by extraterrestrial astronauts, went further, claiming that Easter&#8217;s statues were the work of intelligent beings who owned ultramodern tools, became stranded on Easter, and were finally rescued.

Heyerdahl and Von D&#228;niken both brushed aside overwhelming evidence that the Easter Islanders were typical Polynesians derived from Asia rather than from the Americas and that their culture (including their statues) grew out of Polynesian culture. Their language was Polynesian, as Cook had already concluded. Specifically, they spoke an eastern Polynesian dialect related to Hawaiian and Marquesan, a dialect isolated since about A.D. 400, as estimated from slight differences in vocabulary. Their fishhooks and stone adzes resembled early Marquesan models. Last year DNA extracted from 12 Easter Island skeletons was also shown to be Polynesian. The islanders grew bananas, taro, sweet potatoes, sugarcane, and paper mulberry--typical Polynesian crops, mostly of Southeast Asian origin. Their sole domestic animal, the chicken, was also typically Polynesian and ultimately Asian, as were the rats that arrived as stowaways in the canoes of the first settlers.

What happened to those settlers? The fanciful theories of the past must give way to evidence gathered by hardworking practitioners in three fields: archeology, pollen analysis, and paleontology.

Modern archeological excavations on Easter have continued since Heyerdahl&#8217;s 1955 expedition. The earliest radiocarbon dates associated with human activities are around A.D. 400 to 700, in reasonable agreement with the approximate settlement date of 400 estimated by linguists. The period of statue construction peaked around 1200 to 1500, with few if any statues erected thereafter. Densities of archeological sites suggest a large population; an estimate of 7,000 people is widely quoted by archeologists, but other estimates range up to 20,000, which does not seem implausible for an island of Easter&#8217;s area and fertility.

Archeologists have also enlisted surviving islanders in experiments aimed at figuring out how the statues might have been carved and erected. Twenty people, using only stone chisels, could have carved even the largest completed statue within a year. Given enough timber and fiber for making ropes, teams of at most a few hundred people could have loaded the statues onto wooden sleds, dragged them over lubricated wooden tracks or rollers, and used logs as levers to maneuver them into a standing position. Rope could have been made from the fiber of a small native tree, related to the linden, called the hauhau. However, that tree is now extremely scarce on Easter, and hauling one statue would have required hundreds of yards of rope. Did Easter&#8217;s now barren landscape once support the necessary trees?

That question can be answered by the technique of pollen analysis, which involves boring out a column of sediment from a swamp or pond, with the most recent deposits at the top and relatively more ancient deposits at the bottom. The absolute age of each layer can be dated by radiocarbon methods. Then begins the hard work: examining tens of thousands of pollen grains under a microscope, counting them, and identifying the plant species that produced each one by comparing the grains with modern pollen from known plant species. For Easter Island, the bleary-eyed scientists who performed that task were John Flenley, now at Massey University in New Zealand, and Sarah King of the University of Hull in England.

Flenley and King&#8217;s heroic efforts were rewarded by the striking new picture that emerged of Easter&#8217;s prehistoric landscape. For at least 30,000 years before human arrival and during the early years of Polynesian settlement, Easter was not a wasteland at all. Instead, a subtropical forest of trees and woody bushes towered over a ground layer of shrubs, herbs, ferns, and grasses. In the forest grew tree daisies, the rope- yielding hauhau tree, and the toromiro tree, which furnishes a dense, mesquite-like firewood. The most common tree in the forest was a species of palm now absent on Easter but formerly so abundant that the bottom strata of the sediment column were packed with its pollen. The Easter Island palm was closely related to the still-surviving Chilean wine palm, which grows up to 82 feet tall and 6 feet in diameter. The tall, unbranched trunks of the Easter Island palm would have been ideal for transporting and erecting statues and constructing large canoes. The palm would also have been a valuable food source, since its Chilean relative yields edible nuts as well as sap from which Chileans make sugar, syrup, honey, and wine.

What did the first settlers of Easter Island eat when they were not glutting themselves on the local equivalent of maple syrup? Recent excavations by David Steadman, of the New York State Museum at Albany, have yielded a picture of Easter&#8217;s original animal world as surprising as Flenley and King&#8217;s picture of its plant world. Steadman&#8217;s expectations for Easter were conditioned by his experiences elsewhere in Polynesia, where fish are overwhelmingly the main food at archeological sites, typically accounting for more than 90 percent of the bones in ancient Polynesian garbage heaps. Easter, though, is too cool for the coral reefs beloved by fish, and its cliff-girded coastline permits shallow-water fishing in only a few places. Less than a quarter of the bones in its early garbage heaps (from the period 900 to 1300) belonged to fish; instead, nearly one-third of all bones came from porpoises.

Nowhere else in Polynesia do porpoises account for even 1 percent of discarded food bones. But most other Polynesian islands offered animal food in the form of birds and mammals, such as New Zealand&#8217;s now extinct giant moas and Hawaii&#8217;s now extinct flightless geese. Most other islanders also had domestic pigs and dogs. On Easter, porpoises would have been the largest animal available--other than humans. The porpoise species identified at Easter, the common dolphin, weighs up to 165 pounds. It generally lives out at sea, so it could not have been hunted by line fishing or spearfishing from shore. Instead, it must have been harpooned far offshore, in big seaworthy canoes built from the extinct palm tree.

In addition to porpoise meat, Steadman found, the early Polynesian settlers were feasting on seabirds. For those birds, Easter&#8217;s remoteness and lack of predators made it an ideal haven as a breeding site, at least until humans arrived. Among the prodigious numbers of seabirds that bred on Easter were albatross, boobies, frigate birds, fulmars, petrels, prions, shearwaters, storm petrels, terns, and tropic birds. With at least 25 nesting species, Easter was the richest seabird breeding site in Polynesia and probably in the whole Pacific.

Land birds as well went into early Easter Island cooking pots. Steadman identified bones of at least six species, including barn owls, herons, parrots, and rail. Bird stew would have been seasoned with meat from large numbers of rats, which the Polynesian colonists inadvertently brought with them; Easter Island is the sole known Polynesian island where rat bones outnumber fish bones at archeological sites. (In case you&#8217;re squeamish and consider rats inedible, I still recall recipes for creamed laboratory rat that my British biologist friends used to supplement their diet during their years of wartime food rationing.)

Porpoises, seabirds, land birds, and rats did not complete the list of meat sources formerly available on Easter. A few bones hint at the possibility of breeding seal colonies as well. All these delicacies were cooked in ovens fired by wood from the island&#8217;s forests.

Such evidence lets us imagine the island onto which Easter&#8217;s first Polynesian colonists stepped ashore some 1,600 years ago, after a long canoe voyage from eastern Polynesia. They found themselves in a pristine paradise. What then happened to it? The pollen grains and the bones yield a grim answer.

Pollen records show that destruction of Easter&#8217;s forests was well under way by the year 800, just a few centuries after the start of human settlement. Then charcoal from wood fires came to fill the sediment cores, while pollen of palms and other trees and woody shrubs decreased or disappeared, and pollen of the grasses that replaced the forest became more abundant. Not long after 1400 the palm finally became extinct, not only as a result of being chopped down but also because the now ubiquitous rats prevented its regeneration: of the dozens of preserved palm nuts discovered in caves on Easter, all had been chewed by rats and could no longer germinate. While the hauhau tree did not become extinct in Polynesian times, its numbers declined drastically until there weren&#8217;t enough left to make ropes from. By the time Heyerdahl visited Easter, only a single, nearly dead toromiro tree remained on the island, and even that lone survivor has now disappeared. (Fortunately, the toromiro still grows in botanical gardens elsewhere.)

The fifteenth century marked the end not only for Easter&#8217;s palm but for the forest itself. Its doom had been approaching as people cleared land to plant gardens; as they felled trees to build canoes, to transport and erect statues, and to burn; as rats devoured seeds; and probably as the native birds died out that had pollinated the trees&#8217; flowers and dispersed their fruit. The overall picture is among the most extreme examples of forest destruction anywhere in the world: the whole forest gone, and most of its tree species extinct.

The destruction of the island&#8217;s animals was as extreme as that of the forest: without exception, every species of native land bird became extinct. Even shellfish were overexploited, until people had to settle for small sea snails instead of larger cowries. Porpoise bones disappeared abruptly from garbage heaps around 1500; no one could harpoon porpoises anymore, since the trees used for constructing the big seagoing canoes no longer existed. The colonies of more than half of the seabird species breeding on Easter or on its offshore islets were wiped out.

In place of these meat supplies, the Easter Islanders intensified their production of chickens, which had been only an occasional food item. They also turned to the largest remaining meat source available: humans, whose bones became common in late Easter Island garbage heaps. Oral traditions of the islanders are rife with cannibalism; the most inflammatory taunt that could be snarled at an enemy was &#8220;The flesh of your mother sticks between my teeth.&#8221; With no wood available to cook these new goodies, the islanders resorted to sugarcane scraps, grass, and sedges to fuel their fires.

All these strands of evidence can be wound into a coherent narrative of a society&#8217;s decline and fall. The first Polynesian colonists found themselves on an island with fertile soil, abundant food, bountiful building materials, ample lebensraum, and all the prerequisites for comfortable living. They prospered and multiplied.

After a few centuries, they began erecting stone statues on platforms, like the ones their Polynesian forebears had carved. With passing years, the statues and platforms became larger and larger, and the statues began sporting ten-ton red crowns--probably in an escalating spiral of one-upmanship, as rival clans tried to surpass each other with shows of wealth and power. (In the same way, successive Egyptian pharaohs built ever-larger pyramids. Today Hollywood movie moguls near my home in Los Angeles are displaying their wealth and power by building ever more ostentatious mansions. Tycoon Marvin Davis topped previous moguls with plans for a 50,000-square-foot house, so now Aaron Spelling has topped Davis with a 56,000-square-foot house. All that those buildings lack to make the message explicit are ten-ton red crowns.) On Easter, as in modern America, society was held together by a complex political system to redistribute locally available resources and to integrate the economies of different areas.

Eventually Easter&#8217;s growing population was cutting the forest more rapidly than the forest was regenerating. The people used the land for gardens and the wood for fuel, canoes, and houses--and, of course, for lugging statues. As forest disappeared, the islanders ran out of timber and rope to transport and erect their statues. Life became more uncomfortable-- springs and streams dried up, and wood was no longer available for fires.

People also found it harder to fill their stomachs, as land birds, large sea snails, and many seabirds disappeared. Because timber for building seagoing canoes vanished, fish catches declined and porpoises disappeared from the table. Crop yields also declined, since deforestation allowed the soil to be eroded by rain and wind, dried by the sun, and its nutrients to be leeched from it. Intensified chicken production and cannibalism replaced only part of all those lost foods. Preserved statuettes with sunken cheeks and visible ribs suggest that people were starving.

With the disappearance of food surpluses, Easter Island could no longer feed the chiefs, bureaucrats, and priests who had kept a complex society running. Surviving islanders described to early European visitors how local chaos replaced centralized government and a warrior class took over from the hereditary chiefs. The stone points of spears and daggers, made by the warriors during their heyday in the 1600s and 1700s, still litter the ground of Easter today. By around 1700, the population began to crash toward between one-quarter and one-tenth of its former number. People took to living in caves for protection against their enemies. Around 1770 rival clans started to topple each other&#8217;s statues, breaking the heads off. By 1864 the last statue had been thrown down and desecrated.

As we try to imagine the decline of Easter&#8217;s civilization, we ask ourselves, &#8220;Why didn&#8217;t they look around, realize what they were doing, and stop before it was too late? What were they thinking when they cut down the last palm tree?&#8221;

I suspect, though, that the disaster happened not with a bang but with a whimper. After all, there are those hundreds of abandoned statues to consider. The forest the islanders depended on for rollers and rope didn&#8217;t simply disappear one day--it vanished slowly, over decades. Perhaps war interrupted the moving teams; perhaps by the time the carvers had finished their work, the last rope snapped. In the meantime, any islander who tried to warn about the dangers of progressive deforestation would have been overridden by vested interests of carvers, bureaucrats, and chiefs, whose jobs depended on continued deforestation. Our Pacific Northwest loggers are only the latest in a long line of loggers to cry, &#8220;Jobs over trees!&#8221; The changes in forest cover from year to year would have been hard to detect: yes, this year we cleared those woods over there, but trees are starting to grow back again on this abandoned garden site here. Only older people, recollecting their childhoods decades earlier, could have recognized a difference. Their children could no more have comprehended their parents&#8217; tales than my eight-year-old sons today can comprehend my wife&#8217;s and my tales of what Los Angeles was like 30 years ago.

Gradually trees became fewer, smaller, and less important. By the time the last fruit-bearing adult palm tree was cut, palms had long since ceased to be of economic significance. That left only smaller and smaller palm saplings to clear each year, along with other bushes and treelets. No one would have noticed the felling of the last small palm.

By now the meaning of easter Island for us should be chillingly obvious. Easter Island is Earth writ small. Today, again, a rising population confronts shrinking resources. We too have no emigration valve, because all human societies are linked by international transport, and we can no more escape into space than the Easter Islanders could flee into the ocean. If we continue to follow our present course, we shall have exhausted the world&#8217;s major fisheries, tropical rain forests, fossil fuels, and much of our soil by the time my sons reach my current age.

Every day newspapers report details of famished countries-- Afghanistan, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, Zaire--where soldiers have appropriated the wealth or where central government is yielding to local gangs of thugs. With the risk of nuclear war receding, the threat of our ending with a bang no longer has a chance of galvanizing us to halt our course. Our risk now is of winding down, slowly, in a whimper. Corrective action is blocked by vested interests, by well-intentioned political and business leaders, and by their electorates, all of whom are perfectly correct in not noticing big changes from year to year. Instead, each year there are just somewhat more people, and somewhat fewer resources, on Earth.

It would be easy to close our eyes or to give up in despair. If mere thousands of Easter Islanders with only stone tools and their own muscle power sufficed to destroy their society, how can billions of people with metal tools and machine power fail to do worse? But there is one crucial difference. The Easter Islanders had no books and no histories of other doomed societies. Unlike the Easter Islanders, we have histories of the past--information that can save us. My main hope for my sons&#8217; generation is that we may now choose to learn from the fates of societies like Easter&#8217;s
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
ThaG said:
This deserves a reply on its own:

Easter's End
by Jared Diamond

Published in Discover Magazine on 08/01/95

In just a few centuries, the people of Easter Island wiped out their forest, drove their plants and animals to extinction, and saw their complex society spiral into chaos and cannibalism. Are we about to follow their lead?

Among the most riveting mysteries of human history are those posed by vanished civilizations. Everyone who has seen the abandoned buildings of the Khmer, the Maya, or the Anasazi is immediately moved to ask the same question: Why did the societies that erected those structures disappear?

Their vanishing touches us as the disappearance of other animals, even the dinosaurs, never can. No matter how exotic those lost civilizations seem, their framers were humans like us. Who is to say we won’t succumb to the same fate? Perhaps someday New York’s skyscrapers will stand derelict and overgrown with vegetation, like the temples at Angkor Wat and Tikal.

Among all such vanished civilizations, that of the former Polynesian society on Easter Island remains unsurpassed in mystery and isolation. The mystery stems especially from the island’s gigantic stone statues and its impoverished landscape, but it is enhanced by our associations with the specific people involved: Polynesians represent for us the ultimate in exotic romance, the background for many a child’s, and an adult’s, vision of paradise. My own interest in Easter was kindled over 30 years ago when I read Thor Heyerdahl’s fabulous accounts of his Kon-Tiki voyage.

But my interest has been revived recently by a much more exciting account, one not of heroic voyages but of painstaking research and analysis. My friend David Steadman, a paleontologist, has been working with a number of other researchers who are carrying out the first systematic excavations on Easter intended to identify the animals and plants that once lived there. Their work is contributing to a new interpretation of the island’s history that makes it a tale not only of wonder but of warning as well.

Easter Island, with an area of only 64 square miles, is the world’s most isolated scrap of habitable land. It lies in the Pacific Ocean more than 2,000 miles west of the nearest continent (South America), 1,400 miles from even the nearest habitable island (Pitcairn). Its subtropical location and latitude--at 27 degrees south, it is approximately as far below the equator as Houston is north of it--help give it a rather mild climate, while its volcanic origins make its soil fertile. In theory, this combination of blessings should have made Easter a miniature paradise, remote from problems that beset the rest of the world.

The island derives its name from its “discovery” by the Dutch explorer Jacob Roggeveen, on Easter (April 5) in 1722. Roggeveen’s first impression was not of a paradise but of a wasteland: “We originally, from a further distance, have considered the said Easter Island as sandy; the reason for that is this, that we counted as sand the withered grass, hay, or other scorched and burnt vegetation, because its wasted appearance could give no other impression than of a singular poverty and barrenness.”

The island Roggeveen saw was a grassland without a single tree or bush over ten feet high. Modern botanists have identified only 47 species of higher plants native to Easter, most of them grasses, sedges, and ferns. The list includes just two species of small trees and two of woody shrubs. With such flora, the islanders Roggeveen encountered had no source of real firewood to warm themselves during Easter’s cool, wet, windy winters. Their native animals included nothing larger than insects, not even a single species of native bat, land bird, land snail, or lizard. For domestic animals, they had only chickens.

European visitors throughout the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries estimated Easter’s human population at about 2,000, a modest number considering the island’s fertility. As Captain James Cook recognized during his brief visit in 1774, the islanders were Polynesians (a Tahitian man accompanying Cook was able to converse with them). Yet despite the Polynesians’ well-deserved fame as a great seafaring people, the Easter Islanders who came out to Roggeveen’s and Cook’s ships did so by swimming or paddling canoes that Roggeveen described as “bad and frail.” Their craft, he wrote, were “put together with manifold small planks and light inner timbers, which they cleverly stitched together with very fine twisted threads. . . . But as they lack the knowledge and particularly the materials for caulking and making tight the great number of seams of the canoes, these are accordingly very leaky, for which reason they are compelled to spend half the time in bailing.” The canoes, only ten feet long, held at most two people, and only three or four canoes were observed on the entire island.

With such flimsy craft, Polynesians could never have colonized Easter from even the nearest island, nor could they have traveled far offshore to fish. The islanders Roggeveen met were totally isolated, unaware that other people existed. Investigators in all the years since his visit have discovered no trace of the islanders’ having any outside contacts: not a single Easter Island rock or product has turned up elsewhere, nor has anything been found on the island that could have been brought by anyone other than the original settlers or the Europeans. Yet the people living on Easter claimed memories of visiting the uninhabited Sala y Gomez reef 260 miles away, far beyond the range of the leaky canoes seen by Roggeveen. How did the islanders’ ancestors reach that reef from Easter, or reach Easter from anywhere else?

Easter Island’s most famous feature is its huge stone statues, more than 200 of which once stood on massive stone platforms lining the coast. At least 700 more, in all stages of completion, were abandoned in quarries or on ancient roads between the quarries and the coast, as if the carvers and moving crews had thrown down their tools and walked off the job. Most of the erected statues were carved in a single quarry and then somehow transported as far as six miles--despite heights as great as 33 feet and weights up to 82 tons. The abandoned statues, meanwhile, were as much as 65 feet tall and weighed up to 270 tons. The stone platforms were equally gigantic: up to 500 feet long and 10 feet high, with facing slabs weighing up to 10 tons.

Roggeveen himself quickly recognized the problem the statues posed: “The stone images at first caused us to be struck with astonishment,” he wrote, “because we could not comprehend how it was possible that these people, who are devoid of heavy thick timber for making any machines, as well as strong ropes, nevertheless had been able to erect such images.” Roggeveen might have added that the islanders had no wheels, no draft animals, and no source of power except their own muscles. How did they transport the giant statues for miles, even before erecting them? To deepen the mystery, the statues were still standing in 1770, but by 1864 all of them had been pulled down, by the islanders themselves. Why then did they carve them in the first place? And why did they stop?

The statues imply a society very different from the one Roggeveen saw in 1722. Their sheer number and size suggest a population much larger than 2,000 people. What became of everyone? Furthermore, that society must have been highly organized. Easter’s resources were scattered across the island: the best stone for the statues was quarried at Rano Raraku near Easter’s northeast end; red stone, used for large crowns adorning some of the statues, was quarried at Puna Pau, inland in the southwest; stone carving tools came mostly from Aroi in the northwest. Meanwhile, the best farmland lay in the south and east, and the best fishing grounds on the north and west coasts. Extracting and redistributing all those goods required complex political organization. What happened to that organization, and how could it ever have arisen in such a barren landscape?

Easter Island’s mysteries have spawned volumes of speculation for more than two and a half centuries. Many Europeans were incredulous that Polynesians--commonly characterized as “mere savages”--could have created the statues or the beautifully constructed stone platforms. In the 1950s, Heyerdahl argued that Polynesia must have been settled by advanced societies of American Indians, who in turn must have received civilization across the Atlantic from more advanced societies of the Old World. Heyerdahl’s raft voyages aimed to prove the feasibility of such prehistoric transoceanic contacts. In the 1960s the Swiss writer Erich von Däniken, an ardent believer in Earth visits by extraterrestrial astronauts, went further, claiming that Easter’s statues were the work of intelligent beings who owned ultramodern tools, became stranded on Easter, and were finally rescued.

Heyerdahl and Von Däniken both brushed aside overwhelming evidence that the Easter Islanders were typical Polynesians derived from Asia rather than from the Americas and that their culture (including their statues) grew out of Polynesian culture. Their language was Polynesian, as Cook had already concluded. Specifically, they spoke an eastern Polynesian dialect related to Hawaiian and Marquesan, a dialect isolated since about A.D. 400, as estimated from slight differences in vocabulary. Their fishhooks and stone adzes resembled early Marquesan models. Last year DNA extracted from 12 Easter Island skeletons was also shown to be Polynesian. The islanders grew bananas, taro, sweet potatoes, sugarcane, and paper mulberry--typical Polynesian crops, mostly of Southeast Asian origin. Their sole domestic animal, the chicken, was also typically Polynesian and ultimately Asian, as were the rats that arrived as stowaways in the canoes of the first settlers.

What happened to those settlers? The fanciful theories of the past must give way to evidence gathered by hardworking practitioners in three fields: archeology, pollen analysis, and paleontology.

Modern archeological excavations on Easter have continued since Heyerdahl’s 1955 expedition. The earliest radiocarbon dates associated with human activities are around A.D. 400 to 700, in reasonable agreement with the approximate settlement date of 400 estimated by linguists. The period of statue construction peaked around 1200 to 1500, with few if any statues erected thereafter. Densities of archeological sites suggest a large population; an estimate of 7,000 people is widely quoted by archeologists, but other estimates range up to 20,000, which does not seem implausible for an island of Easter’s area and fertility.

Archeologists have also enlisted surviving islanders in experiments aimed at figuring out how the statues might have been carved and erected. Twenty people, using only stone chisels, could have carved even the largest completed statue within a year. Given enough timber and fiber for making ropes, teams of at most a few hundred people could have loaded the statues onto wooden sleds, dragged them over lubricated wooden tracks or rollers, and used logs as levers to maneuver them into a standing position. Rope could have been made from the fiber of a small native tree, related to the linden, called the hauhau. However, that tree is now extremely scarce on Easter, and hauling one statue would have required hundreds of yards of rope. Did Easter’s now barren landscape once support the necessary trees?

That question can be answered by the technique of pollen analysis, which involves boring out a column of sediment from a swamp or pond, with the most recent deposits at the top and relatively more ancient deposits at the bottom. The absolute age of each layer can be dated by radiocarbon methods. Then begins the hard work: examining tens of thousands of pollen grains under a microscope, counting them, and identifying the plant species that produced each one by comparing the grains with modern pollen from known plant species. For Easter Island, the bleary-eyed scientists who performed that task were John Flenley, now at Massey University in New Zealand, and Sarah King of the University of Hull in England.

Flenley and King’s heroic efforts were rewarded by the striking new picture that emerged of Easter’s prehistoric landscape. For at least 30,000 years before human arrival and during the early years of Polynesian settlement, Easter was not a wasteland at all. Instead, a subtropical forest of trees and woody bushes towered over a ground layer of shrubs, herbs, ferns, and grasses. In the forest grew tree daisies, the rope- yielding hauhau tree, and the toromiro tree, which furnishes a dense, mesquite-like firewood. The most common tree in the forest was a species of palm now absent on Easter but formerly so abundant that the bottom strata of the sediment column were packed with its pollen. The Easter Island palm was closely related to the still-surviving Chilean wine palm, which grows up to 82 feet tall and 6 feet in diameter. The tall, unbranched trunks of the Easter Island palm would have been ideal for transporting and erecting statues and constructing large canoes. The palm would also have been a valuable food source, since its Chilean relative yields edible nuts as well as sap from which Chileans make sugar, syrup, honey, and wine.

What did the first settlers of Easter Island eat when they were not glutting themselves on the local equivalent of maple syrup? Recent excavations by David Steadman, of the New York State Museum at Albany, have yielded a picture of Easter’s original animal world as surprising as Flenley and King’s picture of its plant world. Steadman’s expectations for Easter were conditioned by his experiences elsewhere in Polynesia, where fish are overwhelmingly the main food at archeological sites, typically accounting for more than 90 percent of the bones in ancient Polynesian garbage heaps. Easter, though, is too cool for the coral reefs beloved by fish, and its cliff-girded coastline permits shallow-water fishing in only a few places. Less than a quarter of the bones in its early garbage heaps (from the period 900 to 1300) belonged to fish; instead, nearly one-third of all bones came from porpoises.

Nowhere else in Polynesia do porpoises account for even 1 percent of discarded food bones. But most other Polynesian islands offered animal food in the form of birds and mammals, such as New Zealand’s now extinct giant moas and Hawaii’s now extinct flightless geese. Most other islanders also had domestic pigs and dogs. On Easter, porpoises would have been the largest animal available--other than humans. The porpoise species identified at Easter, the common dolphin, weighs up to 165 pounds. It generally lives out at sea, so it could not have been hunted by line fishing or spearfishing from shore. Instead, it must have been harpooned far offshore, in big seaworthy canoes built from the extinct palm tree.

In addition to porpoise meat, Steadman found, the early Polynesian settlers were feasting on seabirds. For those birds, Easter’s remoteness and lack of predators made it an ideal haven as a breeding site, at least until humans arrived. Among the prodigious numbers of seabirds that bred on Easter were albatross, boobies, frigate birds, fulmars, petrels, prions, shearwaters, storm petrels, terns, and tropic birds. With at least 25 nesting species, Easter was the richest seabird breeding site in Polynesia and probably in the whole Pacific.

Land birds as well went into early Easter Island cooking pots. Steadman identified bones of at least six species, including barn owls, herons, parrots, and rail. Bird stew would have been seasoned with meat from large numbers of rats, which the Polynesian colonists inadvertently brought with them; Easter Island is the sole known Polynesian island where rat bones outnumber fish bones at archeological sites. (In case you’re squeamish and consider rats inedible, I still recall recipes for creamed laboratory rat that my British biologist friends used to supplement their diet during their years of wartime food rationing.)

Porpoises, seabirds, land birds, and rats did not complete the list of meat sources formerly available on Easter. A few bones hint at the possibility of breeding seal colonies as well. All these delicacies were cooked in ovens fired by wood from the island’s forests.

Such evidence lets us imagine the island onto which Easter’s first Polynesian colonists stepped ashore some 1,600 years ago, after a long canoe voyage from eastern Polynesia. They found themselves in a pristine paradise. What then happened to it? The pollen grains and the bones yield a grim answer.

Pollen records show that destruction of Easter’s forests was well under way by the year 800, just a few centuries after the start of human settlement. Then charcoal from wood fires came to fill the sediment cores, while pollen of palms and other trees and woody shrubs decreased or disappeared, and pollen of the grasses that replaced the forest became more abundant. Not long after 1400 the palm finally became extinct, not only as a result of being chopped down but also because the now ubiquitous rats prevented its regeneration: of the dozens of preserved palm nuts discovered in caves on Easter, all had been chewed by rats and could no longer germinate. While the hauhau tree did not become extinct in Polynesian times, its numbers declined drastically until there weren’t enough left to make ropes from. By the time Heyerdahl visited Easter, only a single, nearly dead toromiro tree remained on the island, and even that lone survivor has now disappeared. (Fortunately, the toromiro still grows in botanical gardens elsewhere.)

The fifteenth century marked the end not only for Easter’s palm but for the forest itself. Its doom had been approaching as people cleared land to plant gardens; as they felled trees to build canoes, to transport and erect statues, and to burn; as rats devoured seeds; and probably as the native birds died out that had pollinated the trees’ flowers and dispersed their fruit. The overall picture is among the most extreme examples of forest destruction anywhere in the world: the whole forest gone, and most of its tree species extinct.

The destruction of the island’s animals was as extreme as that of the forest: without exception, every species of native land bird became extinct. Even shellfish were overexploited, until people had to settle for small sea snails instead of larger cowries. Porpoise bones disappeared abruptly from garbage heaps around 1500; no one could harpoon porpoises anymore, since the trees used for constructing the big seagoing canoes no longer existed. The colonies of more than half of the seabird species breeding on Easter or on its offshore islets were wiped out.

In place of these meat supplies, the Easter Islanders intensified their production of chickens, which had been only an occasional food item. They also turned to the largest remaining meat source available: humans, whose bones became common in late Easter Island garbage heaps. Oral traditions of the islanders are rife with cannibalism; the most inflammatory taunt that could be snarled at an enemy was “The flesh of your mother sticks between my teeth.” With no wood available to cook these new goodies, the islanders resorted to sugarcane scraps, grass, and sedges to fuel their fires.

All these strands of evidence can be wound into a coherent narrative of a society’s decline and fall. The first Polynesian colonists found themselves on an island with fertile soil, abundant food, bountiful building materials, ample lebensraum, and all the prerequisites for comfortable living. They prospered and multiplied.

After a few centuries, they began erecting stone statues on platforms, like the ones their Polynesian forebears had carved. With passing years, the statues and platforms became larger and larger, and the statues began sporting ten-ton red crowns--probably in an escalating spiral of one-upmanship, as rival clans tried to surpass each other with shows of wealth and power. (In the same way, successive Egyptian pharaohs built ever-larger pyramids. Today Hollywood movie moguls near my home in Los Angeles are displaying their wealth and power by building ever more ostentatious mansions. Tycoon Marvin Davis topped previous moguls with plans for a 50,000-square-foot house, so now Aaron Spelling has topped Davis with a 56,000-square-foot house. All that those buildings lack to make the message explicit are ten-ton red crowns.) On Easter, as in modern America, society was held together by a complex political system to redistribute locally available resources and to integrate the economies of different areas.

Eventually Easter’s growing population was cutting the forest more rapidly than the forest was regenerating. The people used the land for gardens and the wood for fuel, canoes, and houses--and, of course, for lugging statues. As forest disappeared, the islanders ran out of timber and rope to transport and erect their statues. Life became more uncomfortable-- springs and streams dried up, and wood was no longer available for fires.

People also found it harder to fill their stomachs, as land birds, large sea snails, and many seabirds disappeared. Because timber for building seagoing canoes vanished, fish catches declined and porpoises disappeared from the table. Crop yields also declined, since deforestation allowed the soil to be eroded by rain and wind, dried by the sun, and its nutrients to be leeched from it. Intensified chicken production and cannibalism replaced only part of all those lost foods. Preserved statuettes with sunken cheeks and visible ribs suggest that people were starving.

With the disappearance of food surpluses, Easter Island could no longer feed the chiefs, bureaucrats, and priests who had kept a complex society running. Surviving islanders described to early European visitors how local chaos replaced centralized government and a warrior class took over from the hereditary chiefs. The stone points of spears and daggers, made by the warriors during their heyday in the 1600s and 1700s, still litter the ground of Easter today. By around 1700, the population began to crash toward between one-quarter and one-tenth of its former number. People took to living in caves for protection against their enemies. Around 1770 rival clans started to topple each other’s statues, breaking the heads off. By 1864 the last statue had been thrown down and desecrated.

As we try to imagine the decline of Easter’s civilization, we ask ourselves, “Why didn’t they look around, realize what they were doing, and stop before it was too late? What were they thinking when they cut down the last palm tree?”

I suspect, though, that the disaster happened not with a bang but with a whimper. After all, there are those hundreds of abandoned statues to consider. The forest the islanders depended on for rollers and rope didn’t simply disappear one day--it vanished slowly, over decades. Perhaps war interrupted the moving teams; perhaps by the time the carvers had finished their work, the last rope snapped. In the meantime, any islander who tried to warn about the dangers of progressive deforestation would have been overridden by vested interests of carvers, bureaucrats, and chiefs, whose jobs depended on continued deforestation. Our Pacific Northwest loggers are only the latest in a long line of loggers to cry, “Jobs over trees!” The changes in forest cover from year to year would have been hard to detect: yes, this year we cleared those woods over there, but trees are starting to grow back again on this abandoned garden site here. Only older people, recollecting their childhoods decades earlier, could have recognized a difference. Their children could no more have comprehended their parents’ tales than my eight-year-old sons today can comprehend my wife’s and my tales of what Los Angeles was like 30 years ago.

Gradually trees became fewer, smaller, and less important. By the time the last fruit-bearing adult palm tree was cut, palms had long since ceased to be of economic significance. That left only smaller and smaller palm saplings to clear each year, along with other bushes and treelets. No one would have noticed the felling of the last small palm.

By now the meaning of easter Island for us should be chillingly obvious. Easter Island is Earth writ small. Today, again, a rising population confronts shrinking resources. We too have no emigration valve, because all human societies are linked by international transport, and we can no more escape into space than the Easter Islanders could flee into the ocean. If we continue to follow our present course, we shall have exhausted the world’s major fisheries, tropical rain forests, fossil fuels, and much of our soil by the time my sons reach my current age.

Every day newspapers report details of famished countries-- Afghanistan, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, Zaire--where soldiers have appropriated the wealth or where central government is yielding to local gangs of thugs. With the risk of nuclear war receding, the threat of our ending with a bang no longer has a chance of galvanizing us to halt our course. Our risk now is of winding down, slowly, in a whimper. Corrective action is blocked by vested interests, by well-intentioned political and business leaders, and by their electorates, all of whom are perfectly correct in not noticing big changes from year to year. Instead, each year there are just somewhat more people, and somewhat fewer resources, on Earth.

It would be easy to close our eyes or to give up in despair. If mere thousands of Easter Islanders with only stone tools and their own muscle power sufficed to destroy their society, how can billions of people with metal tools and machine power fail to do worse? But there is one crucial difference. The Easter Islanders had no books and no histories of other doomed societies. Unlike the Easter Islanders, we have histories of the past--information that can save us. My main hope for my sons’ generation is that we may now choose to learn from the fates of societies like Easter’s
Thanks for posting this. This article actually endorses what I am saying. The advancement of their technology, their form of urbanization, and their transformation from being hunters and gatherers to agricultural communities to an industrialized way of life contributed to their demise and the demise of the land more than some religious doctrine they adhered to.

Again, LOOK at the chart that I gave you in the last page (not 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. Modernization is the problem not religious doctrines and beliefs, and so far you have provided no proof to cite your claim that religion is the problem. You gave me a link that talked about religion, but to sum it all up, the thesis of that entire article is basically rooted in a womans right to choose and how religion or a male dominated society can impede on that right.
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
it's not random in absolute terms and it is random for practical purposes - you can't predict the outcome
Ok, so we have a better understanding of each other, why don't you tell me what you mean by "random" and we can go from there.

I don't speak about bacteria here, if mutating one gene gives selective advantage, a mutant is probably available in a large population (such as a bacterial culture) and it will be selected.
Yes, but those articles suggest it can be predicted, and if it can be predicted that tends to do away with a "random" scenario. But I do agree that if there is a selective advantage found within a large group that it will be selected and used in the groups makeup.

Natural selection is not random, but genetic drift is and here it gets too complicated so I usually avoid discussing this with laypersons, but here you go:
But we were not talking about genetic drift. We were talking about evolution being random or not. Sure, genetic drift is a process or component of the theory, but so are natural selection, genetic accommodation and continuous variation. But if you go back and look at what you previously typed you said little, if anything, about genetic drift, and we both know it isn't the only aspect of evolution. What I am saying is evolution as a whole is not random, but that certain processes of evolution are random.

It is extremely hypocritical to blame science for the problems. Sure, science makes industrialization possible, but in the same time scientists are also the people warning about the consequences of our actions. It is not scientists fault that people relentlessly take advantage of science advancements while ignoring the warning message
Not only does science make industrialaztion possible, but science also contributes to the life expectancy rate and infant mortality rate. The advances in science have increased mans lifespan.

With that being said, there is NO WAY you can blame religion for the population boom when I have clearly shown that science and technology have promoted industrialaztion, that religion has been around for thousands of years before the population boom, that populations that were not "religious based" still had large populations, and that the current population increase in the world did NOT happen until post industrialaztion and modernization.

Now, how do you expect for people to NOT take advantage of these things when it is being marketed and promoted by capitalists? The medical industry is a BUSINESS that generates TRILLIONS globally. The industry thrives on selling pills, creams and dreams, and if you don't see how capitalism, not religion, is more responsible, I don't know what to tell you.

And in many cases, scientist are NOT warning people, and scientists often debate amongst each other when it comes to issues such as global warming. With that being said, if there is no general consensus amongst the scientific community, who are supposed to be the experts at all of this, how then do you expect for the peopel to listen?

BTW you can still have an ecological catastrophe even without modern science, I'll post this separately later
I addressed this.

I didn't ask about how it can change in general, but how it can change in the desired direction
No, this is what you asked:

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???
I am telling you the only way I see the whole infrastructure of the world changing is if there is a nuclear war or economic collapse of america (which would most likely lead to a global collapse.) If one of the two does not occur in 8 years there will be no change in thinking over the next 8 years. I do not see a tree hugger movement creating a massive change within the next 8 years, nor do I see any religious or political body creating such a change in thinking. You are asking for a complete change in culture, ideology, way of life and status. You are asking for moral change: for the strong to accomidate the weak, and for the rich to care for the poor--this is a pipedream.

Where did I say "other areas only"???? 70% reduction means a lot everywhere, at some places more than others, but everybody will have to reduce their numbers drastically
Everytime we talk about this you always make reference to some third world country and how they need to be wiped out. I rarely see you saying anything about america or europe. But if you're saying everybody will have to reduce their numbers ok we'll go with that.

No, the fact that we see ourselves as owners of the planet with complete God-given control over it.
But if we actually saw ourselves as owners of the planet, with complete god given control of it, that shows we aren't responsible owners.

likewise, it will not be very enjoyable though
It is what it is. I'm going to live my life accordingly, and I'm going to enjoy it while it lasts.

It can't. I claim to know communism better than you and I can tell you it's all one big utopia that just can't happen in the real world, especially if there is capitalism around in other parts of the world.
The only reason you can make that claim is if you experienced life in a communist state/country/region. If you haven't, you can't make the claim, and I cite the fact that you're still blaming religion and not elaborating on post industrialized nations, modernaztion and the ills of capitalism as proof.

Of course it can't happen if capitalism exist in other parts of the world, but if things are distributed EQUALLY amongst everyone where is capitalism?

Wrong, because we'll reduce the numbers to the sustainable level (<2 billions)
Wrong, because you have to KILL 4 billion, and the problem will still persist in some other way.

We can stop it if we keep our own numbers in check. It has to be done, there is no other way
But previously you implied it really didn't matter because global warming would still be a problem:

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 is global warming the problem? Yes, but according to you it will happen at some point in time regardless if we have clean energy sources. So if we cut the numbers down to 2 billion, how much time does that buy us another century?

we didn't play games in school, we studied science
I am going to take that comment as if you were standing on a soap box:

This explains your lack of social skills and inability to express yourself without name calling and rants.

Thanks for proving me right once again. :cool:


I'm going to take that comment literally and as a confession not rooted in sarcasm:

If thats all you learned in school, I believe they did an injustice to you and your peers. Yes, science is great and it should be taught, but so should critical thinking and reading. Logic (inductive and deductive) is something that should be taught from the early stages of development to the last breath a person takes. The "game" I spoke of is not simply a game like tag. It is actually an excerise or series of questions (that can be answered in essay format) that forces you to think and make choices. IN some cases this test is actually used to evaluate the person and gain insight on their behavioral and cultural traits/biases.

I don't know which one is applicable to you, maybe both, but pick one. :)

See, it is not a choice between killing 5 billion and putting my ego aside, it is a choice between killing 5 billions quickly and letting 10 billions die from war, starvation and diseases 50 years later. These 5 billions will die anyway, we want to save the other 2.
Again, how do you decide who gets to live and who gets to survive? If you go by education most likely people of darker skin will die because they lack the basic infrastructures needed to educate.

What if those people abandon their fairy tale in the modern world?

I don't care how long they were muslims, I care that being a muslim, catholic, baptist, jew or whatever the fuck you believe not only has no place in the modern world, but is extremely dangerous for the stability of this world
They had these "fairy tales" BEFORE the modern world and they have them NOW. The point is, CAPITALISM, MODERNIZATION and INDUSTRIALAZTION has caused more problems than these religions. Again, INDUSTRIALIZATION is what is leading to the increase NOT religious doctrine/dogma. These people have been religious for CENTURIES, yet you see an increase when MODERNIZATION and POST INDUSTRIALIZATION occurs.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
HERESY said:
Thanks for posting this. This article actually endorses what I am saying. The advancement of their technology, their form of urbanization, and their transformation from being hunters and gatherers to agricultural communities to an industrialized way of life contributed to their demise and the demise of the land more than some religious doctrine they adhered to.

Again, LOOK at the chart that I gave you in the last page (not 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. Modernization is the problem not religious doctrines and beliefs, and so far you have provided no proof to cite your claim that religion is the problem. You gave me a link that talked about religion, but to sum it all up, the thesis of that entire article is basically rooted in a womans right to choose and how religion or a male dominated society can impede on that right.
My point was that people on Easter Island never had an industry, they simply overused their resources without ever industrializing or developing any science and technology in the modern sense
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
My point was that people on Easter Island never had an industry, they simply overused their resources without ever industrializing or developing any science and technology in the modern sense
Read the article again. It does not allude to the people simply overusing their resources. Furthermore, one does not have to develop science or technology in a modern sense for it to have a negative impact.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
HERESY said:
Ok, so we have a better understanding of each other, why don't you tell me what you mean by "random" and we can go from there.



Yes, but those articles suggest it can be predicted, and if it can be predicted that tends to do away with a "random" scenario. But I do agree that if there is a selective advantage found within a large group that it will be selected and used in the groups makeup.
Random means that it can't be predicted and if were to "replay the tape of life", the outcome would be different every time. Do we settle on this one?


But we were not talking about genetic drift. We were talking about evolution being random or not. Sure, genetic drift is a process or component of the theory, but so are natural selection, genetic accommodation and continuous variation. But if you go back and look at what you previously typed you said little, if anything, about genetic drift, and we both know it isn't the only aspect of evolution. What I am saying is evolution as a whole is not random, but that certain processes of evolution are random.
Drift is random and it plays a huge role in evolution, I haven't discussed it before because if people can't understand natural selection, then what about drift? Certain outcomes of evolution are not random, as a whole it is (in the sense that we can't predict the outcome) and it isn't (in the sense that the environment and mutations determines the outcome, although mutations themselves are also random)


Not only does science make industrialaztion possible, but science also contributes to the life expectancy rate and infant mortality rate. The advances in science have increased mans lifespan.

With that being said, there is NO WAY you can blame religion for the population boom when I have clearly shown that science and technology have promoted industrialaztion, that religion has been around for thousands of years before the population boom, that populations that were not "religious based" still had large populations, and that the current population increase in the world did NOT happen until post industrialaztion and modernization.
Are you ready to abandon civilization in order to preserve both the environment and population numbers? I doubt it.

We must control our numbers because we have no other choice and religion is a barrier to this, you can't deny it.

Now, how do you expect for people to NOT take advantage of these things when it is being marketed and promoted by capitalists? The medical industry is a BUSINESS that generates TRILLIONS globally. The industry thrives on selling pills, creams and dreams, and if you don't see how capitalism, not religion, is more responsible, I don't know what to tell you.

And in many cases, scientist are NOT warning people, and scientists often debate amongst each other when it comes to issues such as global warming. With that being said, if there is no general consensus amongst the scientific community, who are supposed to be the experts at all of this, how then do you expect for the peopel to listen?
There is consensus (I've demonstrated this before), the general public is getting the impression that there is no consensus because of the idiotic "show both sides of the issue, even when there is only one" way the media portrays the problem and all kinds of interests that take advantage of this and organize campaigns to misinform and mislead people.


No, this is what you asked:



I am telling you the only way I see the whole infrastructure of the world changing is if there is a nuclear war or economic collapse of america (which would most likely lead to a global collapse.) If one of the two does not occur in 8 years there will be no change in thinking over the next 8 years. I do not see a tree hugger movement creating a massive change within the next 8 years, nor do I see any religious or political body creating such a change in thinking. You are asking for a complete change in culture, ideology, way of life and status. You are asking for moral change: for the strong to accomidate the weak, and for the rich to care for the poor--this is a pipedream.
Yes, it is and I know it, this doesn't mean I don't have to state the problem and point the solutions


Everytime we talk about this you always make reference to some third world country and how they need to be wiped out. I rarely see you saying anything about america or europe. But if you're saying everybody will have to reduce their numbers ok we'll go with that.
Third world countries are the best examples of the problems, that's why I usually cite them as examples. I'm sure you've read this one:

http://dieoff.org/page67.htm

It is also that some very important wildlife areas we have to preserve no matter what (tropical forests for example) are in third world countries. That doesn't mean western countries don't have to reduce, I never said this and I don't understand why you got this impression...


The only reason you can make that claim is if you experienced life in a communist state/country/region. If you haven't, you can't make the claim, and I cite the fact that you're still blaming religion and not elaborating on post industrialized nations, modernaztion and the ills of capitalism as proof.

Of course it can't happen if capitalism exist in other parts of the world, but if things are distributed EQUALLY amongst everyone where is capitalism?
It is exactly because I have lived in a communist state and I've seen the collapse after the Big Change that I know why it is an utopia. Communism never existed anywhere in the world, corruption and stupid ideological dogmas just killed it. In order to build communism, you need a radically different value system


Wrong, because you have to KILL 4 billion, and the problem will still persist in some other way.
We kill 5 billion in order to bring the population to the sustainable level. The sustainable level is where there is no problem for long periods


But previously you implied it really didn't matter because global warming would still be a problem:



So is global warming the problem? Yes, but according to you it will happen at some point in time regardless if we have clean energy sources. So if we cut the numbers down to 2 billion, how much time does that buy us another century?
Yes, it will happen if we increase our energy use per capita indefinitely. We have to either keep our energy use per capita constant (which means slow down of technological progress) or decrease our numbers at some point in order to prevent it (a further decrease starting from 2 billion).

Regarding how much time clean energy buys us - the answer is very little because clean energy is simply not available. There is only so much solar energy that you can harvest without disrupting the ecological balance and converting it from a source of energy to a sink, and because this is the only source of energy the planet have, this puts a barrier to our development, unless we find a way to extract energy from matter (fusion, antimatter or some other exotic idea).

This barrier exists anyway even if we keep with business-as-usual scenario because oil already peaked in 2005, we'll run out of gas at some point in the next 50 years or so too and we coal for 2 centuries at the current pace of coal use (which is likely to increase in the future). Uranium is also scarce. Bottomline - we'll be out of energy by the end of the 21st century


Again, how do you decide who gets to live and who gets to survive? If you go by education most likely people of darker skin will die because they lack the basic infrastructures needed to educate.
sigh...

I don't think at all about skin color and race, I think about the planet. Stop thinking locally, think globally, I don't give a damn about who lives and who doesn't in terms of skin color


They had these "fairy tales" BEFORE the modern world and they have them NOW. The point is, CAPITALISM, MODERNIZATION and INDUSTRIALAZTION has caused more problems than these religions. Again, INDUSTRIALIZATION is what is leading to the increase NOT religious doctrine/dogma. These people have been religious for CENTURIES, yet you see an increase when MODERNIZATION and POST INDUSTRIALIZATION occurs.
But there religion is what makes them a problem in this world, that's what matters
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
Random means that it can't be predicted and if were to "replay the tape of life", the outcome would be different every time. Do we settle on this one?
Yes, we settle on this one.

Drift is random and it plays a huge role in evolution, I haven't discussed it before because if people can't understand natural selection, then what about drift?
In this thread and in past threads I've shown that I understand natural selection. What you were doing is putting the cart before the horse.

Certain outcomes of evolution are not random, as a whole it is (in the sense that we can't predict the outcome) and it isn't (in the sense that the environment and mutations determines the outcome, although mutations themselves are also random)
Again, I understand that certain aspects of evolution are not random, and that certain aspects are. However, as a whole, I do not believe evolution is a random process.

Hit these links and tell me your take on them:

http://www.recombinomics.com/News/03210601/H5N1_Random_Mutations_Not.html

http://www.randommutation.com/darwinianevolution.htm

Are you ready to abandon civilization in order to preserve both the environment and population numbers? I doubt it.
Are you asking if times get rough do I know how to purify my water, know which plants to eat, know which insects are high in protein etc? Yes, and I even made a thread about it. Am I ready to live in the stone ages because we fucked everything up? If thats the price to pay so be it. Are you ready to abandon civilization in order to preserve the environment and population?

We must control our numbers because we have no other choice and religion is a barrier to this, you can't deny it.
Certain aspects of certain religions are and I have never denied this. All through out this thread (and the other thread) you see me saying certain aspects of religion DO create barriers. However, unlike you, I am not bias. You keep saying "religion this, and religion that", yet you don't consider religions rooted in animism and how they usually have no take in the situation.

You suffer from confirmation bias, functional fixedness and fixation. Proof of this is found in the FACT that the chart you have been given shows an increase that is clearly related to modernization yet you focus on religion. So to prove my point I will ask you a yes or no question, and I am telling you right now that I do not believe you can or will give a yes or no answer.

Is religion THE major cause of population increase in our world?

Yes or No.

I don't want to see a maybe, I don't need a long drawn out explanation on how religion is linked to other things. Just give me a yes or no answer. I don't want an answer alluding to religion being one of several major problems. Just give me a yes or no.

There is consensus (I've demonstrated this before), the general public is getting the impression that there is no consensus because of the idiotic "show both sides of the issue, even when there is only one" way the media portrays the problem and all kinds of interests that take advantage of this and organize campaigns to misinform and mislead people.
So you're telling me that all scientists across the globe endorse the IPCC? Are you claiming all scientists support the views of the ACIA? I'm NOT saying that the climate is NOT changing, because I believe it actually is. Yes, something is going, but scientist are not able to agree on how long we have, how much damage is done, etc.

If the media is responsible for all of this what is the reason? Is the reason to keep people buying goods and services so someone can generate a profit (CAPITALISM) or is it because there is this mass christian conspiracy to cover everything up?

Yes, it is and I know it, this doesn't mean I don't have to state the problem and point the solutions
Third world countries are the best examples of the problems, that's why I usually cite them as examples. I'm sure you've read this one:

http://dieoff.org/page67.htm

It is also that some very important wildlife areas we have to preserve no matter what (tropical forests for example) are in third world countries. That doesn't mean western countries don't have to reduce, I never said this and I don't understand why you got this impression...
Third world countries have been crippled by capitalism. These people have been exploited and their resources have been yanked from under them. Yes, they had religion and were having babies, but the damage did not come until IMPERIALISM and CAPITALISM reared its ugly head. Yes, we need to protect these forests, and there is a reason they are usually only in third world countries now. Do you know the reason? It has nothing to do with religion, and EVERYTHING to do with capitalism.

It is exactly because I have lived in a communist state and I've seen the collapse after the Big Change that I know why it is an utopia. Communism never existed anywhere in the world, corruption and stupid ideological dogmas just killed it. In order to build communism, you need a radically different value system
And in order to have a radically different value system you need to first do away with thE current value system which is a mixture of CAPITALISM,
MATERIALISM, IMPERIALISM and EUROCENTRISM. And because you have lived in a communist state, that should reinforce the logical assessment that these things have had more of an impact than religion.

We kill 5 billion in order to bring the population to the sustainable level. The sustainable level is where there is no problem for long periods
But it doesn't buy us much time. It is a band aid on 60 ak-47 wounds.

Yes, it will happen if we increase our energy use per capita indefinitely. We have to either keep our energy use per capita constant (which means slow down of technological progress) or decrease our numbers at some point in order to prevent it (a further decrease starting from 2 billion).
And instead of slowing down and cutting back on the choices we make you want to kill 4 billion people?

Regarding how much time clean energy buys us - the answer is very little because clean energy is simply not available. There is only so much solar energy that you can harvest without disrupting the ecological balance and converting it from a source of energy to a sink, and because this is the only source of energy the planet have, this puts a barrier to our development, unless we find a way to extract energy from matter (fusion, antimatter or some other exotic idea).
So if it is not availiable what is the use of killing 4 billion people when in 50 - 100 or so years EVERYONE is still going to be assed out?

This barrier exists anyway even if we keep with business-as-usual scenario because oil already peaked in 2005, we'll run out of gas at some point in the next 50 years or so too and we coal for 2 centuries at the current pace of coal use (which is likely to increase in the future). Uranium is also scarce. Bottomline - we'll be out of energy by the end of the 21st century
Bottomline - you and I will be dead when the majority of this occurs. In 50 or so years I'll be close to 80 so what would it matter to me when I already have one foot in the grave? You simply want to prolong the inevitable, but you haven't provided us with a logical reason to do so.

sigh...

I don't think at all about skin color and race, I think about the planet. Stop thinking locally, think globally, I don't give a damn about who lives and who doesn't in terms of skin color
Again, how do you decide who lives and who doesn't?

But there religion is what makes them a problem in this world, that's what matters
They had these "fairy tales" BEFORE the modern world and they have them NOW. The point is, CAPITALISM, MODERNIZATION and INDUSTRIALAZTION has caused more problems than these religions. Again, INDUSTRIALIZATION is what is leading to the increase NOT religious doctrine/dogma. These people have been religious for CENTURIES, yet you see an increase when MODERNIZATION and POST INDUSTRIALIZATION occurs.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
HERESY said:
Again, I understand that certain aspects of evolution are not random, and that certain aspects are. However, as a whole, I do not believe evolution is a random process.

Hit these links and tell me your take on them:

http://www.recombinomics.com/News/03210601/H5N1_Random_Mutations_Not.html
Flu viruses have a small and highly instable genome and their populations even in a single host organism are enormous. You will always have a very large pool of mutations out of which you can pick the ones you need. It doesn't work that way with organisms with large genomes and small population numbers (mammals for example), drift is extremely important there

I can't believe you post this....

Do you understand the difference between language and DNA????????????


Are you asking if times get rough do I know how to purify my water, know which plants to eat, know which insects are high in protein etc? Yes, and I even made a thread about it. Am I ready to live in the stone ages because we fucked everything up? If thats the price to pay so be it. Are you ready to abandon civilization in order to preserve the environment and population?
No, I am asking about whether you want to go back to the stone age in order to accommodate 5 more billions of morons on this planet??

Certain aspects of certain religions are and I have never denied this. All through out this thread (and the other thread) you see me saying certain aspects of religion DO create barriers. However, unlike you, I am not bias. You keep saying "religion this, and religion that", yet you don't consider religions rooted in animism and how they usually have no take in the situation.
Tell me what do you think about this one:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/population/pc0001.html

How many open lies can you count there?

You suffer from confirmation bias, functional fixedness and fixation. Proof of this is found in the FACT that the chart you have been given shows an increase that is clearly related to modernization yet you focus on religion. So to prove my point I will ask you a yes or no question, and I am telling you right now that I do not believe you can or will give a yes or no answer.

Is religion THE major cause of population increase in our world?

Yes or No.

I don't want to see a maybe, I don't need a long drawn out explanation on how religion is linked to other things. Just give me a yes or no answer. I don't want an answer alluding to religion being one of several major problems. Just give me a yes or no.
Yes

When you think that life is creation of God there is no way this can't influence your reproductive decisions

So you're telling me that all scientists across the globe endorse the IPCC? Are you claiming all scientists support the views of the ACIA? I'm NOT saying that the climate is NOT changing, because I believe it actually is. Yes, something is going, but scientist are not able to agree on how long we have, how much damage is done, etc.
For every scientist who disagree there are dozens who see the danger. That's hardly a lack of consensus, it is the fact that you see "both sides" that makes you think there isn't

If the media is responsible for all of this what is the reason? Is the reason to keep people buying goods and services so someone can generate a profit (CAPITALISM) or is it because there is this mass christian conspiracy to cover everything up?
it's a big business "conspiracy", mass chirstian brainwashing makes people incapable of realizing the danger





Third world countries have been crippled by capitalism. These people have been exploited and their resources have been yanked from under them. Yes, they had religion and were having babies, but the damage did not come until IMPERIALISM and CAPITALISM reared its ugly head. Yes, we need to protect these forests, and there is a reason they are usually only in third world countries now. Do you know the reason? It has nothing to do with religion, and EVERYTHING to do with capitalism.



And in order to have a radically different value system you need to first do away with thE current value system which is a mixture of CAPITALISM,
MATERIALISM, IMPERIALISM and EUROCENTRISM. And because you have lived in a communist state, that should reinforce the logical assessment that these things have had more of an impact than religion.
1. I do not think we are materialists, quite the opposite, it would be good if we were. When I say materialists, I mean philosophical materialists, there is a difference. We need to get rid of superstition (religion)

2. Our value system is formed largely by religion (Christianity). Where do you think imperialism and eurocentrism come from? "Spread the word of God to those who haven't heard it..." bla-bla, wait, they haven't heard it, they're must be some second hand people...


And instead of slowing down and cutting back on the choices we make you want to kill 4 billion people?
It's useless to argue over this, you don't have the ability to understand the problem


So if it is not availiable what is the use of killing 4 billion people when in 50 - 100 or so years EVERYONE is still going to be assed out?
Who said that?

All I say is that we have to control our numbers at some point, the sooner the better. It can save us from the worst


Bottomline - you and I will be dead when the majority of this occurs. In 50 or so years I'll be close to 80 so what would it matter to me when I already have one foot in the grave? You simply want to prolong the inevitable, but you haven't provided us with a logical reason to do so.
I'll be dead (not 100% sure, I'm a biologist and we're moving very fast towards controlling aging) but my genes will be passed to somebody so I do care about them


Again, how do you decide who lives and who doesn't?
the morons don't for sure...
 
Nov 17, 2002
2,627
99
48
42
www.facebook.com
When you think that life is creation of God there is no way this can't influence your reproductive decisions
So you are saying that population increase is primarily due to religion? You know, I wish it was, because then more people would be raising their children to be God-conscious individuals. But as it is this doesn't appear to be the case. People screw because they enjoy it and when it happens, sometimes they settle for having children. Or, even when parenthood is planned, it is not always with a religious purpose in mind. Anyone who thinks reproduction in itself is God's plan needs further education. God doesn't want people to simply create more and more people, but that people should be trained up in God-consciousness. One should be adequate to raise children in this way, else they shouldn't be having children. That is the religious view on population increase.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
n9newunsixx5150 said:
So you are saying that population increase is primarily due to religion? You know, I wish it was, because then more people would be raising their children to be God-conscious individuals. But as it is this doesn't appear to be the case. People screw because they enjoy it and when it happens, sometimes they settle for having children. Or, even when parenthood is planned, it is not always with a religious purpose in mind. Anyone who thinks reproduction in itself is God's plan needs further education. God doesn't want people to simply create more and more people, but that people should be trained up in God-consciousness. One should be adequate to raise children in this way, else they shouldn't be having children. That is the religious view on population increase.
Once again:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/population/pc0001.html

Read carefully....

When you think that birth control is a sin (sins exist only in religious minds) and humans are something of value you are ready to tell all kinds of lies to support your nonsense
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
Those are also considered EXTREME christians. I dont know ANY Christians that say any of that "birth control is a sin" bullshit.

THatsd like saying all Muslims believe that if they commit suicide, they are granted 75 virgins in heaven.

Stop generalizing.
 
Nov 17, 2002
2,627
99
48
42
www.facebook.com

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
Jesse fuckin' Rice said:
Those are also considered EXTREME christians. I dont know ANY Christians that say any of that "birth control is a sin" bullshit.

THatsd like saying all Muslims believe that if they commit suicide, they are granted 75 virgins in heaven.

Stop generalizing.
I am generalizing because every measure that can actually do something to prevent the catastrophe will be dismissed by EVERY Christian (not just the extreme ones) as immoral...

Well, if you can chose between being "immoral" and saving the planet and being "moral" (whatever the fuck "moral" is) and you chose being moral and fucking up everything, you're a moron, period. This is extreme shortsightedness and stupidity by moderate Christians...
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
ThaG said:
I am generalizing because every measure that can actually do something to prevent the catastrophe will be dismissed by EVERY Christian (not just the extreme ones) as immoral...
And thats YOUR opinion. THe funny thing is that youa ct like if your an atheist, you HAVE to accept science...and if your theist, you HAVE to reject science.

Again, your generalizations show your weakness. Didnt you talk about randoms with HERSY ealier? Then why are you being contradicitve?

Well, if you can chose between being "immoral" and saving the planet and being "moral" (whatever the fuck "moral" is) and you chose being moral and fucking up everything, you're a moron, period. This is extreme shortsightedness and stupidity by moderate Christians...
Dog, you even said it yourself and HERESY backed it up. Even if you DID get rid of over 70% of the population, then what? Youre good for another century at best??? Again, USE common sense.

On top of all that, YUO and I do NOT know the future. I dont give a damn WHAT kinda evidence scientists have...YOU nor I have NAY 100% proof positive of WHAT will happen in a day, a year, 10 years...

THe major flaw in YOUR thinking, is you want peopel to scrafice for an uncertain future...do you NOT know how the human psyche works? No, becuase you only focus on the "greater good", something that I feel the upper elite think about...when they are not counting their trillions of dollars.

Your solution is no better OR worse than anyone elses...and I find it appauling that YOU can have such a low respect for human life.

FUCK sceintists AND theists.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
Jesse fuckin' Rice said:
And thats YOUR opinion. THe funny thing is that youa ct like if your an atheist, you HAVE to accept science...and if your theist, you HAVE to reject science.

Again, your generalizations show your weakness. Didnt you talk about randoms with HERSY ealier? Then why are you being contradicitve?
contradictive where?


Dog, you even said it yourself and HERESY backed it up. Even if you DID get rid of over 70% of the population, then what? Youre good for another century at best??? Again, USE common sense.
I never said that

I said that:

1. we need to cut our numbers immediately in order to prevent the coming catastrophe

2. even if we find a limitless supply of energy, we will still have to control our numbers

On top of all that, YUO and I do NOT know the future. I dont give a damn WHAT kinda evidence scientists have...YOU nor I have NAY 100% proof positive of WHAT will happen in a day, a year, 10 years...

THe major flaw in YOUR thinking, is you want peopel to scrafice for an uncertain future...do you NOT know how the human psyche works? No, becuase you only focus on the "greater good", something that I feel the upper elite think about...when they are not counting their trillions of dollars.
Did you read the Easter Island article?

Your solution is no better OR worse than anyone elses...and I find it appauling that YOU can have such a low respect for human life.

FUCK sceintists AND theists.
That's because you haven't made the leap forward into the future in your thinking