NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1112197299985_10/?hub=World

Article sorta says it by itself. Humans are assholes.

I've read this somewhere too. This actually brings me hope...
I think it's our time to leave this planet (I know that will take time, but now
is good time to start [there is no smiley for this])

The main case this makes (Saw the report on the news as well.) is that we're overpopulating the planet.

The answer is quite simple; renewable engery, and sea farming for foodstuffs. Problems solved. Nothing else matters much. I don't see how we can be creating new diseases, or at least not outside of top-secret biolabs.

Besides, only the world's poor are really affected (At least for now). Rich countries aren't going to give a flying toss.

And for Christ's sakes don't let the UN have any role in this whatsoever, because they'll find some way to treble the damage we do whilst having the liberals blame everyone EXCEPT the UN.

How solveth we overpopulation without mass killing?

People don't create the new diseases, per se. With as many people as there are on this planet, any bacterium or virus can come into contact with lots of us thus exposing it to many more mutagenic substances causing it to change, mutate, and adapt into another form of a disease until it could become its own strain. Also, with as many new drugs going around, this enters into the equation many new substances that have not previously been factors.

The main case this makes (Saw the report on the news as well.) is that we're overpopulating the planet.

The answer is quite simple; renewable engery, and sea farming for foodstuffs. Problems solved. Nothing else matters much. I don't see how we can be creating new diseases, or at least not outside of top-secret biolabs.

Besides, only the world's poor are really affected (At least for now). Rich countries aren't going to give a flying toss.

And for Christ's sakes don't let the UN have any role in this whatsoever, because they'll find some way to treble the damage we do whilst having the liberals blame everyone EXCEPT the UN.

I don't want renewable energy. (I'm against your post ONLY if you meant
relatevily cheap form of energy). Cheap and renewable energy can easily
creat a situation that increases the standard of living in the worst places.
I don't think we need more consuming in the world. :(

I don't want renewable energy. (I'm against your post ONLY if you meant
relatevily cheap form of energy). Cheap and renewable energy can easily
creat a situation that increases the standard of living in the worst places.
I don't think we need more consuming in the world. :(

K, first of all yes, I meant something cheap, but anything's likely to be cheap after long enough. More accurately, cost-efficient, rather than cheap. Antimatter might be more expensive than bribing the Pope, but it might also be as close to 100% efficent as we get. Anyways;

Starvation > prosperity?

O___o

At least you're honest. I can't say I give much of a damn about 99.99999999% of the world either, but I don't actively wish harm on them either.

The main case this makes (Saw the report on the news as well.) is that we're overpopulating the planet.

The answer is quite simple; renewable engery, and sea farming for foodstuffs. Problems solved. Nothing else matters much. I don't see how we can be creating new diseases, or at least not outside of top-secret biolabs.

Besides, only the world's poor are really affected (At least for now). Rich countries aren't going to give a flying toss.

And for Christ's sakes don't let the UN have any role in this whatsoever, because they'll find some way to treble the damage we do whilst having the liberals blame everyone EXCEPT the UN.

lol don't laugh:

why not diminish the overcrowding of some of the world's poorer urban spots by moving some of those people to places like Canada, Mongolia, Madagascar, Chad, Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, North and South Dakota, etc.?

there's plenty of open space...

take Bangladesh, for instance. Montana alone has plenty of room for at least 10 million more people.

K, first of all yes, I meant something cheap, but anything's likely to be cheap after long enough. More accurately, cost-efficient, rather than cheap. Antimatter might be more expensive than bribing the Pope, but it might also be as close to 100% efficent as we get. Anyways;

Starvation > prosperity?

O___o

At least you're honest. I can't say I give much of a damn about 99.99999999% of the world either, but I don't actively wish harm on them either.


Honest, yes I find that to be lie?? :confused:
But here's what I would want... Lower the standard of living in the wealthiest
countries... Yes I know, not going to happen untill absolutily necessary and
then it's too late...

lol don't laugh:

why not diminish the overcrowding of some of the world poorer urban spots by moving some of those people to places like Canada, Mongolia, Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, North and South Dakota, etc.?

there's plenty of open space...

take Bangladesh, for instance. Montana alone has plenty of room for at least 10 million more people.

No problem with that myself. Actually, the problem is forced relocationm, and forcing people to be unable to relocate. I just don't think borders should be closed. *shrugs*

Honest, yes I find that to be lie?? :confused:
But here's what I would want... Lower the standard of living in the wealthiest
countries... Yes I know, not going to happen untill absolutily necessary and
then it's too late...

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say you would lie, it just seems to alien a concept to NOT want everyone to be prosperous that I was taken aback. I can almost see your logic, but only insofar as it is easier to destroy than to create. People want sweet stuff, and only a dictatorship will take it from them (At which point the dictators and their cronies get the nice stuff instead.).

How solveth we overpopulation without mass killing?
Birth control?

No problem with that myself. Actually, the problem is forced relocationm, and forcing people to be unable to relocate. I just don't think borders should be closed. *shrugs*



Sorry, I wasn't trying to say you would lie, it just seems to alien a concept to NOT want everyone to be prosperous that I was taken aback. I can almost see your logic, but only insofar as it is easier to destroy than to create. People want sweet stuff, and only a dictatorship will take it from them (At which point the dictators and their cronies get the nice stuff instead.).


Actually the first line was meant only for me (Yes I'm weird)

On other parts you are right! As I implaied(sp?) in my post. It's still sad :(
The whole situation I mean...

Birth control?It would be too hard to get it working efficiently enough. As it seems now, there is no solution for overpopulation, except mass killing, that would actually work. So the best bet currently is to develop a deadly, fast-spreading virus and let it loose in all heavily populated areas at the same time, after putting some people intended to survive to safety of cource. :D

Wow. Once again, no actual proof that is not based on the assumption they know everything.

lol don't laugh:

why not diminish the overcrowding of some of the world's poorer urban spots by moving some of those people to places like Canada, Mongolia, Madagascar, Chad, Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, North and South Dakota, etc.?

there's plenty of open space...

take Bangladesh, for instance. Montana alone has plenty of room for at least 10 million more people.

How about the area around nashville ?

:rolleyes:

Wow. Once again, no actual proof that is not based on the assumption they know everything.

I hope you were talking about the guys talking about overpopulation and not the study which was conducted by over 1000 people who know what they are doing.

You're not supposed to be able to *see* a glacier melt, but I have seen it. It's scary.

I hope you were talking about the guys talking about overpopulation and not the study which was conducted by over 1000 people who know what they are doing.

Actually, both. The population issue is one best solved using a genetically-engineered virus released in the right population centers. It's also the only one that will be effective enough to do the job in a short amount of time. The inhumanity of it is the reason why I don't advocate it being done.

And as for those 1000 people: They have 200 years of attempting to figure out what is going on, using a planet with a history stretching back billions of years. The majority of the current global warming fears are based on little objective evidence, most of which was gathered by looking at ice and guessing or by looking at the average temperatures of a period of time that may actually be a cool period for Earth. Evemn the recent find of a certain type of carbons in increased amounts in Antarctic ice could have easily have come from results of natural actions as from humans. All they have is a few scattered pieces of the puzzle and without even waiting for more they are already trying to guess what the entire picture looks like.

As for being irrepairably damage: Earth has seen far, far worse than this and come out ahead. If it is irrepairably damaged, there is still no evidence that humanity is the cause or even that humanity really is capable of affecting it that much. All they have is evidence with too many explanations and their guesswork, most of which I must say is based entirely on personal biases. The reason why I say that is the fact the only way to irrepairably damage the planet, as a certain meteorological event in the past has demonstrated, is to affect the environment itself as a whole, of which there is no evidence humanity is doing. Humanity is affecting small portions, and most of those are limited to species that can easily be replaced in the future.

We don't have enough evidence that humanity is the cause, and we don't have enough evidence to rule humanity out either. We need to have far more than we do before we can start saying conclusively which is the cause.

I've read this somewhere too. This actually brings me hope...
I think it's our time to leave this planet (I know that will take time, but now
is good time to start [there is no smiley for this])
What's the point? All we're going to do is be stupid assholes on another planet and fuck over that one, too.

I will note, however, that it makes an interesting study of what happens when a prey species that managed to outlive its predator is allowed to continue to survive. Remove the species, Earth will balance itself out over the next few hundred years. Nothing really irreversible.

Well, it'd be far worth more human time to try and adapt, and not try to change things. That being said, we should do our best to try and preserve what we can. My two biggest environmental worries are about land, anyhow. One, keep Central Asia, the Middle East, and sub-Sahara Africa from becoming giant deserts, as many people live there. And two, make sure that the soils below agricultural regions are preserved. This should be especially true for the North American Great Plains and the former USSR, which rival eachother as the most productive agricultural regions on the planet, owing mostly to their pleasent climate and good soils.

According to scientists, the octopus is most likely to take over as the most intelligent species when man is gone.

Well, it'd be far worth more human time to try and adapt, and not try to change things. That being said, we should do our best to try and preserve what we can. My two biggest environmental worries are about land, anyhow. One, keep Central Asia, the Middle East, and sub-Sahara Africa from becoming giant deserts, as many people live there. And two, make sure that the soils below agricultural regions are preserved. This should be especially true for the North American Great Plains and the former USSR, which rival eachother as the most productive agricultural regions on the planet, owing mostly to their pleasent climate and good soils.

The Sahara Desert started its spread before the Egyptian civilization arose to its heights of power. Same with the Middle East and all of those areas. That looks more like natural climate changes than human action. Most likely, resulting from the Earth warming back up to a temperature that is possibly closer to its norm and the fact it has taken thousands of years to do so. Add in another natural phenomenon, the shifting of the magnetic poles, and suddenly all of the climate changes are explained.

In other words, the Great Plains may someday be the new Antarctica or the new Brazil.

The Sahara Desert started its spread before the Egyptian civilization arose to its heights of power. Same with the Middle East and all of those areas. That looks more like natural climate changes than human action. Most likely, resulting from the Earth warming back up to a temperature that is possibly closer to its norm and the fact it has taken thousands of years to do so. Add in another natural phenomenon, the shifting of the magnetic poles, and suddenly all of the climate changes are explained.

In other words, the Great Plains may someday be the new Antarctica or the new Brazil.
That is true that the Sahara Desert only started to form a few thousand years ago. However, it is not sustainable for those in sub-Sahara Africa. As much as I feel that it is already a wasteland unfit for living, they nevertheless breed like rabbits. There's no moral way to deal with them other than to protect them, and hope that one day they'll figure it out.
As for the Great Plains, it'd be a pity if there was a major climate shift there. With the exception of the former USSR and parts of China, the soil there can't be more fertile.

That is true that the Sahara Desert only started to form a few thousand years ago. However, it is not sustainable for those in sub-Sahara Africa. As much as I feel that it is already a wasteland unfit for living, they nevertheless breed like rabbits. There's no moral way to deal with them other than to protect them, and hope that one day they'll figure it out.
As for the Great Plains, it'd be a pity if there was a major climate shift there. With the exception of the former USSR and parts of China, the soil there can't be more fertile.

Unless humanity finds some way to control Earth's magnetic field within the next few decades, there's pretty much nothing we can do to stop it. But after all of these centuries, for all we know Antarctica could be more fertile than Eden.

Trying to sustain the Sahara has proven to be a fruitless hobby so far. At best, we can offer relief. At worst, we may have to sacrifice a few people.

Oh, it's nothing a giant asteroid can't solve.

Trying to sustain the Sahara has proven to be a fruitless hobby so far. At best, we can offer relief. At worst, we may have to sacrifice a few people.
The man who discovered plutonium, Dr. Joseph Seagram, had a different idea. Writing in the 1960s, he said that several massive nuclear explosions on the Strait of Gilbraltar would send water rushing in, and thus irrigate the Sahara. He mused that Italy and the Balkans would drown, but hey, it works :p .

The man who discovered plutonium, Dr. Joseph Seagram, had a different idea. Writing in the 1960s, he said that several massive nuclear explosions on the Strait of Gilbraltar would send water rushing in, and thus irrigate the Sahara. He mused that Italy and the Balkans would drown, but hey, it works :p .

Already checked out that idea. All it does is temporarily flood them before the waters recede. Egypt has seen worse floods from the Nile than that. However, it does have the side-effect of wiping out Vatican City and, depending on your views of the Pope, that may not be a bad thing.

Whether or not the above is a joke is up to you to decide.

With that note, I'm off this thread. I don't want to get drawn into a lengthy debate on this forum, as it moves too damn fast for me once it gets going.

Speaking as someone who is very concerned about the environment, let me just say that the arrogance of environmental scientists never ceases to amaze me.

To think that a mere one hundred years of intermittently maintained climate data and a lot of speculation qualifies them to preach to us on the 'damage' we do to the environment is stunning arrogance.

What concerns me MOST about the environment is the fact that we don't know a damn thing. Most of what we 'know' is as much tainted by faith as the Bible would be if accepted as a historical document. Eco-scientists are the politicians of the scientific world. They make me sick. *bleah*

Already checked out that idea. All it does is temporarily flood them before the waters recede. Egypt has seen worse floods from the Nile than that. However, it does have the side-effect of wiping out Vatican City and, depending on your views of the Pope, that may not be a bad thing.

Whether or not the above is a joke is up to you to decide.

With that note, I'm off this thread. I don't want to get drawn into a lengthy debate on this forum, as it moves too damn fast for me once it gets going.
I meant the above in gest, but oh well. Ciao!

I meant the above in gest, but oh well. Ciao!

~Hides time machine~

So was mine.

But I was serious about being off. I've lost these debates before because of simply getting buried in posts.

Ummm...

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment's work was prepared under the supervision of a 45-member board of directors, co-chaired by Dr. Robert Watson, chief scientist of The World Bank, and Dr. A. Hamid Zakri, director of the United Nations University's Institute of Advanced Studies.

I'm sorry, but the sky is not falling. This is a report whose methods are questionable, based on a single thing: everyone involved already believed this would be the outcome. A gathering of expensive titles does not make good science, and their conclusions are slipshod. "Irreversable Damage" indeed... look at your list of participants, and the objective of the report-group itself:

...The four-year, 2,500-page assessment was drawn up by 1,300 researchers from 95 nations in an effort to inform global policy initiatives.


No politics there, right??? The fact that it supports the positions taken by U.N. Officials since the mid 1980's (at least) doesn't have anything to do with it getting both heavy coverage, and Khofi Annan's stamp of approval... (what kind of country does Khofi come from, Hmmm??)

It's like trusting members of the sierra Club to compile a report about the impact of forestry management on private lands in Washington State-you already know what the outcome is going to be-regardless of what evidence is present. I find the statement:
The report says humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly in the past 50 years than any other period.

And their evidence is..? There has been virtually no real tracking of this prior to fifty years ago (Reliable tracking), and scientists working in the field disagree with one another frequently over interpretations of antarctic ice-cores, sediment sampling, and the actual veracity of various methods...

To think that a mere one hundred years of intermittently maintained climate data and a lot of speculation qualifies them to preach to us on the 'damage' we do to the environment is stunning arrogance.


So what you're saying is that since we as a species only figured out that we have a climate to content with and discovered a proper way of reporting it's state some decades ago, everybody who've not been sticking around since the birth of christ should just shut up? Wouldn't you rather have your mechanic tell you your buick might blow a valve before it does so, rather than just tell you he thought it might have been about to happen, but since he did't have more than 200 years of empirical data he'd rather wait anoher 200 years before telling you and then change all the valves? I realise the environment is "slightly" more complex than internal combustion engines but consider the metaphore...
Discussing this subject I guess we all know that there are ways of figuring out data about our environment in past times, such as ice cores, water measurements and so forth... I'd say the empirical data is getting to a level that's pretty good. When you have people who have a good reason to believe something nasty is coming don't you want them to tell you? The Department of Homeland Security does, so why not scientists? Seems to me the sci-boys have a much better case...

I think what is also meant by irrepairable damage is that when we loose a species of creatures, something will pop up in it's place, but it wont be the same as the original lost creature/plant/whatever. That race is gone and wont come back unless somebody goes Jurassic Park on it. It is not necessarily a problem, save that the replacement will not necessarily fullfill all the original's functions... Evolution takes a little time and works in strange ways. A new beast will have strange ways and though it will fit into an ecosystem it may do so with nasty results... just look at grasses and what they did to the then dominant specieseseses.
We've got a royal straight flush here, why force nature and ask for a new hand we'll most likely never see, but which might well loose our grandchildren the ante?

We're not overpopulating this planet. Deforestation, while it does certainly exist, isn't as bad as many would have you think. Paper, for example, comes from tree farms. Trees are a renewable resource, as people like to forget.

The fuel crisis isn't as bad as you think either: current drilling technology, I believe is at present only capable of draining one half of any one aoil reservoir below a certain depth, for pressure concerns. Once we figure out a way around that, we've doubled our oil supply.

Air pollution is a bit of a problem in a lot of places, but is only partially responsible for global warming.

But, folks, you have to remember, that our planet has something called an extinction cycle: it happened to the dinosaurs and it happened before them, apparently at fairly regular intervals. According to many calculations, we're overdue for one. Humanity will not last forever: look up at the stars sometime and wonder just how far along we are. The best we can do is have a good run, and I'll be dead by the time all of this shit go down, so I'm gonna do what every other generation has done since the industrial age began: I'm passing the goddamn buck. I didn't cause these problems.