| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
We are a plague. Unfortunately, I have found that happy people are unwilling to accept that fact. Even I in my happier moments have struggled against the cold logic that I used to form the belief that the human race is horrible. In the end, though, I could not counter my own logic with anything but naive denial. | ||
|
theJob
272 Posts
| ||
|
muta_micro
United States183 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18826 Posts
On January 25 2013 06:28 muta_micro wrote: If you don't think that human beings are a despicable plague and that realistically there is only about 3% of the total population that deserves to exist, than you are a parasite and part of the problem. Ummm, I think you found the wrong forum......there are plenty of websites far more suitable for your brand of whiny hate. Try stormfront? | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
I support space colonization for this exact reason. The earth can sustain one or two billion humans, but cutting down to that number is impractical and near impossible without lots of war or some other method of killing the other five billion. Instead we can manage it at seven or even up to ten billion but take steps to even out that number so 10 doesn't become 20. Then we can spread out and start growing our numbers if needed. The main point here is that humanity, like every other species has a survival instinct (no voluntary death for the good of the whole thanks to individuality) and a reproduction instinct (almost everyone wants kids) so it's hard to convince people to die off or not have kids because the question becomes "Why me?" | ||
|
TheToaster
United States280 Posts
As with other mammals, humans were originally evolved to manage their own carrying capacity in this manner. But now people begin to argue we have 'devolved' from this important evolutionary property. What complicates the argument, however, is that humans are unique. We have the intelligent ability to increase our own carrying capacity with many tools. Sciences like medicine, industrial agriculture, and mass production allow us to repopulate quickly. At the same time, resource management and knowledge of recycling products help us maintain our place on planet Earth. So the big question becomes how do we balance these two complex sides of the scale? How does humanity effectively control the side effects of our society, while at the same time maintaining its level of reproduction? For me, I think science can effectively manage both at the same time. The only issue is whether or not science will receive the balanced amount of funding for each of these two phenomenon equally. If we become such a consumerist global economy that no one's willing to invest in clean energy or environmental research, then science might be developing too fast towards the wrong side of the scale. But if we are responsible, then equalizing our environmental side effects with our growth rate can be an easy solution. | ||
|
Zoltan
United States656 Posts
We disable all people's ability to reproduce. Create area where you can fight to have your dna placed in gene pool. Become the Clans. On a slightly more serious note, this IS a self correcting problem. Once our population pressures reach a breaking point, our numbers will be reduced to a manageable size again. | ||
|
DidYuhim
Ukraine1905 Posts
Is there any specific reason why people want to hate themselves? Or is this hate directed towards some specific group of individuals? Or you want cause mass suicide? | ||
|
DidYuhim
Ukraine1905 Posts
On January 25 2013 06:48 Zoltan wrote: here's "The Plan" We disable all people's ability to reproduce. Create area where you can fight to have your dna placed in gene pool. Become the Clans. On a slightly more serious note, this IS a self correcting problem. Once our population pressures reach a breaking point, our numbers will be reduced to a manageable size again. Technically, people in mechwarrior are still able to reproduce. Although, humans born "normal" way are not allowed to be placed anywhere high in the government and are usually used as meat shield. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On January 25 2013 00:34 Chocobo wrote: Yes, we're part of nature. So is the mold that turns an orange into a fuzzy green husk. It doesn't matter how you look at the situation, we're doing a lot of damage to the rest of the world and it's a simple fact that we'll ruin much of the world if we continue what we've been doing without restrictions endlessly. It doesn't matter if we're intelligent or "special"- what matters is how we affect the planet and the other life on it. BTW space travel is no solution. At best we'll establish small enclosed bases on the moon and Mars. Transforming them into livable planets isn't happening, and neither is travel outside of the solar system (barring a miraculous discovery of "warp speed" travel that breaks all known laws of physics). The idea of a car wasn't even thinkable a couple hundred years ago. Look where we are now. To definitively say that terraforming planets or traveling outside the solar system is straight up impossible is incredibly naive. And Why does how we affect the planet matter? It only matters on two scales; a pragmatic scale that considers the ability of the planet to sustain life forms and an abstract, moral scale that only matters to humanity on an emotional level. | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On January 25 2013 06:53 DidYuhim wrote: "Humans are plague on Earth", "Hurry up and die" these threads are quite popular. Is there any specific reason why people want to hate themselves? Or is this hate directed towards some specific group of individuals? Or you want cause mass suicide? People see the destruction we cause around us and, in the same shortsightedness that causes many of today's problems, think that we are altering the planet in a way that isn't natural. Of course, what is natural? A billion years ago Oxygen wasn't natural. It was created by microorganisms that eventually died because of their success - they couldn't survive in the high oxygen environment they created. It was exactly what we fear we will do in the present, create an environment that is unlivable. However, if it wasn't for the 'unnatural' oxygen then none of the rest of evolution would have happened like it did. So just like it did then, life will go on no matter what we do. Even a nuclear holocaust wouldn't end life on Earth, just significantly reduce the diversity for a few million years. We shouldn't worry about protecting the environment for the environment's sake, it will be just fine once we're gone, but for our sake, because we won't survive the massive changes we cause. | ||
|
Xialos
Canada508 Posts
There would have been some juicy discussions. | ||
|
Warlock40
601 Posts
On January 25 2013 07:08 Myles wrote: People see the destruction we cause around us and, in the same shortsightedness that causes many of today's problems, think that we are altering the planet in a way that isn't natural. Of course, what is natural? A billion years ago Oxygen wasn't natural. It was created by microorganisms that eventually died because of their success - they couldn't survive in the high oxygen environment they created. It was exactly what we fear we will do in the present, create an environment that is unlivable. However, if it wasn't for the 'unnatural' oxygen then none of the rest of evolution would have happened like it did. So just like it did then, life will go on no matter what we do. Even a nuclear holocaust wouldn't end life on Earth, just significantly reduce the diversity for a few million years. We shouldn't worry about protecting the environment for the environment's sake, it will be just fine once we're gone, but for our sake, because we won't survive the massive changes we cause. Yes, so much. Agreed 100%. Protect the environment ,not for the whales, or the baby seals, or what have you - but for our own benefit. | ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 Posts
On January 25 2013 05:17 randommuch wrote: If any of you have read the book Ishmael, I strongly suggest you read it if this kind of thing interests you. This is entirely true. My take on this, and I admit is biased from that book, is that what gave us the right to have dominion over everything else? I try to see myself as equals with things around me; granted we may be smarter than other life forms, but when I look at something easily passed by as insignificant, such as my own cat, I have a great deal of respect for her as an animal. It's something most see as a simple animal, but in all honesty the way life works is incredibly intricate and fascinating to me. I really don't think humans should be held as high as we are putting ourselves. Truthfully, we, and the earth itself, might be better off with half the population we are dealing with currently. I just thought your choice of words was interesting. Genesis 1:28 And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
On January 25 2013 06:48 Zoltan wrote: here's "The Plan" We disable all people's ability to reproduce. Create area where you can fight to have your dna placed in gene pool. Become the Clans. On a slightly more serious note, this IS a self correcting problem. Once our population pressures reach a breaking point, our numbers will be reduced to a manageable size again. ...through such joyous methods as starvation and exposure. It would be better to keep more people from being born than to wait until we start dying off. Besides, it's not like we wouldn't take a lot of nature with us, and the societal upheaval that would come from humankind exceeding what the Earth can provide would "overkill" by a fairly large margin. More would die than necessary. On January 25 2013 07:08 Myles wrote: People see the destruction we cause around us and, in the same shortsightedness that causes many of today's problems, think that we are altering the planet in a way that isn't natural. Of course, what is natural? A billion years ago Oxygen wasn't natural. It was created by microorganisms that eventually died because of their success - they couldn't survive in the high oxygen environment they created. It was exactly what we fear we will do in the present, create an environment that is unlivable. However, if it wasn't for the 'unnatural' oxygen then none of the rest of evolution would have happened like it did. So just like it did then, life will go on no matter what we do. Even a nuclear holocaust wouldn't end life on Earth, just significantly reduce the diversity for a few million years. We shouldn't worry about protecting the environment for the environment's sake, it will be just fine once we're gone, but for our sake, because we won't survive the massive changes we cause. Thanks for the perspective. Your viewpoint was interesting and even enlightening, to a degree. Ultra-long term morality does bring up some interesting trains of thought. Although, it can be very tricky. For instance, your argument gives a good reason for why the permanent loss of certain parts of nature is not inherently evil. However, that may steer a person away from considering whether or not the pain and death inflicted upon the individual members of the species is inherently evil. Those are two separate things, and yet so close that we may think about one and not the other, yet treat the one that we are considering as if it is the only one to consider, thus putting us in a position where our decision-making is compromised. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On January 25 2013 07:16 Warlock40 wrote: Yes, so much. Agreed 100%. Protect the environment ,not for the whales, or the baby seals, or what have you - but for our own benefit. Hey, sounds nutty, but that's exactly why I support colonization efforts off planet. People who gripe about "wasted" space endeavors are just putting their eggs in one basket (earth). Yeah, maintain the vessel we have, but we should also be looking for ways to get to new ones. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On January 25 2013 03:46 biology]major wrote: insects in general, but yes cockroaches imba Indeed. On January 25 2013 03:44 Figgy wrote: The nice thing about overpopulation is, it will solve itself. Always has in nature, always will with us. Not only are we at least 300 years away from not being able to feed first world countries, but the more people that starve, the less people there are to feed. Same as in nature. The only serious threat humanity has to worry about is serious water polution and Nuclear Warfare. There is nothing else we can do to this planet to make it inhabitable. Less comfortable? Of course. Uninhabitable? Never. Also, overpopulation will never, ever cause an issue in ours or our childrens lifetimes. So why even worry about it. Governments will start caring when it starts effecting their bottom line and actually becomes a real issue. We don't know what kind of breakthoughs will come, there has already been a major one recently. ![[image loading]](http://www.isteve.com/Farewell_to_Alms_1-1.jpg) Also note that we're currently throwing away more than half of the food the world produces everyday... I believe we still have some margin. I think problems will be regional : water (in Cali for example), territory, space. Nature doesn't regulate itself in a regular fashion, because the real amount of available ressources on the planet and our future needs are unkown. | ||
|
rezoacken
Canada2719 Posts
On January 25 2013 07:32 danl9rm wrote: I just thought your choice of words was interesting. Genesis 1:28 And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Or... seeing as humans already were fruitful and multiplying and dominating fishs, birds and stuff; that looked like God's will for the people writing it. | ||
|
3 Lions
United States3705 Posts
I have no qualms if we begin to colonize other planets. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On January 25 2013 07:42 Kimaker wrote: Hey, sounds nutty, but that's exactly why I support colonization efforts off planet. People who gripe about "wasted" space endeavors are just putting their eggs in one basket (earth). Yeah, maintain the vessel we have, but we should also be looking for ways to get to new ones. Agreed. There's the whole two-planet concept where humans still remain if one planet goes to shit, etc. Traffic would be so much nicer if half the cars on the road were relocated to an identical highway on Mars... | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
PiGosaur Monday
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
