EPTedit: food is irrelevant (what is relevant is the environmental impact of the way we produce food). Actually the problem is too much food, the so-called "Green Revolution" (keep in mind that the population of Rwanda tripled in the decades leading up to the genocide). We need less, but healthier and more sustainable and robust, food.
Humans are plague on Earth - Page 17
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit: food is irrelevant (what is relevant is the environmental impact of the way we produce food). Actually the problem is too much food, the so-called "Green Revolution" (keep in mind that the population of Rwanda tripled in the decades leading up to the genocide). We need less, but healthier and more sustainable and robust, food. | ||
|
hotpink019
United States9 Posts
| ||
|
Ysellian
Netherlands9029 Posts
On January 25 2013 16:37 BronzeKnee wrote: We should be attempting to ensure that we don't annihilate ourselves (because that isn't fun), and instead attempt to survive easily while having fun. Douglas Adams argues that dolphins do a much better job of that than we do, and I am inclined to agree. Reading on thermodynamics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Time's_arrow_and_Boltzmann's_entropy Also, Five Equations That Changed the World: The Power and Poetry of Mathematics, is a great book that explores this subject. I seriously wish there were more people thinking like you. Like you said, we all go to our jobs and work 8 hours a day for an exceptionally large portion of our lives, for what? It's gotten beyond the point of survival. We live to work only to put a handful of people on pedestals (and sacrifice so much of the planet to ensure this). It's so infuriatingly dumb that our 10000 year old ancestors had better lives than we do today and only because agriculture put us in a spot we can no longer escape from. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17447 Posts
On January 25 2013 00:08 Dreamer.T wrote: I did notice this winter is ridiculously cold compared to the previous ones. Huh? It hasn't gone past -15C at any point over here and usually hangs around -5-10C. There also wasn't much snow up until now. Pretty standard winter for me. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On January 25 2013 17:26 sam!zdat wrote: I was answering your question... edit: food is irrelevant (what is relevant is the environmental impact of the way we produce food). Actually the problem is too much food, the so-called "Green Revolution" (keep in mind that the population of Rwanda tripled in the decades leading up to the genocide). We need less, but healthier and more sustainable and robust, food. We need fewer mouths to feed. Places like Rwanda are as bad as they are because they're caught in a Malthusian trap. More food just results in a bigger population, exacerbating all the other economic, environmental, and political problems. On January 25 2013 19:56 Ysellian wrote: It's so infuriatingly dumb that our 10000 year old ancestors had better lives than we do today and only because agriculture put us in a spot we can no longer escape from. This statement is absurd. Our ancestors from 10,000 years ago had nasty, brutal, short lives. Less than 25% of people even made it to age 15. The death toll from giving birth alone was unimaginably high at 14% per birth. It's ridiculous that you think a people without antibiotics, running water, and military/police to protect them from genocidal neighboring tribes, had better lives than we do now. If you seriously believe their lives were better, then I encourage you to move to a third-world country, which is still probably a better life than that of prehistoric humans. | ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On January 25 2013 20:39 sunprince wrote: We need fewer mouths to feed. Places like Rwanda are as bad as they are because they're caught in a Malthusian trap. More food just results in a bigger population, exacerbating all the other economic, environmental, and political problems. This statement is absurd. Our ancestors from 10,000 years ago had nasty, brutal, short lives. Less than 25% of people even made it to age 15. The death toll from giving birth alone was unimaginably high at 14% per birth. It's ridiculous that you think a people without antibiotics, running water, and military/police to protect them from genocidal neighboring tribes, had better lives than we do now. If you seriously believe their lives were better, then I encourage you to move to a third-world country, which is still probably a better life than that of prehistoric humans. I'm sure there were some who lived fairly long lives. One of superior strength, cunning, and hunting skills would eat like a king, screw many women, slay one's rivals, and live into their forties before dying in battle. Sounds better than the coddled existence you've described. | ||
|
Xayoz
Estonia373 Posts
On January 25 2013 21:25 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I'm sure there were some who lived fairly long lives. One of superior strength, cunning, and hunting skills would eat like a king, screw many women, slay one's rivals, and live into their forties before dying in battle. Sounds better than the coddled existence you've described. Not to me. As for humans being a 'plague on earth'. So what if we are? The only thing I would worry about is our species continued survival and I very much doubt, that anything we could do to the ecosystem would seriously threaten that. Maybe if we managed to simultaneously explode every nuke on the planet but I don't think even that would do the trick. And when our population reaches the point where the planet can no longer sustain us... Well. Then there will be war. Or we move to Mars. | ||
|
HeatEXTEND
Netherlands836 Posts
On January 24 2013 23:42 ghost_403 wrote: The entire point of technology is doing stuff that nature won't. Uhm.......isn't the point of technology doing stuff that nature does, but controllable and better ? | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On January 25 2013 21:25 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I'm sure there were some who lived fairly long lives. One of superior strength, cunning, and hunting skills would eat like a king, screw many women, slay one's rivals, and live into their forties before dying in battle. Sounds better than the coddled existence you've described. Real life isn't your little fairy tale. No amount of superior strength, cunning, or hunting skills could protect you from dying before you're even born because c-sections didn't exist. Nor could they protect you from being felled by an infectious disease (which you consider an evil spirit possession) because hygiene, antibiotics, and refrigeration don't exist. But of course, you're full of hypocritical bullshit right now. If you really believe all that is better than the "coddled existence" we have, get off the Internet and move to Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Afghanistan. I dare you. | ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On January 25 2013 21:45 sunprince wrote: Real life isn't your little fairy tale. No amount of superior strength, cunning, or hunting skills could protect you from dying before you're even born because c-sections didn't exist. Nor could they protect you from being felled by an infectious disease (which you consider an evil spirit possession) because hygiene, antibiotics, and refrigeration don't exist. But of course, you're full of hypocritical bullshit right now. If you really believe all that is better than the "coddled existence" we have, get off the Internet and move to Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Afghanistan. I dare you. Population was so sparse there really wouldn't be much infectious disease. The probability of ourselves having come into existence is astronomically small anyway, trillions of universal factors had to fall into place by sheer chance outside of our control as we didn't exist. Your point is moot. Besides, I have fine hunting grounds where I currently live, and there are plenty of places I would prefer to the one's you outlined. Maybe when I become bored and feel like pursuing exotic beasts. | ||
|
Ysellian
Netherlands9029 Posts
On January 25 2013 21:45 sunprince wrote: Real life isn't your little fairy tale. No amount of superior strength, cunning, or hunting skills could protect you from dying before you're even born because c-sections didn't exist. Nor could they protect you from being felled by an infectious disease (which you consider an evil spirit possession) because hygiene, antibiotics, and refrigeration don't exist. But of course, you're full of hypocritical bullshit right now. If you really believe all that is better than the "coddled existence" we have, get off the Internet and move to Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Afghanistan. I dare you. Where do you gather the facts on which you base this idea that our hunter-gatherer communities of the past are similar to a war infested country? Earlier you compared it to a third world country which is a very broad term. Honest question because I've actually lived in a third world country myself and it's not nearly as bad as you claim it is. In fact I've enjoyed my time more in a third world country. edit: And besides my statement wasn't backed by facts, but more of a comparison to dolphins. I feel that us humans 10000 years ago were perfectly capable of living out lives as the dolphins do and if not that would be quite sad actually. + Show Spoiler + edit: Of course most will feel that we are in a golden age (at least those in the west) | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On January 25 2013 20:39 sunprince wrote: We need fewer mouths to feed. Places like Rwanda are as bad as they are because they're caught in a Malthusian trap. More food just results in a bigger population, exacerbating all the other economic, environmental, and political problems. This statement is absurd. Our ancestors from 10,000 years ago had nasty, brutal, short lives. Less than 25% of people even made it to age 15. The death toll from giving birth alone was unimaginably high at 14% per birth. It's ridiculous that you think a people without antibiotics, running water, and military/police to protect them from genocidal neighboring tribes, had better lives than we do now. If you seriously believe their lives were better, then I encourage you to move to a third-world country, which is still probably a better life than that of prehistoric humans. I suggest he moves to Ukraine. No overpopulation here and lots of agricultural resources. Hell, I can even sell him some land (well not now, in a year or two). | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On January 25 2013 19:47 hotpink019 wrote: Been thinking the same thing, we have done thing but destroy earth for our own vanity and statement of 'beauty'. We destroyed the balance and brought death and destruction. this is so typical. Lots of strong words and as little thought as possible. | ||
|
HeatEXTEND
Netherlands836 Posts
On January 25 2013 21:45 sunprince wrote: get off the Internet and move to Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Afghanistan. I dare you. Yes, the hunter-gatherer civilizations are perfectly comparable with those places.........Jezus Christ.... | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On January 26 2013 01:31 HeatEXTEND wrote: Yes, the hunter-gatherer civilizations are perfectly comparable with those places.........Jezus Christ.... Dude, move to Anadyr. To Chukotka. To Okhotsk. These are all places with less than 5 people per sq km. You can live as a hunter gatherer quite comfortably, at least between June and September | ||
|
MrF
United States320 Posts
On January 25 2013 21:25 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I'm sure there were some who lived fairly long lives. One of superior strength, cunning, and hunting skills would eat like a king, screw many women, slay one's rivals, and live into their forties before dying in battle. Sounds better than the coddled existence you've described. Coddled existence.... I hate hearing this shit people actually complaining because they have an easy life. | ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
On January 26 2013 01:31 HeatEXTEND wrote: Yes, the hunter-gatherer civilizations are perfectly comparable with those places.........Jezus Christ.... It is unbelievable for me that we're even having this argument. People seem to forget/ignore what the last 300 years of science brought to us in the form of knowledge. E: 10k years in the past we didn't even have iron swords ffs. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 25 2013 16:12 BronzeKnee wrote: We are completely immune to natural predators? Okay... but the cost was to make ourselves completely vulnerable to ourselves. A select few humans could annihilate humanity with the weapons we possess, which endangers humanity far more than humans being hunted by any predator, at any point in history. Lions might have killed a few humans, but we never risked annihilation at the paws of Lions... And the point is to extract the maximum amount of energy and food per capita that enables each member of the species to live a life of relative leisure as opposed to a life of relative toil? No, the point is for the species to develop an equilibrium with its environment, ensuring its survival for generations to come, not to allow each member of the species in a select few generations to "live a life of relative leisure as opposed to a life of relative toil." Species that develop an equilibrium with the environment will increasingly live a life of leisure as opposed to a life of toil due to natural selection. And if what you said was true, then domesticated dogs are doing better than humans. They have very little toil and live a life of relative leisure, do they not? My dogs sure live a nice leisurely life, and they don't do any work. Even herding and sled dogs thoroughly enjoy their work and live leisurely generally. Sure, some dogs aren't taken care of, but a lot of humans aren't either... Now Dolphins are doing a great job, they have developed an equilibrium with their environment, ensuring their survival, and they have plenty of time for leisure, and do not toil much. Again, did you watch the video? Dolphins muck around and have fun all day, and I am going to work 8 hours tomorrow... There's scientific speculation that human ancenstors were once at the brink of extinction. So it may be that part of our evolution involved developing better tools because we either were getting eaten by too many lions or culled by too many diseases or whatever. New genetic findings suggest that early humans living about one million years ago were extremely close to extinction. The genetic evidence suggests that the effective population—an indicator of genetic diversity—of early human species back then, including Homo erectus, H. ergaster and archaic H. sapiens, was about 18,500 individuals (it is thought that modern humans evolved from H. erectus), says Lynn Jorde, a human geneticist at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. That figure translates into a total population of 55,500 individuals, tops. Link I'm also going to refute two points you made. First, you stated that the point is for a species to develop an equilibrium with the environment. Is it? If you asked any individual species involved none would give that answer. Each individual species would tell you that it was doing its damnedest to survive and thrive. Yes an equilibrium often exists but not always. Disequilibrium is just as much a part of nature as equilibrium. As is extinction. Secondly I think you are over romanticizing the life of a dolphin (or any other animal in the wild). I seriously doubt they spend the majority of their day mucking around having fun. If that were the case then why wouldn't the species use their free time to over populate? | ||
|
Eufouria
United Kingdom4425 Posts
On January 25 2013 21:56 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Population was so sparse there really wouldn't be much infectious disease. The probability of ourselves having come into existence is astronomically small anyway, trillions of universal factors had to fall into place by sheer chance outside of our control as we didn't exist. Your point is moot. Besides, I have fine hunting grounds where I currently live, and there are plenty of places I would prefer to the one's you outlined. Maybe when I become bored and feel like pursuing exotic beasts. Every event that isn't impossible will occur eventually over an infinite time period. That's how I've always viewed the miracle that is life. I think Sir David Attenborough is wrong about there not being enough resources for humans. There is enough food and water on the planet for everyone who lives here at the moment, but the combination of human greed, wars and the lack of technology mean that not everyone on the planet can be fed with all the food we have right now. While the problem with warring will probably never be solved, because humans are animals and animals fight, we will eventually make advances in technology so we can feed the entire human race. And theoretically the limited food will keep the population of humans at equilibrium once we can provide food to people everywhere. In my opinion the main problem for our, and the earth's survival, is humans doing damage that will lower the equilibrium's population by causing important animals to go extinct and polluting the planet. If we keep doing damage to the planet it eventually won't even be possible to even sustain the current human population level. | ||
KwarK
United States43266 Posts
On January 26 2013 01:31 HeatEXTEND wrote: Yes, the hunter-gatherer civilizations are perfectly comparable with those places.........Jezus Christ.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples It is not known whether any Tagaeri survives now in Yasuni National Park. In the 1990s when a member of Tagaeri was contacted by a lone Huaorani hunter, he told him that Tagaeri numbers only a handful of members and are in danger of being wiped out by their hostile neighbours – the Taromenane. Genocide still works on hunter gatherer tribes who have never seen a white face. | ||
| ||
