EPTAnyone who says they want to trade places with our caveman ancestors or something akin to it because of some perceived struggle in our lives is an idiot.
Humans are plague on Earth - Page 18
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
Anyone who says they want to trade places with our caveman ancestors or something akin to it because of some perceived struggle in our lives is an idiot. | ||
|
xuanzue
Colombia1747 Posts
| ||
|
Wampaibist
United States478 Posts
On January 26 2013 01:27 Cheerio wrote: this is so typical. Lots of strong words and as little thought as possible. y it actually makes a lot of sense to me....Humans reduce biodiversity of the planet. Planet becomes less stable (Hutchinson 1959). I think who u quoted basically said the same thing but without the citation I put in? gotta use da brain | ||
|
Zahir
United States947 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. This thread is gold. Dolphins are better than humans and people were better off 10k years ago. Some resoundingly good arguments being made in support of conservationism for sure. You got some guys who want to avoid natural limits on human populations like its some kind of doomsday scenario approaching and then there's these other guys who think current starvation levels aren't bad enough and that it'd be better if human population was naturally limited to the same extent as our ancestors or... Dolphins. That's the scary part about conservationism. You have the well meaning sentimentalists who are fond of wildlife and invent very subtle, seemingly inocuous ways to place less value on human survival/progress so that some endangered species or other can hang on for a few more decades. "Maybe if the world had 80% of its current human population things would be better, am i right guys?" Then a bunch of people, to display their contempt for their fellow humans, all come in and nod their heads about what a plague humanity is, tsk tsk. And then there's people who actually do believe the things others are merely pretending to believe without really thinking about the consequences. Real Luddites who think why stop at 10 or 20%, clearly the world would be better if 99.9999% of people currently alive were not alive. Sometimes for the sake of being more like dolphins, sometimes, like in smokeys case, simply for the sake of being able to kill. You start with some environmentalist who says humanity is a plague, but doesn't really mean it. Then there are the kids who agree because hating on humanity helps them to feel superior. But scattered within their ranks are the true believers who legitimately perceive human society as evil and can't wait for the deaths and killing to start. That's why it's bad to say things like "humans are a plague" because what you don't realize is there are people out there who really, REALLY believe it and aren't just saying it. | ||
|
naastyOne
491 Posts
It appears there are too many people on earth, but many want to have some children, and do not want to die. Paradox? | ||
|
AdamBanks
Canada996 Posts
On January 26 2013 03:59 coverpunch wrote: Adam Smith wrote in 1776 that European peasants wouldn't trade places with African kings, such was the difference that economics had made to the betterment of their lives. Anyone who says they want to trade places with our caveman ancestors or something akin to it because of some perceived struggle in our lives is an idiot. To be happy, we must not be too concerned with others. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On January 26 2013 04:35 naastyOne wrote: Why do people complaining about us overusing natural resourses and being too many, not start from themselves, and castrate themselves, get from their apartments to live in a cage, or just flat out kill themselves? It appears there are too many people on earth, but many want to have some children, and do not want to die. Paradox? extreme much? no paradox. people are saying live responsibly. having limited children and taking care of their health is not paradoxical to supporting a balance. | ||
|
Kahlgar
411 Posts
As for the resources consumption/overpopulation issues, it's vastly overrated, given our current rate of technological progress, sustaining 10+ billions people in 15 years will be ez pz and we can sustain a LOT more. 99% of the species that have existed are extinct, very few of those due to human activities and while global warming is a legit concern for us humans, it's completely meaningless and irrelevant at the geologic time scale. The whole "humans are plague on earth" thing is pretty much self loathing generalized as a characteristic of human beings and thus says a lot more about people defending that position than about humanity. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On January 25 2013 21:56 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Population was so sparse there really wouldn't be much infectious disease. Infectious diseases aren't limited to epidemics. There are numerous diseases you can pick up from biological vectors such as insects, from cuts that you pick up during hunting and battles, infected food/water, and all those women you're screwing. On January 25 2013 21:56 smokeyhoodoo wrote: 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. Your argument makes no sense. "We have little control of our existence, therefore it wouldn't make a difference if we have a low chance of surviving to adulthood." On January 25 2013 21:56 smokeyhoodoo wrote: 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. You live in the United States, where you benefit from all of the "coddled" aspects of modern society including the police and military to keep you safe from other people. Being a "hunter-gatherer" in the United States doesn't resemble the nasty, brutish, and short life span of our ancestors in the slightest. The closest simulation to the violent struggles to survive you claim to be so fond of would be backwards third world countries, not the American wilderness. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On January 25 2013 22:11 Ysellian wrote: 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. Smokeyhoodoo is idealizing the life of our ancestors, where "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." Well, the best place you can still do that would not just be third world countries, but completely backward places where you could actually be a warlord. Of course, he's completely full of shit because he's here enjoying the Internet and unwilling to actually do that since he's "bored". On January 25 2013 22:11 Ysellian wrote: 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. This statement is based on nothing more than ignorance. Humans are not dolphins, and our lives 10,000 years ago were nothing like the idealistic bullshit being spouted in this thread, however sad that makes you. On January 26 2013 01:05 Cheerio wrote: 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). Ukraine would not properly simulate the violent competition characterizing the lives of our prehistoric ancestors, unless the Ukraine is a lot less safer than I'm aware of. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5212 Posts
On January 26 2013 04:31 Zahir wrote: This thread is gold. Dolphins are better than humans and people were better off 10k years ago. If you guys are going to comment on what I wrote, take the time need to actually read what I am stating, not make simple assumptions that are terribly ignorant. While someone quoted me and said more people should think like me and people were better of 10,000 years ago, I want to say I do not believe that is true, do not lump me in with him. I also did not say dolphins were better than humans, I said dolphins were doing better than humans at the game of life. Huge difference. The argument is simply, clear, and devastatingly strong, as Douglas Adam shows. If you want to continue said argument we can, it is an interesting one, but once you realize that the universe will cease to exist regardless of human progress, you'll realize that ensuring human survival for future generations is a fruitless goal, and you'll likely give up the argument as Shady did. I love humanity, and I believe we can be a powerful force of good. Now, I also want to respond to the comments regarding humanity now, to then. It is important to note I am not talking about your life right now, compared to the life of someone then. While 33% of the world is starving, and 16% of people lack access to clean water in the world, humanity is better off now. Still, the point of was to compare to the survival of humanity to that of the survival of dolphins. The easier it is for a species to survive, the more fun they can have. Look at Otters. Humans have developed a way to completely annihilate themselves and their environment. Some call this progress. I argue (as Douglas Adams does) that it is the opposite. It doesn't increase our chances of survival. The fact we spent time and resources creating ways to annihilate ourselves shows a total lack of intelligence. Dolphins haven't done that. In fact, the argument that dolphins are doing better is based entirely on how much humans have screwed up, not really on anything great that dolphins have done, although dolphins (the long-beaked common dolphin) are a great pick because they do a lot of leisure activities, are relatively intelligent, are not endangered, and have a steady population and access to food. Now, on to modern medicine and why they have negative effects that decrease the chance of human survival. While I personally at this moment would of course use modern medicine if I needed it to survive, medicine covers up genetic holes, and this is why it hurts the chances of future human survival. In other words, people are now surviving diseases that in the past they would have died from. And those people are now passing on their genes. This is terrible, because it means that people that are naturally unfit to live are producing offspring that are naturally unfit to live. Remember, evolution and natural selection is about random genetic mutations that happen make people more fit to live. Natural selection is no longer acting upon humanity, because random genetic mutations that are bad for people, are allowed to survive and even thrive due to modern medicine. Let me give you one example. SIV (the precursor to HIV, and what is basically HIV in primates) does not cause any disease in primates, despite high levels of circulating virus. This is because when the disease first mutated, it quickly killed all off primates who were not immune, and only those who were immune (a small percentage of the population) survived. And they were the only ones to pass on their genes. Thus today, SIV lives in many primates, but it doesn't hurt them. This is evolution and natural selection at work! There is a small percentage of humans that are immune to HIV due to a genetic mutation. Thus, if the disease ran rampant (far more so than it does now), humanity is assured survival as those immune would and could reproduce. And then humans would have been immune to HIV in a few centuries as that genetic mutation that provides immunity was selected for, naturally (natural selection and evolution at work!). But instead we battle HIV with medicine... ect... That is good for people like you and me who are unlikely to be immune to HIV, but bad for humanity in the future. Natural selection and random genetic mutations are the way things evolve, and it is a powerful system that improves species. The only time it isn't good is when a species doesn't have a genetic mutation that would allow them to survive a disease. But this is a very rare occurrence, as our genes mutate all the time. Modern medicine could actually turn out better for our species than evolution if it is able to move faster than evolution. In other words, we need to create medicine that will defeat future diseases with increasing speed, because not only are diseases evolving, our genetic code is getting weaker and weaker (natural selection is not selecting out bad genes, because we have modern medicine to save us). This is a major problem when it comes to humanity surviving. And one that humans created. | ||
|
Obamanation666
United States70 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Blade2322
Japan99 Posts
 | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5212 Posts
On January 26 2013 14:31 Obamanation666 wrote: This is typical far left wing rhetoric. If you truly feel that humans are a "plague" on earth, step up and volunteer yourself and your family as the first to be executed; this is the type of thought that gives rise to tyrants. Liberalism truly is a disease and the downfall of humankind. Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.[3][4][5][6][7] Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. Yes, liberty and equality are a disease and the downfall of mankind! But if you look at history, those who resisted to giving (in chronological order) poor people rights, Jewish people rights, African-Americans rights and women rights are looked upon with disdain. In fact, many historians would argue that liberalism has never been wrong, proven right time and again; that it was right to give the poor rights, the Jews right, African-Americans rights and women rights. Never has been there a time where the majority of people have looked back and said "it was correct to deny that group of people rights." And of course, historians argue that it will end up be right to giving gays rights too, but we shall valiantly resist this, just as our Protestant rich white male forefathers resisted giving the poor, Jews, African Americans and women rights. We've got to reverse that... none of them deserve rights. Liberalism is a terrible idea, and we need to return America to an absolute monarchy and erase the Rule of Law, right? Anyway, what does Liberalism have to do with this thread? | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8001 Posts
On January 26 2013 14:31 Obamanation666 wrote: This is typical far left wing rhetoric. If you truly feel that humans are a "plague" on earth, step up and volunteer yourself and your family as the first to be executed; this is the type of thought that gives rise to tyrants. Liberalism truly is a disease and the downfall of humankind. You're such a fucking tool User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
On January 26 2013 14:19 BronzeKnee wrote: If you guys are going to comment on what I wrote, take the time need to actually read what I am stating, not make simple assumptions that are terribly ignorant. While someone quoted me and said more people should think like me and people were better of 10,000 years ago, I want to say I do not believe that is true, do not lump me in with him. I also did not say dolphins were better than humans, I said dolphins were doing better than humans at the game of life. Huge difference. The argument is simply, clear, and devastatingly strong, as Douglas Adam shows. If you want to continue said argument we can, it is an interesting one, but once you realize that the universe will cease to exist regardless of human progress, you'll realize that ensuring human survival for future generations is a fruitless goal, and you'll likely give up the argument as Shady did. I love humanity, and I believe we can be a powerful force of good. Now, I also want to respond to the comments regarding humanity now, to then. It is important to note I am not talking about your life right now, compared to the life of someone then. While 33% of the world is starving, and 16% of people lack access to clean water in the world, humanity is better off now. Still, the point of was to compare to the survival of humanity to that of the survival of dolphins. The easier it is for a species to survive, the more fun they can have. Look at Otters. Humans have developed a way to completely annihilate themselves and their environment. Some call this progress. I argue (as Douglas Adams does) that it is the opposite. It doesn't increase our chances of survival. The fact we spent time and resources creating ways to annihilate ourselves shows a total lack of intelligence. Dolphins haven't done that. In fact, the argument that dolphins are doing better is based entirely on how much humans have screwed up, not really on anything great that dolphins have done, although dolphins (the long-beaked common dolphin) are a great pick because they do a lot of leisure activities, are relatively intelligent, are not endangered, and have a steady population and access to food. Now, on to modern medicine and why they have negative effects that decrease the chance of human survival. While I personally at this moment would of course use modern medicine if I needed it to survive, medicine covers up genetic holes, and this is why it hurts the chances of future human survival. In other words, people are now surviving diseases that in the past they would have died from. And those people are now passing on their genes. This is terrible, because it means that people that are naturally unfit to live are producing offspring that are naturally unfit to live. Remember, evolution and natural selection is about random genetic mutations that happen make people more fit to live. Natural selection is no longer acting upon humanity, because random genetic mutations that are bad for people, are allowed to survive and even thrive due to modern medicine. Let me give you one example. SIV (the precursor to HIV, and what is basically HIV in primates) does not cause any disease in primates, despite high levels of circulating virus. This is because when the disease first mutated, it quickly killed all off primates who were not immune, and only those who were immune (a small percentage of the population) survived. And they were the only ones to pass on their genes. Thus today, SIV lives in many primates, but it doesn't hurt them. This is evolution and natural selection at work! There is a small percentage of humans that are immune to HIV due to a genetic mutation. Thus, if the disease ran rampant (far more so than it does now), humanity is assured survival as those immune would and could reproduce. And then humans would have been immune to HIV in a few centuries as that genetic mutation that provides immunity was selected for, naturally (natural selection and evolution at work!). But instead we battle HIV with medicine... ect... That is good for people like you and me who are unlikely to be immune to HIV, but bad for humanity in the future. Natural selection and random genetic mutations are the way things evolve, and it is a powerful system that improves species. The only time it isn't good is when a species doesn't have a genetic mutation that would allow them to survive a disease. But this is a very rare occurrence, as our genes mutate all the time. Modern medicine could actually turn out better for our species than evolution if it is able to move faster than evolution. In other words, we need to create medicine that will defeat future diseases with increasing speed, because not only are diseases evolving, our genetic code is getting weaker and weaker (natural selection is not selecting out bad genes, because we have modern medicine to save us). This is a major problem when it comes to humanity surviving. And one that humans created. Look, you certainly seem like a deep thinker and you hold some interesting views, even pleasant views, I mean, who doesn't love dolphins? But this is an argument about population control, with a highly regarded celebrity/activist/etc advocating that the governments of the world should come together to implement population controls... a policy that has been shown to be extremely repressive, requiring brutal measures to enforce. He also gives specific mention to one of the world's more vulnerable countries, hinting at the typical euro-centric attitude of forcing others to conform to our ideals in a manner most beneficial to ourselves, not so much for them. It's the same strain running through colonialism, neoliberalism, etc. Let's just get together and use our traditional methods for controlling the world to force other nations (and we all know exactly which ones it'll be, not any western ones that's for sure) into not having many kids, not developing industries, not tampering with rainforests, etc. Nevermind that most industrialized nations have already burned through their natural resources and developed mammoth populations that consume and pollute like crazy. No one else should have the right to develop, only us. Ethiopia should remain a nice wildlife preserve for privileged explorers and conservationists from the civilized parts of the globe to visit, how dare they keep breeding, what a filthy plague, etc. And so many kids in this thread seem to be down with this, because they have a negative view on humanity, not realizing that their blithe agreement that humans are a plague plays right into the hands of people who want to make the problem worse. So while I'd ordinarily be cool with sitting back and letting you believe as you believe, at this particular moment, your fond feelings towards dolphins and assumptions about the limits of science and technology in the inconceivably far flung future are contributing to a general feeling of antipathy towards humanity, potentially causing people to not see worldwide, forced population control for the horror that it is. I'd say more, but frankly, I don't see any objective basis for argument as you've defined your 'game of life' in very strange, subjective ways. Fun is not a measurable metric, unless we want to take it out of the subjective realm and measure it via say, electrical patterns in the brain. And come ON, man, surely some part of you must realize it is absurd to think we know all there is to know about the heat death of the universe or the inevitable failure of technology and science somewhere 10 to the 100th power years from now. | ||
|
Zergofobic
Macedonia50 Posts
On January 25 2013 16:20 Djeez wrote: Ah, that post is hilarious. Starts off with a false grasp of what eugenics is, then segues into judeo-christian bullshit, and then points out that more consumption only means more wealth for everyone. Not even gonna mention the rest. Either a brilliant troll or a complete moron. And you are an eugenicist and devil worshiper as well. Why don't you kill yourself if you want to reduce population so much and spare us from you. Everyone who want to reduce population can start off by killing themselves. Hey, lead by example, show how much you want population reduction by killing yourself. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
wptlzkwjd
Canada1240 Posts
| ||
|
Blargh
United States2101 Posts
Anyway, population growth is clearly a problem which many individuals care little for. Having more people means that we need to have that much more resources, which would require a higher rate of production, which is just not possible. Trees for instance, will not grow back any faster when we have more people. Just think though, if everyone had only 1 kid instead of 2+ for 5 generations, then we'd have half the population we do now! It's that easy!! Also, why do people who are poor and live in harsh conditions think it is at all a good idea to have a child? So they can share the same pain?? It's always bewildered me. Maybe they are hoping their precious child will work so they can survive. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On January 26 2013 02:32 Shady Sands wrote: 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 the average population density in Russia is only about 8/sq km. So in northeastern Russia there are plenty of territories where the population density is 0/sqkm. | ||
| ||
