|
|
|
I agree and hope you all die.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
On January 30 2013 00:06 Douillos wrote:
I agree and hope you all die.
bad bad post.
|
Oh come on, you know i couldnt live without you all! 
|
On January 29 2013 22:49 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 20:08 sunprince wrote:On January 29 2013 17:30 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 29 2013 16:20 sunprince wrote:On January 27 2013 17:46 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 26 2013 08:38 sunprince wrote:On January 25 2013 21:56 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 25 2013 21:45 sunprince wrote:On January 25 2013 21:25 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 25 2013 20:39 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. 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. 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. Yea but I have to pay taxes. So not worth it, sign me up for rampant disease. No one's stopping you from moving to a third world country, so feel free to get off the Internet and do so. As long as you continue to post here, you're just continuing to prove that you're full of hypocritical bullshit. Right, because there are no taxes or internet in third world countries, its just straight back to the Paleolithic. I better take off then. Thanks for informing me I'm opposed to the internet btw. You've never been to a third world country have you? If you wanted to, you could move to a third-world country where tax collection is negligibly enforced and live without the use of modern technology, including the Internet. The fact that you continue to use the Internet while proclaiming the supposed superiority of our prehistoric ancestors is laughable. Oh, they were superior. They had the muscle density of Olympic athletes, and the endurance to run down large game for days, killing the beast once it was exhausted. I fail to see the hypocrisy with me using the internet though, what am I missing? I'm also not sure why you're assuming taxes are my sole criterion for living in a place.
Everyone who wasn't so athletic was either murdered or starved. That doesn't makes them "superior," that makes them cruel.
|
its like 30 F in california. that might not be cold but its fucking california!
|
If you're a person who thinks humanity is horrible and you hate it and you're cOnvinced our Society will collapse into shattered chunks under its own weight, why worry? The biosphere can easily handle a human material, social and demographic collapse. It will be better off after, right? In a few thousand years aliens would hardly be able to tell we were here if they flew by earth.
I won't accept sanctimonious hectoring, if you're so mad that humans pulled themselves out of the dirt while you're sitting at a computer, whatever. It's natural behavior for humans to alter their environment to their benefit and I for one won't apologize or feel bad about it.
|
On January 28 2013 04:39 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 20:43 Xapti wrote:On January 27 2013 12:33 Zahir wrote: There's no need for population control The FACT is that all ecosystems have maximum populations before problems occur and the population is forced to plateau. It's already occurring in some places such as Africa. The question is what is the optimal point (time) to curb such things before it causes natural damages. While mandated sterilization or killing is obviously a bit extreme, what's wrong with simply promoting smaller families? Do people really need lots of children? there's no need to have lots of children aside from a desire for a sort of power and/or human instinct of reproducing. Neither of those things are relevant to the success of humankind, and can be in fact detrimental. Certainly the most important thing is being conservatory and allowing human lifestyle to be sustainable, but aside from that, one still need to have some sort of limit set for populations or the limit will impose itself in nasty nasty ways (things like global warming). If everyone consumed less sure there'd be less problems for a while, but then when people just keep reproducing, their population will offset for that reduced consumption/impact. The fact is that with a positive population growth, there is absolutely no sustainability— it's simple impossible (at least with regards to a limited space such as the planet earth). Did you miss the part where population growth rates have already peaked and are declining? A lot of long term forecasts expect global population itself to eventually begin declining several decades from now as standards of living, education, access to contraception, economic opportunity all increase. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_populationSo your argument about the inevitability of the need for population control is hardly grounded in facts. The idea that population growth is spiraling out of control is a myth, the global growth rates are in decline. And what you said about ecosystems is irrelevant - humans can migrate, hell, we can terraform and create new ecosystems as needed. Getting rid of some the currently existing waste and corruption will give us plenty of centuries worth of breathing room to solve the problems you're presenting as insoluble. You realize China, the country with the largest population in the word mandated a huge form of population control which makes their population decrease substantially compared to otherwise.
Have you considered that the very thing you're speaking against is what's responsible for control of the population?
|
On January 30 2013 08:53 Xapti wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 04:39 Zahir wrote:On January 27 2013 20:43 Xapti wrote:On January 27 2013 12:33 Zahir wrote: There's no need for population control The FACT is that all ecosystems have maximum populations before problems occur and the population is forced to plateau. It's already occurring in some places such as Africa. The question is what is the optimal point (time) to curb such things before it causes natural damages. While mandated sterilization or killing is obviously a bit extreme, what's wrong with simply promoting smaller families? Do people really need lots of children? there's no need to have lots of children aside from a desire for a sort of power and/or human instinct of reproducing. Neither of those things are relevant to the success of humankind, and can be in fact detrimental. Certainly the most important thing is being conservatory and allowing human lifestyle to be sustainable, but aside from that, one still need to have some sort of limit set for populations or the limit will impose itself in nasty nasty ways (things like global warming). If everyone consumed less sure there'd be less problems for a while, but then when people just keep reproducing, their population will offset for that reduced consumption/impact. The fact is that with a positive population growth, there is absolutely no sustainability— it's simple impossible (at least with regards to a limited space such as the planet earth). Did you miss the part where population growth rates have already peaked and are declining? A lot of long term forecasts expect global population itself to eventually begin declining several decades from now as standards of living, education, access to contraception, economic opportunity all increase. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_populationSo your argument about the inevitability of the need for population control is hardly grounded in facts. The idea that population growth is spiraling out of control is a myth, the global growth rates are in decline. And what you said about ecosystems is irrelevant - humans can migrate, hell, we can terraform and create new ecosystems as needed. Getting rid of some the currently existing waste and corruption will give us plenty of centuries worth of breathing room to solve the problems you're presenting as insoluble. You realize China, the country with the largest population in the word mandated a huge form of population control which makes their population decrease substantially compared to otherwise. Have you considered that the very thing you're speaking against is what's responsible for control of the population?
Your post would make sense if china were some sort of poster boy for population decline, but it is not. A lot of East Asian countries pop growth rates are in decline, many much greater than china, and if you look at the reasons it's the same thing in all cases, more contraception, more education, more empowerment of women and economic factors common to developed nations that make it so raising many children is less effective than raising a few children exceptionally well. The same applies globally, if you look at nations where the pop growth is slowing or pop is even declining (which china has yet to achieve) it is these same set of factors at play. Yes, chinas policy has helped population growth rates slow, I would be a fool to deny that, but why use such methods when economic and social development work as well, actually better, and don't require totalitarian methods of enforcement and repression.
|
On January 29 2013 22:49 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 20:08 sunprince wrote:On January 29 2013 17:30 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 29 2013 16:20 sunprince wrote:On January 27 2013 17:46 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 26 2013 08:38 sunprince wrote:On January 25 2013 21:56 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 25 2013 21:45 sunprince wrote:On January 25 2013 21:25 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 25 2013 20:39 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. 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. 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. Yea but I have to pay taxes. So not worth it, sign me up for rampant disease. No one's stopping you from moving to a third world country, so feel free to get off the Internet and do so. As long as you continue to post here, you're just continuing to prove that you're full of hypocritical bullshit. Right, because there are no taxes or internet in third world countries, its just straight back to the Paleolithic. I better take off then. Thanks for informing me I'm opposed to the internet btw. You've never been to a third world country have you? If you wanted to, you could move to a third-world country where tax collection is negligibly enforced and live without the use of modern technology, including the Internet. The fact that you continue to use the Internet while proclaiming the supposed superiority of our prehistoric ancestors is laughable. Oh, they were superior. They had the muscle density of Olympic athletes, and the endurance to run down large game for days, killing the beast once it was exhausted.
While our prehistoric ancestors were in far better shape than the average modern human, it is ludicrous to suggest that they were on par with a modern Olympic athlete who benefits from modern training methods, nutrition, and possibly personal enhancement drugs.
Even disregarding the use of modern technology that would enable me to kill all of prehistoric humanity from quite a distance, I sincerely doubt that any human from 10,000 years ago could contend with me in personal combat (and I'm merely a decent, not a world-class professional fighter). And that's because even the best prehistoric warrior didn't have access to the nutritional supplements, strength/endurance/speed conditioning, and easy availability of training martial arts cultivated from across the world. He wouldn't even have any idea what I'm doing when I hit him with a heel hook, armbar, or rear naked choke, because unlike me, he lived in a society where the best warriors killed each other instead of having the leisure to refine their martial arts as well as learn from masters in other disciplines.
On January 29 2013 22:49 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
I fail to see the hypocrisy with me using the internet though, what am I missing?
You've stated that you would prefer the life of ancestors from 10,000 years ago rather than life today. If that were really true, why aren't you trying to live that life, which precludes the usage of the Internet and other modern technology?
On January 29 2013 22:49 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
I'm also not sure why you're assuming taxes are my sole criterion for living in a place.
They're not, but you're the one who brought them up. The whole point, which you keep nitpicking like a cornered hypocrite, is that if you truly believe their lives were better, then why aren't you doing your best to emulate them by living such a life"
|
You make far too many assumptions and misinterpretations.
|
On January 30 2013 10:32 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 08:53 Xapti wrote:On January 28 2013 04:39 Zahir wrote:On January 27 2013 20:43 Xapti wrote:On January 27 2013 12:33 Zahir wrote: There's no need for population control The FACT is that all ecosystems have maximum populations before problems occur and the population is forced to plateau. It's already occurring in some places such as Africa. The question is what is the optimal point (time) to curb such things before it causes natural damages. While mandated sterilization or killing is obviously a bit extreme, what's wrong with simply promoting smaller families? Do people really need lots of children? there's no need to have lots of children aside from a desire for a sort of power and/or human instinct of reproducing. Neither of those things are relevant to the success of humankind, and can be in fact detrimental. Certainly the most important thing is being conservatory and allowing human lifestyle to be sustainable, but aside from that, one still need to have some sort of limit set for populations or the limit will impose itself in nasty nasty ways (things like global warming). If everyone consumed less sure there'd be less problems for a while, but then when people just keep reproducing, their population will offset for that reduced consumption/impact. The fact is that with a positive population growth, there is absolutely no sustainability— it's simple impossible (at least with regards to a limited space such as the planet earth). Did you miss the part where population growth rates have already peaked and are declining? A lot of long term forecasts expect global population itself to eventually begin declining several decades from now as standards of living, education, access to contraception, economic opportunity all increase. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_populationSo your argument about the inevitability of the need for population control is hardly grounded in facts. The idea that population growth is spiraling out of control is a myth, the global growth rates are in decline. And what you said about ecosystems is irrelevant - humans can migrate, hell, we can terraform and create new ecosystems as needed. Getting rid of some the currently existing waste and corruption will give us plenty of centuries worth of breathing room to solve the problems you're presenting as insoluble. You realize China, the country with the largest population in the word mandated a huge form of population control which makes their population decrease substantially compared to otherwise. Have you considered that the very thing you're speaking against is what's responsible for control of the population? Your post would make sense if china were some sort of poster boy for population decline, but it is not. A lot of East Asian countries pop growth rates are in decline, many much greater than china, and if you look at the reasons it's the same thing in all cases, more contraception, more education, more empowerment of women and economic factors common to developed nations that make it so raising many children is less effective than raising a few children exceptionally well. The same applies globally, if you look at nations where the pop growth is slowing or pop is even declining (which china has yet to achieve) it is these same set of factors at play. Yes, chinas policy has helped population growth rates slow, I would be a fool to deny that, but why use such methods when economic and social development work as well, actually better, and don't require totalitarian methods of enforcement and repression.
You seem to be talking about population control as limited birthing or forced killing laws, and you dno't seem to consider some of the actions recently mentioned as population control. By population control I mean people who don't cause population growth no matter the method. People voluntarily choosing not to reproduce as much is population control because it's help keeping the population under control.
I interpreted/understood your claim in the original and subsequent comment to be: "humans can keep growing in population without any problems"; Any other interpretation does not make sense at all to me. Here you seem to be saying something quite different entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
