|
On January 25 2013 04:49 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 04:42 KurtistheTurtle wrote:
In the 1800's, smart men were gathered to predict the future of new york city in 100 years. They thought the population couldn't get much higher than it already was since people needed horses to get around and the amount of horses required was so large the city would buried in horse crap.
Obviously, that's not the case. There are problems now, yes, but we have the intelligence and means to approach them in ways we can't even imagine. So while he's right -- we do need to get our act together -- I also think he's missing the point. In the 2100's, smart men were gathered to predict the future of the world in 100 years. They thought the population could keep getting higher, because every time before they thought it couldn't get higher they'd ended up being wrong. Obviously, that's not the case. There are things we can do, yes, but we have the intelligence and means to face up to the truth that we are mortal, and subject to the limitations of mortals. So while he's right -- there is a lot we can do -- I also think he's missing the point.
In short: Let's shut up about predicting the future, it can't be predicted. How surprising...
|
On January 25 2013 04:49 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 04:42 KurtistheTurtle wrote:
In the 1800's, smart men were gathered to predict the future of new york city in 100 years. They thought the population couldn't get much higher than it already was since people needed horses to get around and the amount of horses required was so large the city would buried in horse crap.
Obviously, that's not the case. There are problems now, yes, but we have the intelligence and means to approach them in ways we can't even imagine. So while he's right -- we do need to get our act together -- I also think he's missing the point. In the 2100's, smart men were gathered to predict the future of the world in 100 years. They thought the population could keep getting higher, because every time before they thought it couldn't get higher they'd ended up being wrong. Obviously, that's not the case. There are things we can do, yes, but we have the intelligence and means to face up to the truth that we are mortal, and subject to the limitations of mortals. So while he's right -- there is a lot we can do -- I also think he's missing the point.
and if by 2100 we're NOT subject to the limitations of mortals? My point is that you can't possibly accurately predict the future one way or another but that when put under duress, humans find new ways to relieve the balance. Nature won't be the great balancer, it will be human invention
|
On January 25 2013 04:55 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 04:49 sam!zdat wrote:On January 25 2013 04:42 KurtistheTurtle wrote:
In the 1800's, smart men were gathered to predict the future of new york city in 100 years. They thought the population couldn't get much higher than it already was since people needed horses to get around and the amount of horses required was so large the city would buried in horse crap.
Obviously, that's not the case. There are problems now, yes, but we have the intelligence and means to approach them in ways we can't even imagine. So while he's right -- we do need to get our act together -- I also think he's missing the point. In the 2100's, smart men were gathered to predict the future of the world in 100 years. They thought the population could keep getting higher, because every time before they thought it couldn't get higher they'd ended up being wrong. Obviously, that's not the case. There are things we can do, yes, but we have the intelligence and means to face up to the truth that we are mortal, and subject to the limitations of mortals. So while he's right -- there is a lot we can do -- I also think he's missing the point. In short: Let's shut up about predicting the future, it can't be predicted. How surprising...
lol. right?
|
On January 25 2013 04:50 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 04:26 Harmonious wrote:On January 25 2013 00:06 r.Evo wrote:
That's equivalent to saying Earth would be better off without lions because they kill zebras. Are humans a disaster for a lot of specific ecosystems? Yes. In the end it will balance itself out though. Earth as a planet or a global ecosystem doesn't care much for humans unless we literally blow the entire planet to pieces. Life always finds a way. No, life does not always find a way or balance itself out, at least not on the level of a species. We don't know the future of the human race, but saying that it will survive because "life will find a way" is naive. The whole argument that the global ecosystem doesn't care much for a single species is simply wrong. There have been two mass extinction events (out of 5) that have been caused by life itself. And these two dwarf the event that killed the dinosaurs. One was an organism that was wildly successful starting to produce methane as waste. This killed almost all other life on the planet and ultimately itself. The other was an organism starting to produce oxygen which was toxic to most other life at that time. In both instance "life found a way", but not the life that was already there. In excess of 99% of all species went extinct in both cases. So humans may find a way, but not because we cannot affect the global ecosystem in a major way, we most certainly can and it most certainly has the potential to be a major disaster if we do. We're not even close to destabalizing the ecosystem as much as the examples you give. Not even by a long shot.
I didn't say we were. I take issue with the argument that we don't have to worry because we cannot affect the ecosystem to such a degree that it will be a problem.
The fact is that a species can do that, whether we are doing it is a separate question.
|
On January 25 2013 05:04 Harmonious wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 04:50 Shival wrote:On January 25 2013 04:26 Harmonious wrote:On January 25 2013 00:06 r.Evo wrote:
That's equivalent to saying Earth would be better off without lions because they kill zebras. Are humans a disaster for a lot of specific ecosystems? Yes. In the end it will balance itself out though. Earth as a planet or a global ecosystem doesn't care much for humans unless we literally blow the entire planet to pieces. Life always finds a way. No, life does not always find a way or balance itself out, at least not on the level of a species. We don't know the future of the human race, but saying that it will survive because "life will find a way" is naive. The whole argument that the global ecosystem doesn't care much for a single species is simply wrong. There have been two mass extinction events (out of 5) that have been caused by life itself. And these two dwarf the event that killed the dinosaurs. One was an organism that was wildly successful starting to produce methane as waste. This killed almost all other life on the planet and ultimately itself. The other was an organism starting to produce oxygen which was toxic to most other life at that time. In both instance "life found a way", but not the life that was already there. In excess of 99% of all species went extinct in both cases. So humans may find a way, but not because we cannot affect the global ecosystem in a major way, we most certainly can and it most certainly has the potential to be a major disaster if we do. We're not even close to destabalizing the ecosystem as much as the examples you give. Not even by a long shot. I didn't say we were. I take issue with the argument that we don't have to worry because we cannot affect the ecosystem to such a degree that it will be a problem. The fact is that a species can do that, whether we are doing it is a separate question.
Ah, that's fine then.
|
On January 25 2013 05:02 KurtistheTurtle wrote:
My point is that you can't possibly accurately predict the future one way or another but that when put under duress, humans find new ways to relieve the balance.
This is a prediction. My point is stop making this prediction if you are going to talk about how the future is hard to predict.
You want to claim that a problem must not exist, because we cannot predict, and therefore there must exist a solution which we just haven't predicted yet. Very bad thinking.
edit: there is no singularity-messiah coming to save you. We will never innovate our way out of hubris and nemesis, thinking you can is just hubris.
edit: you think you are being clever and skeptical, but this is just solidified ex-skepticism. If your skepticism ever solidifies, then it stops being skepticism. You need to turn your skepticism back around to the conclusions generated by your previous exercise of skepticism. Once you learn to iterate this process and take its infinite limit, you will be an enlightened master.
|
If any of you have read the book Ishmael, I strongly suggest you read it if this kind of thing interests you.
We are a plague on the Earth
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.
|
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 think we can pat ourselves on the back that we're most likely the only apex species to have ever existed that doesn't eat or hurt other species without remorse. Yay us?
Edit: In fact, what you're writing is contradictory. You're telling humanity to not view itself as high as it does, but should be able to do things that no apex species before us ever has. How is that not greatness compared to anything else before us?
|
The Earth doesn't care about humans, animals or plant life. The Earth is not a sentient being. The only ones who will suffer are humans and animals. We are killing ourselves, not the planet.
|
On January 24 2013 23:35 Wordsmith wrote:This is what naturalist, scholar, and media-celebrity Sir David Attenborough said of mankind and its nature of unsustainable over consumption of resources in his latest interview. Show nested quote +We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now,” “We keep putting on programmes about famine in Ethiopia; that’s what’s happening. Too many people there. They can’t support themselves — and it’s not an inhuman thing to say. It’s the case. Until humanity manages to sort itself out and get a coordinated view about the planet it’s going to get worse and worse.” (The full interview is available only in print, but you can read the report here and here He may actually be quite right. At 86, Sir David has no ulterior motives or hidden agenda behind this proclamation, and his body of work attests to this. He is among the strongest voices on population control and sustainable development, but he has always emphasized that the problem is not merely overpopulation or mankind's inability to find sustainable means to reproduce. Of course there those who say he is wrong. Critics claim that he has such a grim outlook in life and is ironically out of touch of the nature of ecosystems. Indeed, others claim that as long as a balance is struck, nature will always find equilibrium, regardless of how many people there are in the world. The critics point the problem not in population control or agriculture, but in the economic model we have. What is you opinion on this matter? + Show Spoiler +By the way, is any other part of northern hemisphere this bloody fucking cold? If I didn't know any better, I'd think we are experiencing Ice Age! Bloody hell!
At 86, Sir David has no ulterior motives or hidden agenda behind this proclamation
Well he should start doing us a favor in population control and leave this earth, his old body is taking space huehueheueheuheueheueheuheueheuheueheue
User was temp banned for this post.
|
I thought this was already a widely known and accepted fact...? I mean if you look at the numbers it becomes silly to try arguing otherwise.
|
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.
We don't need to be given a right to have dominion over everything else. We can have it because we are capable of it and other species on our planet are not.
|
Earth doesn't give a fuck about humans and humans themselves are a product of nature; so any mumbo jumbo about how we should vanish so that nature/earth remains untouched is... just a human feeling.
Now of course we should be careful of what we're doing because otherwise the next generations will pay the price.
|
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.
But humans created the whole concept of rights, there is no such thing as that in nature. It is simply survival of the fittest. But anyway that's just minor.
What you're saying generally can't be true. Look how hard many European countries are working to move from fossil fuels to renewable energy, most of them have moved towards banning coal fired plants. The whole drive towards sustainable logging, all those power-saving measures, recycling programs, sustainable farming and movements towards vegetarianism...its more accurate to say that we are struggling with our nature to want as much as we can get at the cost of the environment and the poor, and many of us are trying to live a more "enlightened" lifestyle now. There are plenty of people like you who care about animals and treat them well, and many are fighting against factory farming. So its kind of extreme for you to say its entirely true that we are a plague on Earth. The world is making major changes, and things are getting better albeit slowly.
Once things start getting worse, there will probably be a significant motivation to change. Maybe over a period of several decades we can find a way to stabilize the climate, once its obvious that anthropogenic global warming is real in terms of the frequency and severity of natural disasters (which can't be explained any other way).
|
No, humans are actually pretty cool.
|
Yep the earth got a infection, called humans. Hard to get rid of but I believe the earth will find a cure or manage it before the earth dies.
|
I've always had the thought of a "Diminishing Returns" child tax return policy. Where having fewer children grants a sizable tax exemption and the higher offspring count would yield paid taxes. This would then vary nation to nation based on education, current populations, and wellness of life.
so a country with decent standard of living like AUS, US or UK can have 1st child tax exemption of 5k$, and 2 children would be 3k$, and 3kids could be 0$. But after having 4 kids would cost an extra of 3k$ added to taxes, and 5 kids would be 5k$, and so forth.
but a place like JAPAN, the 0$ tax incursion would happen around the 5 kid mark sine they have a declining population.
This way, it would encourage a better standard of living for familys with fewer kids. Allowing for each kid to have an adequate amount of resources growing up. This would also stem off the family where growth detrimental to both the kid, parents and siblings UNLESS they have the finances to ensure to provide for all of them.
Yes there are other conversation about class equality, distribution of weath, freedom of happiness, etc. But i only bring this portion up for the discussion of population control.
|
The biggest plague on the planet are the humans who advocate getting rid of other humans to preserve some mythical "natural" status quo. Evolution is constantly killing and creating new species. Climate is constantly changing. The tectonic plates are constantly moving. Some people are romanticizing about the current status quo and making artificial distinctions between what is "natural" and what is "unnatural".
|
I think population control is inevitable, whether people like it or not.
|
On January 24 2013 23:43 Evangelist wrote:
Nature will find an equilibrium with humanity. However it will come at the cost of a lot of lives.
Nature has always balanced through numbers. We are making some improvements though. The Amazon is shrinking slower than it has in years because of control of deforestation.
Mt thoughts, though I really think we need to stop letting anyone breed before that happens. With our medicine, doctors and government care eliminating most of natural selection, it's time for us to do the selection (obviously not kill people, just prevent certain people from breeding).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
