We need a war.

Tefal said:
except there's so much space we could basically tribble out numbers and still keep whole continents as wild life preserves.
Click to expand...

Tripling our number will probably happen in 50 years, what then?


Tefal said:
Why? everything else is. and it wont destroy the planet nothing we or any other living thing can do will destroy it.

People who think the planet should stay as it is now are retarded, the planet never changes only the life that resides upon it.
Click to expand...

Everything else may be trying to destroy the planet but they are kept in check by natural processes, grazing, hunting etc. Humans seem to have gone past that (most of the time), very few people are killed each year by animals, virus/disease is kept in check by our medicine and food and water is looked after on most of the planet by shipping it in, instead of dying when our population increases too much due to too much competition we just faarm on another continent.

True, we are unlikely to destroy the earth, I guess more accurately I should have said biosphere. No the Earth will never stay the same, but turning it into one big industrial estate for humans and not caring about the rest of the life on this planet is barbaric and evil IMO.
 
AcidHell2 said:
The base rate. There has been plenty of times of sudden mass extinction. Take dinosaurs. The earth and life on earth survive just fine.

maybe not new species but specie subgroups then. Who have changed to improve there chances of survival..
Click to expand...

I would suggest you use the Permian mass extinction rather than 'dinosaurs' for that point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event

I am not saying that the diversity of surviving groups may not diversify themselves (look at the diversity of the angiosperms (flowers)!), but we are losing key basal assemblages.
 
semi-pro waster said:
It's quite difficult to tell, the left leaning side claim that it's a very right wing dominated forum and the right leaners claim the exact opposite. Both sides having rather vocal supporters. I'd guess that you're right about the right due to the forum demographics but I don't think you'd get a wide consensus on this point or that it is a particularly noticeable leaning overall.
Click to expand...

I'm intrigued, what has left and right got to do with this topic? Yes I know it's about parties, but would it not be the liberals saying war is stupid and both the left and right saying kill people?
 
AcidHell2 said:
Total scaremongering and **** the earth will never be *****, it will happily go on with or without us. It will continue to support life and have species with or without us.
Click to expand...

I scaremonger you not. Unless we have 'Cambrian Explosion' round 2, our diversity of the basal assemblages will only decrease.

Why diversity is good is another debate entirely ;)
 
Tefal said:
I think trying to define all persons view point with one theory is silly. there are hardly any people in this world who have one view point o everything. Common sense dictates everyone will have left and right wing views, and will disagree with the extremists of both.
Click to expand...

If you're going to pick something to define peoples political views on then a general left/right split is about as sensible as any other way of doing it. The split won't be exact and some people will have views that cover either end of the spectrum but it works for a general division. It was just a response to Von's post anyway, I don't think there would be a noticeable bias either way on here but there are some people who shout very loudly that would fit into each camp roughly.

//edit and Weebull, when did Jesus stop taking an interest in your posts? :(
 
Amp34 said:
Tripling our number will probably happen in 50 years, what then?
Click to expand...

well for one it wont, 50 years to make 12 billion people is silly.

but after that **** the other continents and build what we need.


Everything else may be trying to destroy the planet but they are kept in check by natural processes, grazing, hunting etc. Humans seem to have gone past that (most of the time), very few people are killed each year by animals, virus/disease is kept in check by our medicine and food and water is looked after on most of the planet by shipping it in, instead of dying when our population increases too much due to too much competition we just faarm on another continent.
Click to expand...

that makes us the same as everything, penicillin (i forget the fungus's actuall name) survives because it can kill others, as do we.
 
Tefal said:
that makes us the same as everything, penicillin (i forget the fungus's actuall name) survives because it can kill others, as do we.
Click to expand...
As we are aware the 'value of life' in its various forms, should we have a duty to garden or protect the vulnerable?
 
semi-pro waster said:
If you're going to pick something to define peoples political views on then a general left/right split is about as sensible as any other way of doing it. The split won't be exact and some people will have views that cover either end of the spectrum but it works for a general division. (
Click to expand...

I don;t think so as neither of the two offers the best solutions to all problems, so people which in general do find the best solution, will pick and mix depending on the sistuation. Trying to bundle them together creates a split and so influces people to make incorrect decisions.
 
Nitefly said:
As we are aware the 'value of life' in its various forms, should we have a duty to garden or protect the vulnerable?
Click to expand...

What value of life? WE have killed more species and creatures, bacteria, fungus, humans, animals and everything else you care to name than any other life form.

We don't know the value of life, we know the value of death.
 
Amp34 said:
I'm intrigued, what has left and right got to do with this topic? Yes I know it's about parties, but would it not be the liberals saying war is stupid and both the left and right saying kill people?
Click to expand...

It's in response to a question that was asked by Von Smallhausen, I was answering in a general sense about the overall picture I have of the forums posters (loose though that may be). I'd like to believe that neither the left or the right would want war but traditionally the right (conservatives with a small C) have been the group who profit most from and are most inclined towards war although obviously the left has their fair share of warmongers.
 
Tefal said:
What value of life? WE have killed more species and creatures, bacteria, fungus, humans, animals and everything else you care to name than any other life form.

We don't know the value of life, we know the value of death.
Click to expand...

Again, should we aim to conserve the diversity of other groups?
 
semi-pro waster said:
but traditionally the right (conservatives with a small C) have been the group who profit most from and are most inclined towards war
Click to expand...


hmm from this it would be interesting if the "left" profited more from peace than the right, as if not the right would be "superior" (I'm sure at least you will know that's merely semantics, and my lack of a better word). Would be interesting to see which "overall" view point profited most during certain times.
 
Nitefly said:
Again, should we aim to conserve the diversity of other groups?
Click to expand...

Not if it is to our detriment. We should persiver only to help ourselves, as distasteful as it sounds that's the best course we can follow. of course by this point in 50-100 years + we'll probbably be able to engineer full organisms with ease and so increase diversity artificially if it benefits us.
 
Tefal said:
1) don;t need soil could use hydroponics (after we get over the difficulties of such a system, but once it;s economically viable that should be easy)and the chemicals would ideally be easier due to what ever energy source we are using to power such farms. but economics dictate that a new production method would arise.

2) conventional farmers would have long since died out by this point and replaced by large cooperate farms, aside from high price speciality goods.

3) **** the animals, let some new ones evolve or adapt, why should we care.


4) we could probbably keep the farms hermetically sealed if nessacery and kill pretty much anything we don;t want off. but GM might help with resistance as theres no risk of them spreading to the wild (but at this point the wild is already ****ed and this is about survival, people wont care if the country side dies, if the alternative is their children dying)

5) fortunately the burdens liy on others not us.
Click to expand...

What a lovely picture of earth in 100-200 years you paint.:p

Nitefly said:
Not necessarily. Remember, the environment is dynamic, not in equilibrium.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it will repair itself, in respect of nature destroying human buildings and reclaiming land once "ours", and organisms breeding and multiplying back to stable numbers, as well as the filling up of the niches left by organisms that became extinct due to human activity.

The ecosystem may not be identical to today or the past but it would repair itself.

AcidHell2 said:
and earth is hardly recognisable of that 10 thousand years ago. No there's is much totally natural landscape left. But farming has benefited some species and disadvantaged other species. Just like any natural event would. The world is constantly evolving and changing. Species dissapear and new ones pop up..

it's always been the way of the world and always we will, all we do is speed it up.
Click to expand...

Yes farming has benefited some species, but far more species have been disadvantaged than benefitted. The problem with this age is the rate at which species disappear is far greater than the majority of the past, possibly only overtaken by events such as the Permian/Triassic and the other 5 mass extinctions. There is a background rate of extinction and evolution, at the moment the earth is way above it. A large proportion of the species being wiped out now aren't being replaced.

The best example I have heard is the notion that humanity is a "natural Disaster". There are plenty of papers out there talking about earths next mass extinction being brought about by humans.

I guess to an extent this argument is about whether you think humans are part of nature, or above nature. I believe we are part of it, we have the same right to survive as other organisms, but also they have the same right to survive as us. As now most of the natural controls are removed on humanity, humans should set their own controls to keep us in "equalibrium" with the rest of the planet.
 
Tefal said:
Not if it is to our detriment. We should persiver only to help ourselves, as distasteful as it sounds that's the best course we can follow.
Click to expand...

Interesting approach.

of course by this point in 50-100 years + we'll probbably be able to engineer full organisms with ease and so increase diversity artificially if it benefits us.
Click to expand...

Thats..... an interesting approach ;)
 
Nitefly said:
Interesting approach.
Click to expand...

Seek only the achievable, dream of the unachievable, and achieve the best of both.


Thats..... an interesting approach ;)
Click to expand...


WEll AS i don;t know enough about the technology, but considering we came from the plum pudding atom, to quantum mechanics to the level of quantum computers in about a century i would not doubt the success of such an endeavour, but would not wish to claim "proof"
 
Nitefly said:
I scaremonger you not. Unless we have 'Cambrian Explosion' round 2, our diversity of the basal assemblages will only decrease.

Why diversity is good is another debate entirely ;)
Click to expand...

we do not need diversity. We do not need any explosion. It is pure scaremongering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom