|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
OnTheOtherSide
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:02 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
This from the guy who openly says forced sterilization is a good thing, just as long as it isn't him who gets sterilized? The purely logical perspective is that you are a hypocrite, and basically (if I were to go just on what you've written here) a bad person all around. You are advocating the most horrible things imaginable.
Anyway, all the moral points aside, you're just plain wrong. I posted a video earlier with real scientists (many of whom are authorities on the subject) discussing how man-made climate change is a total sham. I bet you didn't watch it. Nor have you posted a single link or shred of evidence to back up your bullshit claims that humans are over the limit and need to be killed off.
The only point you've made is that you hate humanity, while at the same time considering yourself an exception. I guess you consider yourself to be "special" or something  |
I never even mentioned sterilization. Don't put words in my mouth. I don't need to be sterilized, i'm never gonna have a kid. |
You specifically said you agreed with the idea of mass forced sterilization that I quoted directly from the Holdren text (from his book). Maybe you just posted without reading carefully? Wanna take it back?
| Quote: |
| I don't consider myself an exception. When it comes down to it. We all have a survival instinct, including myself. So we the war begins, I will try to be one of the few survivors. But if I must die, i'm ready to go. We all die. |
We all die. So what? That doesn't mean we have to commit collective suicide, or allow the government to kill off vast swaths of humanity. You must be nuts to think this way.
| Quote: |
| 30,000 people starve to death every day man. 50,000 more die from everything from homicide to disease, yet the population keeps growing. Death and suffering is happening every day in this world anyway. regardless of what population control meaures are taken, the Earth is a cruel and unusual place. |
Starvation is a result of policy, and has nothing whatsoever to do with capacity. We produce enough food to feed far more people than exist today. Far more. What kills those people is policies by the UN and other governments that deliberately limit development. The biggest factor is the global banking system (led by the WB and IMF) that hook poorer countries onto the global ponzi scheme, indebt them permanently with interest, and then keep them perpetually impoverished.
We could easily feed everyone on the planet and then some, and increase their standard of living. But this is not what the people who run things (many of whom are eugenicists like yourself) want.
| Quote: |
| Second. There are many scientists with proof that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have skyrocketed in the past 70 years. I think this is fact. |
It is a fact. However, it is totally irrelevant. CO2 levels do not cause climate change - quite the opposite, they result from climate change itself, which is caused by the sun.
| Quote: |
| Third. I've been studying and following this stuff for years. You are not gonna show me anything I havn't seen already. I have watched and read countless pieces and read lots of long books on the topic. Old news. |
You obviously don't understand even the most rudimentary facts about it. So you'd better study some more... |
There are many other indicators of climate change. Melting icecaps and glaciers, measurable and dramatic changes in weather patterns, unusual behaviors and migrations of animals including polar bears, etc.
The starving in Africa.... Yes it is policy that is killing them, not lack of food. My point is that this world is already full of death. And those people are basically the poor victims of population control right now. It's already begun.
As for popultion control, there are three possibilities.
1. Humanity get sterylized and killed off to prevent further population explosion.
2. We don't do anything. And we let out environmental destruction kill us instead of limiting ourselves.
3. We keep on living the way we are right now. And it just all gos smooth and fabulous long into the future and we live happily ever after....
I personally see #3 as a non-option. We are F'ing up the Earth in many ways and it's not going to go on forever like this. Especially with the predicted 3 billion new people exploding into the population soon.
There is no choice between life and life. Catastophe is coming in one form or another. I believe that the idea that mankind can live in this current manner indefinately is pure and total BS and anybody that doesn't have crap for brains can see that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
| There are many other indicators of climate change. Melting icecaps and glaciers, measurable and dramatic changes in weather patterns, unusual behaviors and migrations of animals including polar bears, etc. |
Seriously, watch that movie (and others like it). Real, qualified scientists (not political hacks with agendas) are interviewed and explain how none of it is human caused, all of it is cyclical (often over great periods of time).
| Quote: |
As for popultion control, there are three possibilities.
1. Humanity get sterylized and killed off to prevent further population explosion. |
Completely immoral, tyrannical, and atrocious on every level imaginable. Humans do not have the moral right to treat each others as animals.
| Quote: |
| 2. We don't do anything. And we let out environmental destruction kill us instead of limiting ourselves. |
Outright speculation on your part. Malthusians have been predicting this for centuries, and it NEVER happens. Zero credibility. An asteroid could hit the earth and kill us all, but it's very unlikely. It's even less likely, with the technology we have today, that we will die from starvation (unless a bunch of eugenicist madmen in power try to make this happen deliberately).
| Quote: |
3. We keep on living the way we are right now. And it just all gos smooth and fabulous long into the future and we live happily ever after.... |
The way we are living now is not sustainable - from an economic point of view. Free market capitalism is good, but hasn't been allowed to exist. What we have is strong central government that controls and brainwashes the public, and banks which finance everything through their fraudulent fractional reserve banking methods. All money is debt, with interest attached, unbacked by any commodities, and is literally a ponzi scheme. The current monetary system is the source of all our woes, and misallocation of resources. It is holding us back in every way, preventing better, cleaner technologies from being realised and improving life for all of us.
| Quote: |
| I personally see #3 as a non-option. We are F'ing up the Earth in many ways and it's not going to go on forever like this. Especially with the predicted 3 billion new people exploding into the population soon. |
The developed world is losing population. The undeveloped world is exploding, because Malthusian policy always backfires. The only thing those eugenicist quacks have left to resort to is outright mass murder and/or sterilization. It is just plain evil.
| Quote: |
| There is no choice between life and life. Catastophe is coming in one form or another. I believe that the idea that mankind can live in this current manner indefinately is pure and total BS and anybody that doesn't have crap for brains can see that. |
Change is necessary, but forced population control is not. This is the basic point you seem unable to grasp.
There is no Malthusian catastrophe coming. All mass deaths in past centuries were caused by totalitarian governments murdering their citizens. NONE were caused by true Malthusian "catastrophes". We have far and away more than enough resources and technology to sustain the amount of people we have now. Even if the population doubled (not necessary a good thing), there would still be more than enough. Most of the scarcity you see is artificial, and imposed on us by those on the top. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OnTheOtherSide
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
So what would be your suggestion as a solution to the problem? Specifically?
Are you hoping for the unrealistic possibility that the world will come together, do what's right, and help everybody else to build a utopian society in which everybody lives well and we all live in an environmentally clean way?
I used to have hopes like that too. Then I came to realize that it's impossible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
So what would be your suggestion as a solution to the problem? Specifically?
Are you hoping for the unrealistic possibility that the world will come together, do what's right, and help everybody else to build a utopian society in which everybody lives well and we all live in an environmentally clean way?
I used to have hopes like that too. Then I came to realize that it's impossible. |
Well, if I were to address this false dilemma specifically, then I'd say the only right thing to do as a human being is to let humanity outgrow its environment and suffer the consequences... This is because I believe that under no circumstances is it moral to kill people off like animals (or bacteria even) or to take away peoples' liberties.
Fortunately, no such dilemma exists, at least not for the foreseeable future. We have more than enough resources to serve all of us. Technological advancements can improve the lives of everyone while having the potential to limit the amount of resources we even need to consume. However, the current implementation of such technologies is impeded by our current defunct economic/monetary system (ie. the fraudulent central bank fiat currencies used in fractional reserve, debt-based banking, which causes inflationary economic bubbles and the worst kind of wasteful consumerism generally, such as that seen in suburbia). This needs to be changed, as we can do much much better. I believe that genuine, free market capitalism (the kind based on real, surplus capital, backed by real value and allowed to accumulate; rather than the fraudulent debt-based central banking faux-capitalism we have at present) holds many of the answers to the problems we face.
In the meantime, however, I see no need for alarm if the population continues to grow. It's really not a big problem, and won't be for quite some time. But the thing is, it isn't even growing in the industrialized world; it is declining. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OnTheOtherSide
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
So what would be your suggestion as a solution to the problem? Specifically?
Are you hoping for the unrealistic possibility that the world will come together, do what's right, and help everybody else to build a utopian society in which everybody lives well and we all live in an environmentally clean way?
I used to have hopes like that too. Then I came to realize that it's impossible. |
Well, if I were to address this false dilemma specifically, then I'd say the only right thing to do as a human being is to let humanity outgrow its environment and suffer the consequences... This is because I believe that under no circumstances is it moral to kill people off like animals (or bacteria even) or to take away peoples' liberties.
Fortunately, no such dilemma exists, at least not for the foreseeable future. We have more than enough resources to serve all of us. Technological advancements can improve the lives of everyone while having the potential to limit the amount of resources we even need to consume. However, the current implementation of such technologies is impeded by our current defunct economic/monetary system (ie. the fraudulent central bank fiat currencies used in fractional reserve, debt-based banking, which causes inflationary economic bubbles and the worst kind of wasteful consumerism generally, such as that seen in suburbia). This needs to be changed, as we can do much much better. I believe that genuine, free market capitalism (the kind based on real, surplus capital, backed by real value and allowed to accumulate; rather than the fraudulent debt-based central banking faux-capitalism we have at present) holds many of the answers to the problems we face.
In the meantime, however, I see no need for alarm if the population continues to grow. It's really not a big problem, and won't be for quite some time. But the thing is, it isn't even growing in the industrialized world; it is declining. |
So the bottom line is whether or not a person believes the Earth is really in crisis or not. I think it is. You think it isn't.
There are many signs that we a screwing the envirnonment beyond repair. Coral reefs disappearing, rainforests receeding, CO2 levels rising, glaciears and ice caps melting, 15 species going extinct each and every day, increased desertification of the land, sea levels measurably rising, the list gos on......whether or not it's a natural shift, it's changing drastically and it's pretty hard to deny it.
There are other factors as well, like manmade diseases getting out of control, natural diseases, powerful biological weapons being developed and falling into the wrong hands, many other things futuristic technology is bringing coud leave us in big trouble.
We are entering an age of Star Trek-like technology. Did you know that within 20 years they predict we will have terminator-like androids? We are entering some crazy times technologically. Can we greedy, materialistic, competetive and selfish humans handle it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
So what would be your suggestion as a solution to the problem? Specifically?
Are you hoping for the unrealistic possibility that the world will come together, do what's right, and help everybody else to build a utopian society in which everybody lives well and we all live in an environmentally clean way?
I used to have hopes like that too. Then I came to realize that it's impossible. |
Well, if I were to address this false dilemma specifically, then I'd say the only right thing to do as a human being is to let humanity outgrow its environment and suffer the consequences... This is because I believe that under no circumstances is it moral to kill people off like animals (or bacteria even) or to take away peoples' liberties.
Fortunately, no such dilemma exists, at least not for the foreseeable future. We have more than enough resources to serve all of us. Technological advancements can improve the lives of everyone while having the potential to limit the amount of resources we even need to consume. However, the current implementation of such technologies is impeded by our current defunct economic/monetary system (ie. the fraudulent central bank fiat currencies used in fractional reserve, debt-based banking, which causes inflationary economic bubbles and the worst kind of wasteful consumerism generally, such as that seen in suburbia). This needs to be changed, as we can do much much better. I believe that genuine, free market capitalism (the kind based on real, surplus capital, backed by real value and allowed to accumulate; rather than the fraudulent debt-based central banking faux-capitalism we have at present) holds many of the answers to the problems we face.
In the meantime, however, I see no need for alarm if the population continues to grow. It's really not a big problem, and won't be for quite some time. But the thing is, it isn't even growing in the industrialized world; it is declining. |
So the bottom line is whether or not a person believes the Earth is really in crisis or not. I think it is. You think it isn't.
There are many signs that we a screwing the envirnonment beyond repair. Coral reefs disappearing, rainforests receeding, CO2 levels rising, glaciears and ice caps melting, 15 species going extinct each and every day, increased desertification of the land, sea levels measurably rising, the list gos on......whether or not it's a natural shift, it's changing drastically and it's pretty hard to deny it. |
I think most of this is just spin you hear from the media. I don't think any of it is as bad as they would have you believe... some of it is just wrong (ice caps melt and refreeze all the time, and sea levels are not rising overall). Our impact on nature is real, but it's not nearly as "devastating" as the environmentalists tell us.
| Quote: |
| There are other factors as well, like manmade diseases getting out of control, natural diseases, powerful biological weapons being developed and falling into the wrong hands, many other things futuristic technology is bringing coud leave us in big trouble. |
I agree. Most governments are rotten and corrupt to the core.
| Quote: |
| We are entering an age of Star Trek-like technology. Did you know that within 20 years they predict we will have terminator-like androids? We are entering some crazy times technologically. Can we greedy, materialistic, competetive and selfish humans handle it? |
I'm not talking about technology to enslave people, but technology to improve our lives. It is there, but not properly funded. This is because we are all in debt to the banks and forced (by legal tender laws) to use their inflationary fraud money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
I heard on CNN last night (on the GPS show) that, by 2030, China will emit as much CO2 as the entire world does now.
Personally, I'm very worried. I do indeed worry that such mammoth amounts of CO2 will increase the global temperature and cause total devastation. But I also passionately hate the left and profoundly resent the fact that the face of climate concern is political leftism. It is the politics that makes people skeptical. The science is as sound as any other sound science.
It's a very difficult position for a guy like me to be in. However, there's nothing that can be done about it if China is gonna burn as much coal in the comming decades as the entire world does now. |
Rest easy. The science you've been led to believe is "sound" is actually nearly all false. CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas (only a small fraction, of which only a small fraction in turn is produced by human activity). The most important greenhouse gas is actually water vapor (about 95%). CO2 increases throughout history actually lag behind periods of warming by about 800 years, meaning there is no causal relation at all.
Global warming (and eventual cooling) is real, but is caused by increased solar output, not by CO2. Climate change is natural and ongoing, and there is little if anything we can do to change it.
The whole myth of global warming is political, not scientific. Peak oil is artificial scarcity brought on by the global banking fractional reserve ponzi sceme (the peak is based on economics, not the resources themselves, which are abundant), which requires ever greater consumption to keep up with inflation. Artificially high oil prices are less likely to be criticized while fossil fuel consumption is considered evil. The government can also implement carbon taxes to a willing public and collect immense revenues. Thus all the propaganda.
The environmental movement also stems largely from the eugenics movement of the past (WWF was founded by Julian Huxley, for example), and is more about curbing economic and population growth than about improving the lot of humanity.
There is no scientific consensus either. The IPCC puts names of scientists down that do not even believe humans are a factor at all in climate change.
I'm mostly glossing over the points, but it is verifiable. This movie sums it up pretty well (but feel free to verify the claims it makes on your own if you remain skeptical):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs |
All those stereotypical skeptic arguments are taken down at this site: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
I'm highly, highly unlikely to change my mind about the science in the absence of any wholesale paradigm-shift, but I will remain deeply worried about the obscene politics that governments would have us believe is going to help. I just don't believe de-carbonization is ever gonna happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
I heard on CNN last night (on the GPS show) that, by 2030, China will emit as much CO2 as the entire world does now.
Personally, I'm very worried. I do indeed worry that such mammoth amounts of CO2 will increase the global temperature and cause total devastation. But I also passionately hate the left and profoundly resent the fact that the face of climate concern is political leftism. It is the politics that makes people skeptical. The science is as sound as any other sound science.
It's a very difficult position for a guy like me to be in. However, there's nothing that can be done about it if China is gonna burn as much coal in the comming decades as the entire world does now. |
Rest easy. The science you've been led to believe is "sound" is actually nearly all false. CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas (only a small fraction, of which only a small fraction in turn is produced by human activity). The most important greenhouse gas is actually water vapor (about 95%). CO2 increases throughout history actually lag behind periods of warming by about 800 years, meaning there is no causal relation at all.
Global warming (and eventual cooling) is real, but is caused by increased solar output, not by CO2. Climate change is natural and ongoing, and there is little if anything we can do to change it.
The whole myth of global warming is political, not scientific. Peak oil is artificial scarcity brought on by the global banking fractional reserve ponzi sceme (the peak is based on economics, not the resources themselves, which are abundant), which requires ever greater consumption to keep up with inflation. Artificially high oil prices are less likely to be criticized while fossil fuel consumption is considered evil. The government can also implement carbon taxes to a willing public and collect immense revenues. Thus all the propaganda.
The environmental movement also stems largely from the eugenics movement of the past (WWF was founded by Julian Huxley, for example), and is more about curbing economic and population growth than about improving the lot of humanity.
There is no scientific consensus either. The IPCC puts names of scientists down that do not even believe humans are a factor at all in climate change.
I'm mostly glossing over the points, but it is verifiable. This movie sums it up pretty well (but feel free to verify the claims it makes on your own if you remain skeptical):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs |
All those stereotypical skeptic arguments are taken down at this site: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php |
This is just one site. I didn't find his rebuttals convincing. I'll have to reserve my judgment though, as it would take forever to confirm/debunk every single one (gotta check each source, which probably branches off into an infinite amount of other sources, all of which deal with heavy science). My common sense still tells me the skeptics got it though.
| Quote: |
| I'm highly, highly unlikely to change my mind about the science in the absence of any wholesale paradigm-shift, but I will remain deeply worried about the obscene politics that governments would have us believe is going to help. I just don't believe de-carbonization is ever gonna happen. |
I wouldn't give up on the science just yet (there's a whole lot of misinformation, and a lot of it is hard to cut through since we're not experts ourselves)... anyway, even if it were anthropogenic, and the only solution were to kill off 80% of humanity and revert to neo-Feudalism, then I say bring on the apocalypse. I'd still rather keep my liberty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seonsengnimble
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Location: taking a ride on the magic English bus
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't particularly care about the environment, but I think it should be of some concern. I'm fairly concerned about climate change because of the impact on people. Yes, there are natural factors that come into play, but there are also human caused factors which play a significant role. C02 and Methane are greenhouse gasses. We produce a lot of them, and by increasing these, the temperatures rise.
The effects are still being debated, but why not be on the safe side. Will it really harm the world to reduce air pollution?
Anyhoo, you're not entirely alone. I don't care too much about the environment even though I'm pretty much on the left. I would like the environment to be protected, but I put it pretty low on my list of priorities.
One thing that annoys me though, is people like Matt Stone and Trey Parker, who have an otherwise decent set of political views, arguing against global warming studies while not knowing the difference between a hole in the ozone and the greenhouse effect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| seonsengnimble wrote: |
I don't particularly care about the environment, but I think it should be of some concern. I'm fairly concerned about climate change because of the impact on people. Yes, there are natural factors that come into play, but there are also human caused factors which play a significant role. C02 and Methane are greenhouse gasses. We produce a lot of them, and by increasing these, the temperatures rise.
The effects are still being debated, but why not be on the safe side. Will it really harm the world to reduce air pollution? |
Yes, it would do tremendous harm. It already prevents poorer countries from developing (2 billion people don't even have electricity).
It would also destroys the industrialized world's economies. However, having said that, it is mostly because we are hooked on oil for financial reasons (mainly the fact that oil is such big business, tied into the major banks, and the phenomenon of petrodollars). Get rid of the Federal Reserve private bank and the un-backed fraud currency ponzi scheme it has ensnared us all in, and the dependence on oil can fairly easily be loosened. Viable alternative energy technologies already exist (need improvement and more investment, but basically it's doable), but our current, ponzi scheme funded economy depends utterly on oil (which is why peak oil is so important). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hyeon Een
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
| What you are failing to acknowledge is that our system of agriculture drives other species into extinction and consumes land. Other species USE the land and leave the balance in tact, humans TAKE OVER the land and ruin it for all other species. That's the key difference. |
It's not a key difference at all. Any species would drive any other number of species into extinction if it could do so and doing so would benefit it. That's not playing god, it's totally natural. There's no altruism in nature; even human environmentalism at its core is about humans, because we benefit from a world with other species in it.
All you're pointing out is that humans are more capable than other species. There's nothing unnatural about that, and it's not playing god. It's just plain old natural competition.
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
| This system has been working. But it's like a runaway train that has not quite crashed yet. The crash will come innevitably. |
And if it does, it will be exactly the same as when the goats run out of grass. They over-grazed, and over-reproduced, and a backlash occurs as a result.
Your attempt to condemn anything humans do as unnatural is simply in error. |
Any species WOULD do this.
But humans are the only species that CAN and ARE doing it. |
Which is why it's not playing god, or being unnatural, but simply being successful. |
I like your points very much Mr. Fox. You've written that which I was too lazy, too drunk, or too busy to write. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments and viewpoints you've expressed on this thread.
Apart from that:
I don't think humans are being SUCCESSFUL by burning through their resources, but NATURAL. I think we are evolving, in the same way we always, and every species always has. We may burn through our resources now and by consequence several million or billion people may die and it will lead us (or those who survive) to new efficiencies of resources. This is in no way man conquering nature though, but nature 'conquering', yet again, man.
I think it's funny that humans look at themselves now as being above nature. There may be a few people around who can view the broader perspective and realise that we are acting out a Darwinian-drama, but there is no one who can look at it and change it. If people end up having a slight population reduction over the next couple of centuries (by a few million or billion) it is only natural in my view.
It's not some preventable mistake any more than the aforementioned goats over-eating. It's the way we are. We think we're above it but we're not. Maybe there's a goat thinking that if he eats less there'll be more for later and he tells the other goats this (Let's call him "Bono"), but he eats it any way because he knows that if he doesn't some other goat will. We are all the same goat.
I will say that people who advocate forced sterilizations or eugenics or ethnic cleansing are being somewhat small minded though. Their best efforts are nothing compared to what will naturally happen due to the natural cycle of life and the limits of the earth. If you're worrying about some Obama advisor being a eugenecist you're thinking small scale. Look at the bigger picture. Look at nature killing hundreds of thousands a year already. Look at the 300 million Americans who quietly let tens of thousands of Africans die every year from malnutrition. That's eugenics in action baby.
The people who already are dying of starvation across the world aren't a little problem that Bono or communists or charity-givers can solve, but a mere symptom of the problem of overpopulation on a planet with limited resources which will kill millions more. It's not a big deal though, it's the nature of natural development. Sure some development and wealth is lop-sided right now between the rich and poor countries, but it is a relatively minor point when looking at the world as a whole. It probably sucks to be starving and dying, but that's the way it is, always has been, and always will be. It's evolution in action in a time in which we think humans are actually above it. But we're not. We're playing the same old game without even realising. It's natural evolution, which might as well be called "Eugenics" but without a government paying for it.
As someone with a salary which pays more than living costs YOU are already someone who can save people from starving to death or dying of easily treatable diseases. But you don't. Or if you do, you do it to less of an extent than you are able to. Why? Probably because you don't give a f*** or you are looking after your family's future. Or you value a 40" television more than, say, 400 lives. Selfish. Brutal. True. But natural.
In conclusion: Tens of millions of people will die because of YOU and YOUR ilk. Or perhaps a nice way of putting it is that hundreds of people WOULDN'T die if you GAVE A F**K. You/We could stop it. But we won't. Because we don't care enough. Worrying about future environment nonesense when easily saveable people are dying right here today is selfish, self-grandizing, nepotistic and borderline-genocidal. We want us and ours to survive. Darwin love our evolutionary impulses. I'm comfortable with this. *Cheers*.
PS I think I went off-the-topic of the minor global warming thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vox_Populi
Joined: 04 May 2009
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting. I'm definitely a liberal but I do feel that the case for anthropogenic global warming has not really been proven. Nonetheless, I'm no global warming denier. In addition, while I don't really believe the many actions taken to curb global warming can or will be effective (since, based on available climate data over hundreds of thousands of years, not just hundreds of years as the fossil-fuels-are-causing-global-warming crowd bases their beliefs, it does actually appear to be part of a much grander natural cycle and one that, is likely to reverse itself in the relatively near future), I agree with 99% of said actions from a eco/conservation perspective.
When my friends find out that I don't believe that mankind is causing global warming, they usually freak out and imagine me to be in league with the devil or Dick Cheney (not that there's much difference between the two) so I have to do some fast talking to explain that, no, I'm not some right wing kook. Rather, I've actually studied the data and have seen that most "scientists" who clamor about global warming are mainly concerned about their tenure and grants and less about what may actually be causing the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
