|
|
espen15
Famous Hero
|
posted July 18, 2008 08:52 PM |
|
|
|
Population is clear that it rises but resources are not riseing so massivley- so what to do.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2008 09:22 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
Well doesn't matter, as a whole it's a lot more.
But with improved technology, we can have less pollution.
Quote:
the wind can 'dump' air pollution though
It can dump air pollution now, but couldn't 200 years ago? 
DagothGares:
Quote:
I think that population increase can be effectively ended by giving social security.
Hmm... well, to say the least, this is a very controversial suggestion. I'd say that this is true, but only as far as developed countries do. That is, it would reduce the number of welfare queens. But the bulk of population growth comes from third-world countries that really don't have any kind of social security or a responsible government at all. So your suggestion could certainly be part of the solution, it couldn't be all of it.
Quote:
In the poorer countries, the children have to take care of their parents. So it's much safer for them to have many, many, many children
Also, it's because it's cheaper for them to have children. Since they can't get good jobs, they are paid relatively little, and so they can afford to spend more of their time to raise children. Who's more likely to have more children - someone who makes $1 an hour, or someone who makes $100 an hour. To quote Charles Wheelan's excellent book Naked Economics, "My neighbor was a neurologist until she had her second child, when she quit to take care of her children full-time. It's expensive to quit being a neurologist." That's why, as people become more productive, they'll have less children, since their labor will be worth more.
Quote:
you can also take the prohibition about contraconception and other things
This'll help out quite a bit too.
Espen:
Quote:
Population is clear that it rises but resources are not riseing so massivley- so what to do.
If everything continues at the current state, we're doomed. No two ways about it. But I'm pretty sure that everything isn't going to continue at the current state: we'll become more productive. If we improve the education of people in the Third World, and those countries quit their socialistic policies and allow more foreign capital in (so they can get more job opportunities), then we could go a long way to halting population growth. And, as we grow more productive, we could use less resources to produce the same amount of stuff.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 18, 2008 09:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But with improved technology, we can have less pollution.
Well not necessarily, while some indeed has been targetted at less pollution, I guess it's technology we have pollution in the first place (again: it's a "some are, some are not" argument!)
Quote:
It can dump air pollution now, but couldn't 200 years ago?
*sigh*
air can 'move' the pollution. Maybe 200 years ago it simply was more in London, but now it moved somewhere else. However as a "whole" it's much more.
As for productiveness, you seem to emphasize this capitalistic view too much. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm only saying that every politician thinks the same about his system of choice (even communism for example). And I am not inclined to agree with either.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2008 11:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I guess it's technology we have pollution in the first place
But if we use new technology to prevent pollution, isn't that better that simply abstaining in the first place?
Quote:
I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm only saying that every politician thinks the same about his system of choice (even communism for example).
Well, I'm not a politician, but I can point out flaws in every system except for mine (I guess that's why I come here, so you people do it for me  ).
Quote:
I am not inclined to agree with either.
Why not? Isn't increased productivity and new technology a way out?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 03:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
But with improved technology, we can have less pollution.
Well not necessarily, while some indeed has been targetted at less pollution, I guess it's technology we have pollution in the first place (again: it's a "some are, some are not" argument!)
The fact is that it was not tecnology that created pollution, it was the careless attitude for nature around the "industrial evolution".
Factory's and capitalisme created the massive pollution. As we do not have a alternativ world to test out what the idea of "less polution" placed into the start of the industrialisme would have affected it, means we really got no plasuable way of predicting how it could have evolved either.
However, we should stop pollution to the highest possible level for the tecnologi we have today. As a wise person said: "If A do nothing to affect B, nobody is to be blamed."
The fact is that we pollute, and we got no clue on how complex earths breathing mecanisme is. And we barely got a clue on how much we can destroy before we cry and ask ourself: "Why did we not stop it earlyer?".
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 10:28 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The fact is that we pollute, and we got no clue on how complex earths breathing mecanisme is.
what do you have in mind?
If you mean aerobic breathing, we have more than a clue, it's actually pretty easy (citric acid cycle aka Krebs' cycle).
If you mean the planet.. umm, planets don't breathe. 
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 01:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But if we use new technology to prevent pollution, isn't that better that simply abstaining in the first place?
Ahem, it's better if we didn't pollute and used "clean" technology in the first place (even if it would yield decreased productivity compared).
Quote:
Well, I'm not a politician, but I can point out flaws in every system except for mine (I guess that's why I come here, so you people do it for me ).
Well actually I said that every system makes exceptions, and yours makes as well. See example:
mvassilev: "All humans are part of "society", that means they have rights. Animals and Nature are not"
Mr.X: "White people and nature are part of "society", that means they have 'rights'. Black people are not"
TheDeath: "All beings should be living in harmony, without making a distinction between "society" and "outsiders""
I wonder which system has the fewest exceptions...
Quote:
Why not? Isn't increased productivity and new technology a way out?
Is that what you call the "path to heaven" in your religion?
what good if we don't live in harmony and don't release ourselves of greed and hate? 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 02:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ahem, it's better if we didn't pollute and used "clean" technology in the first place (even if it would yield decreased productivity compared).
Well, that's certainly true, but the fact is that we have polluted, and that current technology is polluted. We have two options: to go back to caveman days, or to develop new technology. Obviously, the second choice is better.
Quote:
mvassilev: "All humans are part of "society", that means they have rights. Animals and Nature are not"
Mr.X: "White people and nature are part of "society", that means they have 'rights'. Black people are not"
TheDeath: "All beings should be living in harmony, without making a distinction between "society" and "outsiders""
*sigh*
That's not an exception I make. Society makes rights for itself. Society makes rights to protect itself. To extend those rights would frankly make no sense.
Quote:
Is that what you call the "path to heaven" in your religion?
More like a "path to Earth", though.
Quote:
what good if we don't live in harmony and don't release ourselves of greed and hate?
You talk about greed and hate as if they were related, which they aren't. Though let us define gr33d () this way: relatively short-term self-interest that ends up being harmful to self-interest in the relative long-term. Taken by that definition, of course gr33d is bad, and is a problem. But self-interest isn't bad. Here comes what might seem to you as a paradox: if people were more concerned with their own self-interest, then they'd be less gr33dy. But you asked, "what good if we don't live in harmony and don't release ourselves of greed and hate?" The answer is simple: we don't pollute the planet and cut our own throats.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 03:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, that's certainly true, but the fact is that we have polluted, and that current technology is polluted. We have two options: to go back to caveman days, or to develop new technology. Obviously, the second choice is better.
It is polluted because that's our mentality with it. I would actually prefer humans to go in cave men age, and START all over again, this time with CLEAN technology... unfortunately I think we've crossed the line where we can't go back 
Quote:
*sigh*
That's not an exception I make. Society makes rights for itself. Society makes rights to protect itself. To extend those rights would frankly make no sense.
Probably doesn't make sense for you, protecting Jews made no sense for Hitler either 
Quote:
You talk about greed and hate as if they were related, which they aren't. Though let us define gr33d () this way: relatively short-term self-interest that ends up being harmful to self-interest in the relative long-term. Taken by that definition, of course gr33d is bad, and is a problem. But self-interest isn't bad. Here comes what might seem to you as a paradox: if people were more concerned with their own self-interest, then they'd be less gr33dy. But you asked, "what good if we don't live in harmony and don't release ourselves of greed and hate?" The answer is simple: we don't pollute the planet and cut our own throats.
Greed is always good for the individual, whether long-term or short-term it doesn't matter. But that's it. It's only for one individual. And it usually ends up worse for others (this also includes nature).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 03:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It is polluted because that's our mentality with it. I would actually prefer humans to go in cave men age, and START all over again, this time with CLEAN technology... unfortunately I think we've crossed the line where we can't go back
Well, since we can't go back, there's really no point in arguing about this, now is there? And what's wrong with our mentality? The problem isn't that we were too self-interested, the problem is that we were only self-interested in the short term. But since, as you said, we can't go back, the only thing we can do is use clean technology. But it is technology that will get us out of this, not giving things up (except a few things in the short term).
Quote:
Probably doesn't make sense for you, protecting Jews made no sense for Hitler either
Well, I have a suspicion that Hitler didn't care about Jews either way, he just wanted power, and he killed Jews for effect.
Quote:
Greed is always good for the individual, whether long-term or short-term it doesn't matter.
If we can talk about g00d and ev1l, then we can talk about gr33d. And gr33d is defined as short-term self-interest. And short-term self-interest can contradict long-term self-interest. And self-interest, as I have said before is more good than bad.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 03:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, since we can't go back, there's really no point in arguing about this, now is there? And what's wrong with our mentality? The problem isn't that we were too self-interested, the problem is that we were only self-interested in the short term. But since, as you said, we can't go back, the only thing we can do is use clean technology. But it is technology that will get us out of this, not giving things up (except a few things in the short term).
What do you mean? Of course we have to "give things up" and I was referring to the 'polluting' technology, obviously (not the clean).
Quote:
Well, I have a suspicion that Hitler didn't care about Jews either way, he just wanted power, and he killed Jews for effect.
Hitler was sort of "strange"... Stalin was 'greedy' and he knew it (thus he didn't care either way), but Hitler thought he was doing it for the good of the world.
Quote:
If we can talk about g00d and ev1l, then we can talk about gr33d. And gr33d is defined as short-term self-interest. And short-term self-interest can contradict long-term self-interest. And self-interest, as I have said before is more good than bad.
Well yeah but I was talking about Greed not gr33d
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 05:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What do you mean? Of course we have to "give things up" and I was referring to the 'polluting' technology, obviously (not the clean).
Well, the clean technology would replace the polluting technology, so I don't think we'd really be giving it up. I mean, we didn't give horses up when cars became popular, now did we? They just replaced them.
Quote:
Hitler was sort of "strange"... Stalin was 'greedy' and he knew it (thus he didn't care either way), but Hitler thought he was doing it for the good of the world.
Or so he said. But I'm mre inclined to think that he just did it for power.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Lure_of_Lilith
Adventuring Hero
2nd Level, Expert Blind
|
posted July 19, 2008 07:00 PM |
|
|
Stop Global Warming
Through extensive study and being an environmentalist myself, I must say that the leading cause of the Greenhouse Effect are not factories and smoke emitted from cars' belchers, but overpopulation. Overpopulation is the answer to many questions with regard to the destruction of nature. As population rises, there isn't enough resources to support all of us, so we cut down more trees, produce more electricity (from coal powerplants) and around 15/16 of the total population uses cars so we might as well kiss our ozone layer goodbye.
Fortunately enough, we still have time to act. The government should educate kids as early as 9 or 10 on how to counter this prediction. Also, teens should be educated on raising just enough kids for them to support, to somehow lessen the population. If sea level continues to rise cities such as San Fransisco will be partly submerged underwater while countries composed of tiny islands (archipelagos) such as the Philippines and Indonesia will be wiped out ENTIRELY from the world map. 
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 08:04 PM |
|
|
Well, overpopulation by itself doesn't really contribute to global warming. It's what it brings with it, like increased usage of fossil fuels. But I agree that overpopulation needs to stop.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 08:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, overpopulation by itself doesn't really contribute to global warming.
Some scientists believe that a lot of heat comes from the 5 billion extra humans we have right now -- daily sports, etc... all contribute to heat (at least it's what they say).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 08:48 PM |
|
|
I very much doubt they're saying that. I don't think that humans by themselves physically contribute that much. I mean, if they did, then how much would bigger animals contribute?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 08:51 PM |
|
|
Well for starters, elephants are slow.
Second, animals are not "over-populated" compared to 100 years ago.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 09:38 PM |
|
|
Well, I suppose so. But I doubt that humans are physically contributing to global warming by merely existing. I think that their activites contribute far more.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 10:08 PM |
|
Edited by Galev at 22:15, 19 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
Some scientists believe that a lot of heat comes from the 5 billion extra humans we have right now -- daily sports, etc... all contribute to heat (at least it's what they say).
I'm sorry for not doing what I promised (to continue) but I think it's better this way...
First of all, I'm not a scientist. What I say is based on what I have studied this far and what I think on my own reasoning.
I wrote a novel so I say my other, shorter opinion here: People will not make this planet warmer. It is stupid. Well, I'm not a physicist, and I never will be, but energy remains (or something like this with a correct term). There is energy coming from old friend Sun. Good plant absorbs little photons, making ridiculously complex bio-chemic reactions and finally manages to enprison Sun's energy in lovely little glucose. Glucose undergoes some even more ludicurous bio-chemical changes and becomes branches, leaves and roots. Cow eats leaves, transforms them to meat and milk (and blablabla) and we eat it. In our body meat (and any real food -unlike "Cola Zero" ) disintegrates. Our cells (and mitocondrium in them) disintegrates the disintegrated molecules' units and after twenty pages of reaction we have: water, carbon-dioxide and ATP and some heat(let me not write it's whole name down). Now ATP happens to 'contain energy'. When ATP itself shakes off some certain parts energy is released (partly in the form of heat) and does things (activate enzymes, move muscles etc.) So Sun's energy is first turned into "chemical" energy, transforming compounds, than to other forms, like movement. Very small bits of heat is made. And that heat is not only for fun [...though it is...], it is to stay alive, to make enzymes work bla-bla. If much extra heat were released, our body would have an energy deficit, causing graver problems than global warming (death?). Now after all the theory, have some practice.
Experiment:
1 Have lunch
2 Get undressed
3 Go to a room which's temperature is set to 15 Celsius degrees
4 insulate the room
5 Start jumping
6 When you are tired enough, measure the temperature of the room. (We presume you entered the room being 35 C. degrees yourself.)
7 Boil water to have some tea for your inevitable cold.
(Have I said it is the short one? Sorry, it was a lie)
-----------
About the overpopulating:
So let me stop your illusion on the self-multiplying machine called "Humanity". We are no bacteria spliting in two every 5-10 minutes if there is enough nosh. Well, bit ironically pollution indeed affects productivitiy as many many many other factors. Which are the "bed of culture" (and facturing)? European country. What is going on with European population? Slowly decreasing. Of course it's not where overpopulation is imagined. That is Africa.
I'm sure most of you know how complex the "creation" of a human being is (it's a bad phrase but birth is not better; I mean from egg+sperm all along the long way to the blankets  ) It usually suprise those who work with science [once one of my teachers told us how he is suprised that after all that extreme fragile geneis, babies are still bornd]. Very small disturbing can easily end in miscarriage or serious maladies that stops the child living a long life (and well, to reproduce).
As far as I know, the noumber of children in a family are higher in lower social classes (for sure in Hungary; I suspect similar ways elsewhere); BUT the noumber of children born alive is a different matter. Here in my country in gipsy families (they are a social minority, an ethnic group) the noumber of still-births is greatly higher than that of the majority. It means that they birth more, much more, and so several children are borned not alive. () And it is a Middle-Europe country (yeah with apes at the parliment but still). Now imagine Africa. Malaria, AIDS, mass starvation, lack of fresh water, low-level to no education, political and social (so general) mess etc. Now imagine the noumber of still-birth there. (Well, China and some other non-African over-populating countries are not in a better state either, I think.-I can be wrong of course...)
You could say "OK, there are lots of still-birth; what then, there are still many born alive." But it is not that easy. The quality of life is decreased there and keeps decreasing (till being changed). It is not only about being poor and birth a bunch of kids. They have very different habits than men with "normal" circumstances. Eg. gipsies here (as I learnt from my Sociology classes) do not go to doctor/hospital so often; well, almost never. And they are more endangered by certain maladies (gastro-enteric eg.). And not only still-birth, but lower fertility. So yes, population is growing to die a painful death (oooh, I was a bit too dramatic, sorry.) But if things don't change, ...See, in certain areas (not only) in Africa life is not life.
And what did I see on local TV news some days ago? Farmers ruining their own melon because they couldn't sell it on a reasonable price.
I'm a big stupid aerse but why is it better to throw all that work, all that money, all that Food in the bin?!?!? And just two streets away an other homeless guy dies of starvation. Who cares? Bah....
Conclusion: Don't be afraid of over-population causing global warming or "less place". The matter is not the quantity but the quality (of lives -not people )
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 10:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I wrote a novel
Tell me more... You've accomplished one of the four things you must do to have had a succesful life?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
