Over-Population (?) - Page 4

Psrdirector · 10-02-2004, 04:12 PM

Im not talking about a post apocolyps, i am talking about a flaming shell if anything is left of the planet.

Oil isnt the only thing limiting us, the earth has a limit of the amount of food that can be created, even with us pumbing cemicals into it.

Lets say we wiped all life out, it would take at least the exat same amount of time it has taken to reach this, as it has already taken.

Also, things may never become like they are now, evolution is random. We may never have something like this again, they may never evole past being little rodints, that is if something like mammles ever come back to existence. You are really dumbing down evolution, it takes more then just time.

Final, lots of radiation takes a lot of time to go away, want an extream example. Look up in the sky during the day, you see that big yellow ball up there, i think its been around for more then a few million years. And we sure cant live up there. its radiation

Krylo · 10-02-2004, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Oil isnt the only thing limiting us, the earth has a limit of the amount of food that can be created, even with us pumbing cemicals into it.

We, right now, have more food being produced than is neccessary to feed the entire earth's population. The only thing getting in the way is national borders. We also have huge tracts of unused farmable land in india, asia, and even America, AND we have areas of the world that can't farm as efficiently even on the land they do use, because they aren't as technologically advanced as us. Yes, there's a limit to the amount of food we can produce, but we're no where NEAR reaching it, and no where near reaching the number of people that we have to worry about it.

Quote:

Final, lots of radiation takes a lot of time to go away, want an extream example. Look up in the sky during the day, you see that big yellow ball up there, i think its been around for more then a few million years. And we sure cant live up there. its radiation

Actually that's hydrogen fusion caused by gravity, which, in turn, gives off radiation.

And, no, we can't live up there. But we couldn't live down here without the atmosphere protecting us from that radiation either. Life started with out that protection there.

Quote:

Lets say we wiped all life out, it would take at least the exat same amount of time it has taken to reach this, as it has already taken.

Also, things may never become like they are now, evolution is random. We may never have something like this again, they may never evole past being little rodints, that is if something like mammles ever come back to existence. You are really dumbing down evolution, it takes more then just time.

So? You admit there would be life. We wouldn't have killed the planet then, would we have? Only ourselves and some other animals that would have eventually died off or evolved into something different anyway. As was said, it wouldn't even be a major set back.

And no, it wouldn't take as long as it took for it to reach where we are today, because there ARE things that would survive even every nuclear bomb going off at once. Multi-celled things, and once you've already reached the multi-cellular level evolution into other multi-cellular beings is relatively quick (compared to from single celled to multi-celled or from random acids to life at all). In other words, much of the time we spent evolving was really spent trying to make the leap to life, and then from single celled life to multi-celled life.

FunnyLooking · 10-02-2004, 04:57 PM

Think about that flaming shell. Eventually that flame would die out and radiation would go away. Just because evolution won't necessarily go down the same path, we still wouldn't wipe out the Earth and Nature.

With the technology we have now, we probably couldn't destroy the planet enough to destroy all life on it. That doesn't mean that couldn't if the human race really put their mind to it. Seriously, I'm sure that we could develop the technology that could actually break the Earth open or some crazy stuff like that. Why would we want to? I have no idea.

The World isn't really overpopulated. Our resource is food, not oil. Oil is a luxury item, not a necessity. The human race has lived without oil for much more time than not, and not everyone in the world uses oil. Oh yeah, and considering we actually need to subsidize farmers because we have too much food, food isn't going to be our problem.

To say that we'll all die when we run out of oil is like saying we'll die if we run out of bullets, grapes, or electricity. (ignoring political conflicts, of course)

Edit: And please spell/grammar check. It'll make you look better and more sensible.

Dark Black · 10-02-2004, 05:42 PM

As far as evolution cares (not that it does, it's just a concept created entirely by human minds, like nature) humans would only be 'wrong' if they became extinct. It doesn't matter how many other animals humans kill, or how badly they cock-up the environment, if they survive, they are right. We REALLY shouldn't try to protect other animals. Why?
Let's take an example. Rat A is a successful animal. It evolves into Rat B. Rat B is a better rat. It eats all the food, breeds faster and adapts quicker. Rat A dies.
It's just like that for humans. The only difference is that humans have the ability to stop. But why the hell would we want to? It's easy to say 'Stop! We are bad and stuff for killing things!' when you have all the food, warmth and security you want. But naturally things are very different. If things didn't make other things extinct, we'd be up to our necks in little shrimps and crap that suck balls as animals.
Evolution got us where we are today. Don't spit in it's face just because you feel guilty about how it works. All animals play by the rules, and die by the rules.

Oh, and why do all environmentalists assume we have reached the pinnacle of possible technology? Even if we stayed at our current technological discovery rate (which we aren't. New technology helps us discover new things even faster. It's exponential, man!) we'd be discovering new ways of making food and energy faster than we could use these new sources out.
Think about GM foods. If it wasn't for religious zealots and fuckwitted environmentalists stopping this kind of research, you're so called overpopulation problem wouldn't be.

Psrdirector · 10-02-2004, 06:56 PM

If we blow every nuke there wouldnt be a planet left. thats what i am saying, NOTHING WILL BE LEFT. the earth would never recover

we should protect other things cause they also deserve to live

Archbio · 10-02-2004, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Evolution got us where we are today. Don't spit in it's face just because you feel guilty about how it works. All animals play by the rules, and die by the rules.

That doesn't sound any better than personificating nature. It downright sounds worse. These aren't rules, just physical realities that eventually formed into balanced realities. As if justificating one's behavior by the fact that "things are the way they are" wasn't bad enough, you would cite evolution has a reason why we are obligated to continue acting the same way we have?

Quote:

It's easy to say 'Stop! We are bad and stuff for killing things!'

Altough conservation is sometimes wrongheaded, it's surely not the easy thing to do, just the opposite. As a species we have the capacity to unbalance things in a way that's not necessarily pleasent for future evolution. Personally, if even we were to apply morals coherently to the world, the extinction of species should only be considered bad if it can reduce biodiversity in an unhealthy way. Otherwise I think we should care more about the actual animals involved.

More on topic, I think food is the only item of real concern, and for now the starvation we have in some regions of the world seems due to bad circulation of ressources. And I agree, oil might be vital for the current economy, but for life on Earth it's certainly not essential.

[Edited for major funkiness]

Gorefiend · 10-02-2004, 09:38 PM

It has been said tons of times on this thread, but I just want to make sure it stays out of the way. OVERPOULATION IS NOT THE PROBLEM!!!! As far as food, it too, is not the problem. Many countries have an excess of food. The problem is that the food is privately owned, and the owners don't want to lose potential profits by giving it away to starving children. And there is also the fact that that country may try to live off of only this aid, becoming a leech on mankind...
The problem is energy (In the form of oil, coal, and natural gas.) We don't have enough of it. We need more of it. However, don't blame it on population. It is actually the DEVELOPED countries, with their smaller, more stable populations, that use more fuel every day. Yes, the US, Canada and Europe are FAR more guilty than Latin America, Africa or Asia as far as recourse depletion. (Well, Asia is debatable...)

As far as life on Earth ending... lets see... Destruction of nature is rather impossible because of adaptation. As a matter of fact, humans are among the most adaptable creatures in existance, along with cockaroaches (don't know how to spell it, PLEASE tell me) and other invertebrates. As a matter of fact, if we were to fire all of our nukes, we would go into a "Nuclear Winter" after which most of those insects would survive, and perhaps become the next sentient species. THEY MIGHT ACTUALLY STUDY OUR FOSSILS SOME DAY!!!!! This goes back to the nature renewal thing, which, in effect, would happen. This has happened two other times. The first species to become predominant on earth only to be destroyed by a pleistocene (Ice Age) was the trilobites. If you are a fan of Pokemon, they look kinda like Kabuto. The next is FAR more known. There is a movie about these guys... come on... Yup, Dinosaurs. Then man came along, as the predominant species on Earth. As far as a burning shell, single celled life may develop again, as it did at the start of life on Earth.

As far as a war, with NO NUKES, we still survive. Less of us, but still. Besides the obvious effects of the war (devastation, breakdown of economy, possible breakdown of civilization as we know it in general, possible de-evolution of our technology so we are back in 17th century, or maybe Roman ages (which would be fitting, if pockets of "civilization" persisted and expanded, while hordes or "barbarians" roam elsewhere), or even farther back)(reread the sentence and start after this parenthesis) the entire supply of oil could be lost in such a war. Think about it. How much fuel do you need to keep an army of tanks going? Lots. And those helicopters, boats, and planes? TONS. We could easily add to the problem rather than solve it through something like that. In the end, life will prevail. (A bit clichéd, but fitting)

Illuminatus · 10-02-2004, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Black

They already are developing new fuel types. Anti-matter exists (and is a great way of creating power!) but is very hard and expensive to make and store. Plus nuclear fusion (what goes on in stars and thermo-nuclear bombs)! It not only doesn't give off radio-active waste (unlike nuclear fission) but you can use it to turn rubbish materials into good ones! Like carbon dioxide into diamond! (or something like that...)

(Sorry, but I had to address this...)

What the hell kind of world do you live on? By new fuel types, most people mean different types of -ols (Ethanol) based on plant products, or hydrogen fuel, even "clean" energy like wind and solar power. NOT anti-matter...this ain't Star Trek, anti-matter isn't even on the HORIZON. We can't even do nuclear fission correctly enough so that the general public accepts it...

Muffin Mage · 10-03-2004, 11:18 AM

When was the last nuclear power plant explosion? Chernobyl. Why? The U.S.S.R. sucked arse. The modern fissile power plant is the future of energy once environmentalist wackos stop pulling objections out of their armpits.

But, that's beside the point. The point itself ought to be "Shit happens." Unless someone accidently opens a black hole up in the middle of the planet or blows the frickin' crap out of the core, something will live and reevolve life of some sort.

As to overpolulation, if it ever gets to the point where we need to reduce the population manually, I'll pull out a shotgun and declare open season on anyone who isn't smart enough to own a kevlar vest and be done with it.

Dark Black · 10-03-2004, 11:49 AM

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear... poor little ih8stupidppl...
Anti-matter is very much a reality. As I stated before, Anti-matter DOES already exist. It isn't very far off in the future. All anti-matter is, is atoms that have an electron and neutron core surrounded by protons (thus the anti bit). But it is VERY VERY expensive and hard to make.
Also, when people talk about finding new fuel types they don't mean new ethanol based fuel. What, do you think somebodies just going to spot some lying around and go 'Hey! Lookit that! We could use that as fuel! I'VE SAVED THE WORLD!!!!11!1!!!' Not happening, I'm afraid.
And renewable fuel sources, like wind, have already been discovered, so how could anyone DISCOVER THEM, dumbass?
And Nuclear Fission is safe. The reason it is failing is because new power plants cost LOTS to build. And I was talking about Nuclear FUSION before, which is different from Fission.

10-02-2004, 04:57 PM	#33
FunnyLooking Funny Looking Productions Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: In Your House and Coming to Get You Posts: 431	Think about that flaming shell. Eventually that flame would die out and radiation would go away. Just because evolution won't necessarily go down the same path, we still wouldn't wipe out the Earth and Nature. With the technology we have now, we probably couldn't destroy the planet enough to destroy all life on it. That doesn't mean that couldn't if the human race really put their mind to it. Seriously, I'm sure that we could develop the technology that could actually break the Earth open or some crazy stuff like that. Why would we want to? I have no idea. The World isn't really overpopulated. Our resource is food, not oil. Oil is a luxury item, not a necessity. The human race has lived without oil for much more time than not, and not everyone in the world uses oil. Oh yeah, and considering we actually need to subsidize farmers because we have too much food, food isn't going to be our problem. To say that we'll all die when we run out of oil is like saying we'll die if we run out of bullets, grapes, or electricity. (ignoring political conflicts, of course) Edit: And please spell/grammar check. It'll make you look better and more sensible. __________________ Mirrors Always Lie -Funny Looking Productions Sing me to Symmetry Muse of the Mathematic We worship all equations the simple and quadratic Algebra, Geometry, Set and Number Theory All admired equally In our Purgatory and Pathogorean secret society. -Fermat's Last Tango "The Aftermath Last edited by FunnyLooking; 10-02-2004 at 05:14 PM.

10-02-2004, 09:38 PM	#37
Gorefiend That Guy Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: The city that doesn't sleep Posts: 1,039	It has been said tons of times on this thread, but I just want to make sure it stays out of the way. OVERPOULATION IS NOT THE PROBLEM!!!! As far as food, it too, is not the problem. Many countries have an excess of food. The problem is that the food is privately owned, and the owners don't want to lose potential profits by giving it away to starving children. And there is also the fact that that country may try to live off of only this aid, becoming a leech on mankind... The problem is energy (In the form of oil, coal, and natural gas.) We don't have enough of it. We need more of it. However, don't blame it on population. It is actually the DEVELOPED countries, with their smaller, more stable populations, that use more fuel every day. Yes, the US, Canada and Europe are FAR more guilty than Latin America, Africa or Asia as far as recourse depletion. (Well, Asia is debatable...) As far as life on Earth ending... lets see... Destruction of nature is rather impossible because of adaptation. As a matter of fact, humans are among the most adaptable creatures in existance, along with cockaroaches (don't know how to spell it, PLEASE tell me) and other invertebrates. As a matter of fact, if we were to fire all of our nukes, we would go into a "Nuclear Winter" after which most of those insects would survive, and perhaps become the next sentient species. THEY MIGHT ACTUALLY STUDY OUR FOSSILS SOME DAY!!!!! This goes back to the nature renewal thing, which, in effect, would happen. This has happened two other times. The first species to become predominant on earth only to be destroyed by a pleistocene (Ice Age) was the trilobites. If you are a fan of Pokemon, they look kinda like Kabuto. The next is FAR more known. There is a movie about these guys... come on... Yup, Dinosaurs. Then man came along, as the predominant species on Earth. As far as a burning shell, single celled life may develop again, as it did at the start of life on Earth. As far as a war, with NO NUKES, we still survive. Less of us, but still. Besides the obvious effects of the war (devastation, breakdown of economy, possible breakdown of civilization as we know it in general, possible de-evolution of our technology so we are back in 17th century, or maybe Roman ages (which would be fitting, if pockets of "civilization" persisted and expanded, while hordes or "barbarians" roam elsewhere), or even farther back)(reread the sentence and start after this parenthesis) the entire supply of oil could be lost in such a war. Think about it. How much fuel do you need to keep an army of tanks going? Lots. And those helicopters, boats, and planes? TONS. We could easily add to the problem rather than solve it through something like that. In the end, life will prevail. (A bit clichéd, but fitting) __________________ The world of truth has no certainty. The world of fact has no hope. "Environmental laws were not passed to protect our air and water... they were passed to get votes. Seasonal anti-smut campaigns are not conducted to rid our communities of moral rot... they are conducted to give an aura of saintliness to the office-seekers who demand them." - Frank Zappa, prelude to Joe's Garage Ever wonder THE TRUTH ABOUT BLACK HELICOPTERS? Last edited by Gorefiend; 10-02-2004 at 11:10 PM. Reason: Edited for slight grammar and spelling errors, which some of YOU should start to edit out too, and to add a couple of things.

10-02-2004, 04:12 PM	#31
Psrdirector Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: In the worst State in the damn world Indiana Posts: 1,261	Im not talking about a post apocolyps, i am talking about a flaming shell if anything is left of the planet. Oil isnt the only thing limiting us, the earth has a limit of the amount of food that can be created, even with us pumbing cemicals into it. Lets say we wiped all life out, it would take at least the exat same amount of time it has taken to reach this, as it has already taken. Also, things may never become like they are now, evolution is random. We may never have something like this again, they may never evole past being little rodints, that is if something like mammles ever come back to existence. You are really dumbing down evolution, it takes more then just time. Final, lots of radiation takes a lot of time to go away, want an extream example. Look up in the sky during the day, you see that big yellow ball up there, i think its been around for more then a few million years. And we sure cant live up there. its radiation

10-02-2004, 05:42 PM	#34
Dark Black Even eviller than black! Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 114	As far as evolution cares (not that it does, it's just a concept created entirely by human minds, like nature) humans would only be 'wrong' if they became extinct. It doesn't matter how many other animals humans kill, or how badly they cock-up the environment, if they survive, they are right. We REALLY shouldn't try to protect other animals. Why? Let's take an example. Rat A is a successful animal. It evolves into Rat B. Rat B is a better rat. It eats all the food, breeds faster and adapts quicker. Rat A dies. It's just like that for humans. The only difference is that humans have the ability to stop. But why the hell would we want to? It's easy to say 'Stop! We are bad and stuff for killing things!' when you have all the food, warmth and security you want. But naturally things are very different. If things didn't make other things extinct, we'd be up to our necks in little shrimps and crap that suck balls as animals. Evolution got us where we are today. Don't spit in it's face just because you feel guilty about how it works. All animals play by the rules, and die by the rules. Oh, and why do all environmentalists assume we have reached the pinnacle of possible technology? Even if we stayed at our current technological discovery rate (which we aren't. New technology helps us discover new things even faster. It's exponential, man!) we'd be discovering new ways of making food and energy faster than we could use these new sources out. Think about GM foods. If it wasn't for religious zealots and fuckwitted environmentalists stopping this kind of research, you're so called overpopulation problem wouldn't be.

10-02-2004, 06:56 PM	#35
Psrdirector Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: In the worst State in the damn world Indiana Posts: 1,261	If we blow every nuke there wouldnt be a planet left. thats what i am saying, NOTHING WILL BE LEFT. the earth would never recover we should protect other things cause they also deserve to live

10-03-2004, 11:49 AM	#40
Dark Black Even eviller than black! Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 114	Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear... poor little ih8stupidppl... Anti-matter is very much a reality. As I stated before, Anti-matter DOES already exist. It isn't very far off in the future. All anti-matter is, is atoms that have an electron and neutron core surrounded by protons (thus the anti bit). But it is VERY VERY expensive and hard to make. Also, when people talk about finding new fuel types they don't mean new ethanol based fuel. What, do you think somebodies just going to spot some lying around and go 'Hey! Lookit that! We could use that as fuel! I'VE SAVED THE WORLD!!!!11!1!!!' Not happening, I'm afraid. And renewable fuel sources, like wind, have already been discovered, so how could anyone DISCOVER THEM, dumbass? And Nuclear Fission is safe. The reason it is failing is because new power plants cost LOTS to build. And I was talking about Nuclear FUSION before, which is different from Fission.