(October 26, 2011 at 3:01 pm)Rhythm Wrote: "it can't be done", "we can't support that many" pisses me off, since its just an attempt to shirk the sad fact that we can and don't. We'd rather argue for population control and blame it on some nebulous capacity instead of owning up to how poorly we treat each other (and our motivations for doing so).

^

I feel it needs to be said twice (thrice, since I quoted you). I'm extremely stubborn and I come from a family of stubborn people.

It's hard? So fucking what?
You're injured? So fucking what?
You're disabled? So fucking what?
Your environment is shitty? So fucking what?

So you make excuses for not trying, and I am quite tired of hearing it. If you're not going to try: don't make an excuse, own up to it. I'm not trying until I see an open and significant revolt in america. Until then I am guilty of supporting this corrupt and law-filled country with my taxes.

How far away are we from this posing a problem?

(October 26, 2011 at 3:16 pm)searchingforanswers Wrote: How far away are we from this posing a problem?

At least two states. Otherwise: I'd end you

Serious answer: have you seen china or india, or the problems of africa? That's how far away we are from 'this' posing a problem.

(October 26, 2011 at 2:58 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Even the rich will suffer.

When you starve with a tiger, the tiger starves last.

You can live off the carcass of the tiger for a lot longer than a tiger can live off of your carcass. So shooting the tiger lengthes the average life expectency of you and the tiger. So reasonable, equitable solution for the greter good of both you and the tiger is clearly to shoot the tiger first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK0rXRmC4DQ

(October 26, 2011 at 1:49 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Maximum supportable 9bn by whose metrics? Sounds like a modern version of a doomsayer to me.

Check it out:

http://sciencefocus.com/feature/environm...n-overload

Fresh water limitations. David Attenborough is a major supporter of the idea.

Very well, you post a ~20 minute video block which I'm not going to bother watching that no doubt supports your views. I'll double that wasted time-space

(I don't care enough about this filler shit to make certain they all say what I want them to. Mostly just know if you've got something to say: say it. Fuck what others say. If I wanted to know: I'd ask them.)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55b0roxw2Dk

(October 26, 2011 at 4:03 pm)Vaeolet Lilly Blossom Wrote: Very well, you post a ~20 minute video block which I'm not going to bother watching that no doubt supports your views. I'll double that wasted time-space

It was a clip with Sir David Atternborough, and his knowledge and experience means his conclusion and views as a naturalist weighs heavily.


If you only listen to one side, blind you are.

(October 26, 2011 at 3:03 pm)Napoleon Wrote:

(October 26, 2011 at 2:58 pm)Cinjin Wrote:

Quote:The United States is the world’s largest provider of international food aid, supplying more than half of all food aid designated to alleviate hunger, about four million metric tons of food per year.

I wonder if you had a pie chart, what the amount of food would be that the US donates in comparison to what it consumes. I'm guessing the amount it donates would be a pretty small slice.

Yeah, it would definitely be much smaller than what we consume, but until such time that we as a country are donating less than even one other country, we don't deserve to be chastised for our "lack of charity". What country DONATES more food than it consumes? None ... and quite frankly, it would be unreasonable to expect that of any country in today's economical environment. I know I know, "to much is given - much is required" ... and the statistics show that we do just that.


Everybody hates the USA until someone needs help --- pretty typical. We are not the reason that parts of the world are starving -- and to say so is self-righteous.

Like I always say, it's lonely at the top, and if you think you can do better, by all means (and I mean this) please DO take our place. I'm sick of being blamed for the world's woes.

(October 26, 2011 at 4:10 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: It was a clip with Sir David Atternborough, and his knowledge and experience means his conclusion and views as a naturalist weighs heavily.

If you only listen to one side, blind you are.

I don't give a fuck if it was a clip of Jebus Christ himself, with the secrets of the life, the universe, and everything included and stated simply enough that I can understand them. Point being: watching a movie is a waste of my time.

Before you suggest I haven't listened to 'the other side': not only have I heard Atternborough on the subject of water before (I believe he is full of crockshit), but I have responded to (i think?) almost every person here who has posted from your side (who I also believe are full of crockshit).

If you don't know enough about what you're talking about to have you're own opinion: stop talking. I've made plenty of points here that have gone unaddressed (ie: subterrenian farms, hydroponics, living in antarctica etc, and I'll add another two: catacombs for dwelling places; eradicating all cows, pigs, horses, and other creatures that we eat that take up space and are inefficient for feeding us)... but I'm not complaining. I've said my bits and if you don't have anything to return with: okay?