So your awareness of your selfish gene has no issue with its incompatibility with reason that transcends itself?

Was that one for me Epi? You'll have to elaborate (if so).

(August 14, 2012 at 11:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(August 14, 2012 at 11:26 pm)apophenia Wrote: The "bolded bit" is not knowably impossible at this time.

Whats not "knowably impossible" about creating resources out of thin air?

First, as a scientific matter, it's not known to be impossible to create resources out of thin air. Period. Moreover, you're engaged in a distinctly uncharitable reading. There is enough energy in a small mountain to solve the world's energy needs for the forseeable future. However that's not a usable resource because we have no way of efficiently accessing that energy. The world's oceans contain enough water to supply our fresh water needs for a long, long time. All we need is to purify it. A decade or so back a device for simply and inexpensively purifying sea water was invented. As a result, the available supply of fresh water to the third world is much greater. Even if resources out of thin air were knowably impossible, it's an asinine reading to assert that this is what was meant, when it's the usable resources that are the problem and their limits, not the quantity of matter and energy in the universe. Increasing the amount of available and usable resources is an equally valid reading. (And yes, I checked the dictionary.) And I suppose when we start importing energy from neighboring unoccupied branes, we're simply using those branes more efficiently than we did before. Have I used the word histrionic yet?

(August 14, 2012 at 11:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

Quote: You may only be able to see things in black and white, but that's a limitation you have, and is not a realistic appraisal. You asserted that no alternative solutions were offered. I showed alternatives. Your response is to deny any real and important differences between these approaches. And no matter what solution is offered, since you apparently aren't capable of discriminating between vastly different methods, all methods will be equal to you. (Really, re-engineering the genome is the same as voluntary reproductive limits? Are you high?)

No, I'm not, but apparently you're having trouble reading, I made no comparison between re-engineering the genome and voluntary limits. If I hit you in the head with a bat or a brick there would be marked differences, not that they would matter to you, and so it goes with your more sinister offerings.

You most certainly did when you claimed and implied that only one solution had been offered. That's implicitly claiming the two are equivalent. As follows:

(August 14, 2012 at 9:59 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(August 14, 2012 at 6:49 pm)apophenia Wrote: This seems profoundly confusing to me. How do we find solutions without trying to find solutions, through discussion, or through real world trials?

You keep using the plural.......have we been reading the same thread?

Let's see, misrepresenting the science, uncharitable reading, lying about what you wrote... What's next?

You can see that your perspective is selfish, Rhythm, yet elsewhere, you have argued against capital punishment. But here, where many ideas have been volleyed back and forth, you have held to the tack that you would rather kill off all other life than restrict the right to produce more competition with your offspring for the resources for which you are willing to kill all other life.

(August 14, 2012 at 11:52 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote:

(August 14, 2012 at 10:04 pm)Cinjin Wrote: Yes I hate it too, but if my rights end someone elses life, than too bad for me.
Should I have the right to end someone elses life just because I can say, "fuck you, those are my rights and I'll do what I want?"

Yes, you should.

And I also have the right to kill you and your family in response Should be is irrelevant... don't see why you should be so sanctimonious regarding such a subjective issue as morals.

But then... I never do

lol ... sorry Sae, I forgot for only a brief moment who I was talking to. Your special brand of logic cannot be refuted. Kill 'em all girlfriend.

Cinjin Wrote:lol ... sorry Sae, I forgot for only a brief moment who I was talking to. Your special brand of logic cannot be refuted. Kill 'em all girlfriend.

Love you too, Cinj

Hey Rhythm: get on league, you hooker!

You see some issue there Epi? All other "non-human" life. I don't see what you see. Look, I was presented with a no-win and I answered honestly. If there were a situation whereby I had to choose between doing something that is over and above all limits I've set for myself (and remember, this is in concept, in practice I'm much more violent and petty) then what sort of rational response would you expect. If I thought that annihilating everything on this rock that wasn't human would better our odds, and that there was nothing else -short of starting to off other human beings- to be done, I'd do it.

(August 15, 2012 at 12:06 am)apophenia Wrote: First, as a scientific matter, it's not known to be impossible to create resources out of thin air. Period.

Right, just known that we can't even conceive of a way that this could occur under our current very successful explanation of things. In other words, impossible.

Quote: Moreover, you're engaged in a distinctly uncharitable reading. There is enough energy in a small mountain to solve the world's energy needs for the forseeable future. However that's not a usable resource because we have no way of efficiently accessing that energy. The world's oceans contain enough water to supply our fresh water needs for a long, long time. All we need is to purify it. A decade or so back a device for simply and inexpensively purifying sea water was invented. As a result, the available supply of fresh water to the third world is much greater. Even if resources out of thin air were knowably impossible, it's an asinine reading to assert that this is what was meant, when it's the usable resources that are the problem and their limits, not the quantity of matter and energy in the universe.

You're telling me whats asinine to read into you comments after proposing that we release a plague? You mentioned increasing the quantity of resources, perhaps you should have been more specific, one single word that's so important to you now was missing then.

Quote:Increasing the amount of available and usable resources is an equally valid reading. (And yes, I checked the dictionary.) And I suppose when we start importing energy from neighboring unoccupied branes, we're simply using those branes more efficiently than we did before. Have I used the word histrionic yet?

Sure you have, but you probably haven't used it very accurately. You know I've argued for this btw, very near the beginning of the thread, look for a solution not to our population problem but for our resource problem (and use the solutions we already ave available), and then- see if we have a population problem and what could be done. I was told that I shouldn't hope for here-to-fore unseen technologies, and the population control train kept right a rollin.

Quote:You most certainly did when you claimed and implied that only one solution had been offered. That's implicitly claiming the two are equivalent. As follows:

(August 14, 2012 at 9:59 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You keep using the plural.......have we been reading the same thread?

Let's see, misrepresenting the science, uncharitable reading, lying about what you wrote... What's next?

Telling you to go fuck yourself. I actually made special and individual mention of politely asking, reread, re-quote, re-post, do whatever you have to do. You offered what, different ways to achieve population control -and I've been arguing against population control for pages, ffs.

It seems that you and I are on the same page about one of them, and I'll grant you that that's a solution. I misread your poorly worded sentence. Mea Culpa. Politely asking is not a solution, and again, it's just another population control scheme. Sure, I'll compare the two on those grounds now that you mention it, whereas before this post I handled them separately. Heres what you're bitching about, in it's entirety, post #90 I believe. Now find Waldo jackass.

Quote:Let me ask you Apo, why go through the trouble of intentionally releasing a viral plague, why go through the hassle of re-engineering our genome? A bullet to the head is just as effective and a hell of alot easier. Whats the fucking difference, are we hoping to wash our hands? Forced limitation of reproduction eh? By what means, likely, again, a bullet. You just let me know when you come up with something a little less sinister and genocidal, okay Apo?

You see anything in there about politely asking (voluntary control)? I don't, I mean, maybe I should use my search function, but, top of my head, doesn't seem to be there.

(August 14, 2012 at 11:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Yes, Shell, those are my animals. It should be pretty well known by now that I extend very little courtesy to animals other than human beings (and none if there's a conflict of interests)

That's quite inextricably dumb. No offense, homey. It is just seriously ridiculous. People are animals. Get over it.

Quote:Im not sure that everyone who is making the largest contribution to this problem is dumb, or doesn;t give a shit.

Well, I would say that if we were facing imminent demise and they did so anyway, they are both.

Quote:In some cases having a ton of kids seems pretty damned smart, and I bet they're decent people even though they had a ton of kids.

I disagree with the former. It is either to have a workforce in a farm or to collect welfare. I honestly can't think of one other reason. As for the latter, sure, but we're talking about being on the brink of a population stimulated genocide. They aren't decent if they know they are killing everyone, including their offspring.

Quote:Tut tut, as of the last census we here in the US have a child per household on average. Telling them they can;t have one is telling the average they can't have any. For something like this to work it has to have an effect on the averages. If we already have an average of one or two kids, why do we need population control?

You can't use averages in this scenario. An average of one child means tons are having none and a bunch are having a bunch. Cut down on the bunch and presto! Also, I never said we need population control right now. We will when octo's kids have octo kids of their own and so on.

Quote:All the octomoms in this country weren't able to dent our very low child per household number.

Then how do you account for the constant rise in our population? Apparently, someone somewhere is having thirty kids a go and isn't telling you.

Quote:It's about all of us, not just a couple of people with 8 kids right? Look, Octomoms in the states are not the ones leading to this big overpopulation problem. I'm going to keep saying this until it really sinks in for everyone (not really directed at you Shell, you just presented me the opportunity).

Yeah, they are. It certainly isn't me, or the lady in Ethiopia with one half-dead kid, or the lady in China with one male kid.

Quote:Hehehe, I hope alot for those people myself. Not the least of which is the hope that a significant portion of them are my direct descendants..and preferably a few dozen generations removed from dear old Great great - - - Grandad.lol.

Well, if you think that killing off everyone Malthusian style is cool, what's the problem with population control? Did I miss your point?

P.S. Don't forget the hordes of genetic mutants. It's all about the highly feasible mutants.

"If I thought that annihilating everything on this rock that wasn't human would better our odds, and that there was nothing else -short of starting to off other human beings- to be done, I'd do it."

But therein seems to lie the rub: You think the rest of the things people have suggested are futile, and so you would seemingly begin ransacking the species of the world before taking extra steps down roads you believe have been so thoroughly trodden as to not bear reconsideration or further gumshoeing.

Quote:That's quite inextricably dumb. No offense, homey. It is just seriously ridiculous. People are animals. Get over it.

LOL, none taken. What was dumb was attempting to answer a no-win when the people who asked the question wanted it to be a no-win to begin with. The scenario is as follows, we've done everything, we're ultra efficient, we have a problem. We have to many people to support with the resources available, namely food and water. We're considering population control. In an effort to brainstorm something that doesn't involve either killing people or enforcing some population control program top down I think to myself "sure are a lot of marmosets drinking water and eating food, fucking marmosets...maybe we should off them first". Ridiculous, sure, but it's an impossible scenario (for me).

Quote:Well, I would say that if we were facing imminent demise and they did so anyway, they are both.

Except that many times these extended family sizes are a direct representation of a survival strategy.

Quote:I disagree with the former. It is either to have a workforce in a farm or to collect welfare. I honestly can't think of one other reason. As for the latter, sure, but we're talking about being on the brink of a population stimulated genocide. They aren't decent if they know they are killing everyone, including their offspring.

Or....people in third world countries have tons of kids knowing that many wont survive and of those that do only one or two will find a way to support their family.

Quote:You can't use averages in this scenario. An average of one child means tons are having none and a bunch are having a bunch. Cut down on the bunch and presto! Also, I never said we need population control right now. We will when octo's kids have octo kids of their own and so on.

I can and I will, because from a global population perspective there is no difference in who has how many children so long as the numbers average out. I know you didn't say that, again, you just presented me with an opportunity. If octos kids follow the trends then they have fewer kids. Octomom is a statistical outlier. If we shifted the numbers around so that everyone had 1 kid, 1.84 or some such, then it wouldn't make much of a difference, because that's where we're at now and we still have a problem, or so I'm told.

Quote:Then how do you account for the constant rise in our population? Apparently, someone somewhere is having thirty kids a go and isn't telling you.

Longevity has a part to play, but I want to mention here that the average child per household actually decreased from the census immediately prior to the most recent one. If you're just talking about the US, we're having fewer kids, but living longer, and we do have immigration. If you're talking globally, yeah, there are folks having kids left right and center -on average even.

Quote:Yeah, they are. It certainly isn't me, or the lady in Ethiopia with one half-dead kid, or the lady in China with one male kid.

The lady in Ethiopia has 10 half dead kids, you know this...The US is in no way leading the wave of overpopulation (again, demonstrated relationship between development, prosperity, and smaller family sizes)

Quote:Well, if you think that killing off everyone Malthusian style is cool, what's the problem with population control? Did I miss your point?

Except that I don't think that's cool....

Epi, it's not that I think that the things offered are futile (at least not all of them), I'm absolutely certain that we could lower our population a great many ways if we wanted to. I think that population control is fantastically bad idea as sold, especially given the reasons it's being sold and it's perceived requirement of immediacy. That it is either ineffectual on the pleasant end, or brutally terrible on the not-so-pleasant end. I'm not just arguing that we haven't really come up with a good scheme, but that we don't really have grounds to come up with one, that other shit should be addressed before it becomes an option (because all of that other shit would have a huge effect on the problem of over-population in the first place, and given all the potential for the not-so-pleasant end, it seems prudent to exhaust other avenues first)

I would begin ransacking the world -after- all steps that don't involve forced population control have been taken. If I was unclear on that that's my bad.