The Need to Breed

[Cinjin]

Same ones I've been repeating over and over again.

Are we at our limit, or are we at the limit of technology and methods that are outdated and well within our ability to replace/modify?

We are at our limit and we have a civilization that, for the most part, doesn't give a shit or is incapable of "modifying." Wishful thinking, as in some cases "modifying" includes the application of technologies that don't even exist.

If overpopulation is so threatening to our environment then how did so few of us (You and me, good ole America) manage to handle so much of the devastation by itself?

I don't know what devastation you're referencing. Clarification of your question.

Is it possible that the overall population is nowhere near as pressing as the various activities of that population -even if it is only a small portion of them engaging in any given activity-?

They are forever and always have been directly tied together. Also, you didn't come close to answering my question by asking me a question. Also, 7 billion people using up every resource on this planet and polluting the atmosphere 24/7 is not what I would call a "small portion."



On an additional note, I would like to get one thing straight just for my own future clarification ...
Do you agree with the majority of the world's scientists, that earth is experiencing global warming?
And if you do, do you agree with the estimations made about greenhouse effects in the coming 25 years?
I just realized that I never even established whether or not you take global warming even remotely seriously.

[The Grand Nudger]

We are at our limit and we have a civilization that, for the most part, doesn't give a shit or is incapable of "modifying." Wishful thinking, as in some cases "modifying" includes the application of technologies that don't even exist.

I just mentioned a technology that does exist. Admittedly it isn;t the cheapest solution and therefore not likely to be shown any sort of preference. I've also mentioned other water saving (and emission saving) technologies as simple as row covers and drip tube, which is predicted to become industry standard.

I don't know what devastation you're referencing. Clarification of your question.

Pick your poison. If we talk about the devastation of the rainforests, for example, you're likely to find hefty US investment - and returns- in the project, yes? The overall global warming pie, heavy US representation. Garbage floating in the pacific...US again.

They are forever and always have been directly tied together. Also, you didn't come close to answering my question by asking me a question. Also, 7 billion people using up every resource on this planet and polluting the atmosphere 24/7 is not what I would call a "small portion."

Take a look at these per capita emissions figures and you tell me whether it looks like a small portion of us or all of us are doing the vast majorty of the polluting Cin. This is just emissions, mind you, ad doesn;t take into account a plethora of other pollutants (or the forces driving the pollution). Hey Aussies, eat shit and die btw (just kidding, lol, but surprised that you're dirtier than we are as of the time of this little write-up)

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...f-co2.html

Take special note of India btw. These guys are the big hitters in the over-population arena...and they happen to have the lowest emissions per capita of anyone on the list......Hell, these people should be having more kids and Aussies and Americans should all take a long walk off a short pier.

On an additional note, I would like to get one thing straight just for my own future clarification ...
Do you agree with the majority of the world's scientists, that earth is experiencing global warming?
And if you do, do you agree with the estimations made about greenhouse effects in the coming 25 years?
I just realized that I never even established whether or not you take global warming even remotely seriously.

Seriously enough that I'm an activist at a state and local level that spends the majority o my time trying to bargain with an industry that is openly hostile to the idea of sustainable operations. Serious enough to make it my 9-5 (such as it is) at my families expense (I made alot more money building guidance chips amigo...). Serious enough that I can't help but disabuse people of popular notions which may not, strictly speaking, be grounded in fact (my beef with organics and sustainability, for example). I don't always agree with the varying and competing estimates, and I frequently don't agree with the doomsday projections based on estimates.

You don't have to be a fucking science denier to suggest that we might be in a position to handle these problems we've made for ourselves, that we're not looking at the end of the world. The end of the world as we know it...I hope so (but we could probably get away with alot less change than I would like..imho).

(I always thought I wore this shit on my sleeve, I was more than a little worried that I talk about it entirely too much...lol, sustainable this, ag that...apparently, this is not the case.)

[cratehorus]

[Cinjin]

Take a look at these per capita emissions figures and you tell me whether it looks like a small portion of us or all of us are doing the vast majorty of the polluting Cin. This is just emissions, mind you, ad doesn;t take into account a plethora of other pollutants (or the forces driving the pollution). Hey Aussies, eat shit and die btw (just kidding, lol, but surprised that you're dirtier than we are as of the time of this little write-up)

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...f-co2.html

Take special note of India btw. These guys are the big hitters in the over-population arena...and they happen to have the lowest emissions per capita of anyone on the list......Hell, these people should be having more kids and Aussies and Americans should all take a long walk off a short pier.

So, let me get this straight.
People need things to survive. Undeniable.
More and more people have created a need for more things. Undeniable.
More things require more resources. Undeniable.
More resources to make more things requires more fuel and emissions. Undeniable.
No people would require no resources. Undeniable.
Population IS indeed a factor to global warming. DENIABLE??????

Regarding India and any other country that has slightly lower greenhouse emissions:
First of all, most of India is a shithole that has been in the dark ages up until recent. Secondly, the world is a global market, and just because India only recently became economically viable doesn't mean that they are not contributing to the "need" factor. They need products, they need fuel, they need all the stupid shit that we pretend to need in this world, and somewhere someone else has to make that shit and ship it all over the planet. Hell, even in the US the average human being eats food that traveled on average 1500 miles to get to their plate. Telling people that some overpopulated country doesn't put out quite as much emissions as some country less crowded and using it as an example of how population is not a factor is dishonest in my opinion. We live in a global market. That massive population is creating those emissions elsewhere and eventually they'll raise their own numbers. Lets see if India's doing so well with their emissions in 30 years. Predictions? Everybody loves 'em.

You don't have to be a fucking science denier to suggest that we might be in a position to handle these problems we've made for ourselves, that we're not looking at the end of the world. The end of the world as we know it...I hope so (but we could probably get away with alot less change than I would like..imho).

I hope you're right, I just don't think you are.

[The Grand Nudger]

Take a look at these per capita emissions figures and you tell me whether it looks like a small portion of us or all of us are doing the vast majorty of the polluting Cin. This is just emissions, mind you, ad doesn;t take into account a plethora of other pollutants (or the forces driving the pollution). Hey Aussies, eat shit and die btw (just kidding, lol, but surprised that you're dirtier than we are as of the time of this little write-up)

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...f-co2.html

Take special note of India btw. These guys are the big hitters in the over-population arena...and they happen to have the lowest emissions per capita of anyone on the list......Hell, these people should be having more kids and Aussies and Americans should all take a long walk off a short pier.

So, let me get this straight.
People need things to survive. Undeniable.
More and more people have created a need for more things. Undeniable.
More things require more resources. Undeniable.
More resources to make more things requires more fuel and emissions. Undeniable.
No people would require no resources. Undeniable.
Population IS indeed a factor to global warming. DENIABLE??????

Yup, and I don't feel like repeating myself for what has to be approaching double digits.

Regarding India and any other country that has slightly lower greenhouse emissions:

Slightly lower......slightly..lower? Are we still talking population?

First of all, most of India is a shithole that has been in the dark ages up until recent. Secondly, the world is a global market, and just because India only recently became economically viable doesn't mean that they are not contributing to the "need" factor. They need products, they need fuel, they need all the stupid shit that we pretend to need in this world, and somewhere someone else has to make that shit and ship it all over the planet.

Absolutely, human beings have needs, I don;t hold any grudges against anyone on that count. Nevertheless, theres a wide gulf between what they need and what we get (from them..no less). If there weren't, why would there be a problem with their numbers? Surely that many people are capable of producing all the products they need...right?

Hell, even in the US the average human being eats food that traveled on average 1500 miles to get to their plate. Telling people that some overpopulated country doesn't put out quite as much emissions as some country less crowded and using it as an example of how population is not a factor is dishonest in my opinion.

"Quite as much" doesn't even come close, if you go down the honesty road this isn't going to be pretty Cinjin. Rather than calling me dishonest, or asking me what I'm selling, you could always handle this single objection that I've raised. I have been honest, I have provided numbers (we could dispute those numbers, that would be a start), I've asked a legitimate question (multiple times) and I get nothing. Look, you asked me if I was a science denier not but one post ago, what do you think those emission numbers are? We have a disagreement about what they mean, it would seem. To me, it would seem establish that a small number of us are responsible for the overwhelming majority of emissions (and especially so per capita - go back a few decades and China and India wouldn't even be on that list btw, but we would). To me, this suggests that activity, and not numbers, are a factor for our current problems. Address the activity, if the problem persists, maybe then look at the population again. As an interesting aside, to control the emissions of India via the population you would have to remove and or prevent about 15 or 16 Indians to every 1 American to achieve commensurate levels of reduction. To reverse the roles, that means that a single american child is going to be responsible for more than a dozen Indian children's worth of emissions...and we;re supposed to go tout population control to these people...even as an educational policy? Wow, yeah, why not, I mean it sure as hell looks like it's been working for us /sarcasm.

We live in a global market. That massive populations is creating those emissions elsewhere and eventually they'll raise their own numbers. Lets see if India's doing so well with their emissions in 30 years. Predictions? Everybody loves 'em.

Where will our emissions be in thirty years? Is there some rule that emissions can only go up? Maybe India will be the first big adopter of a sustainable society (they have alot less invested in conventional tech than we do. and stand to gain a hell of alot more...think about that.)

You don't have to be a fucking science denier to suggest that we might be in a position to handle these problems we've made for ourselves, that we're not looking at the end of the world. The end of the world as we know it...I hope so (but we could probably get away with alot less change than I would like..imho).

I hope you're right, I just don't think you are.
[/quote]

[cratehorus]

More resources to make more things requires more fuel and emissions. Undeniable.

Deniable, you seem to be arguing for enviromentalism, which if was solved, would end your concerns about population

[The Grand Nudger]

Well..to be fair to Cin, end them? Probably not. Belay them for a good while? That's more reasonable.

[Cinjin]

Absolutely, human beings have needs, I don;t hold any grudges against anyone on that count. Nevertheless, theres a wide gulf between what they need and what we get (from them..no less). If there weren't, why would there be a problem with their numbers? Surely that many people are capable of producing all the products they need...right?

That's low man. Saying that you don't hold grudges against anyone for needing things implies that I was holding just such a grudge. I made no such remark nor was it implied.

Hell, even in the US the average human being eats food that traveled on average 1500 miles to get to their plate. Telling people that some overpopulated country doesn't put out quite as much emissions as some country less crowded and using it as an example of how population is not a factor is dishonest in my opinion.

"Quite as much" doesn't even come close, if you go down the honesty road this isn't going to be pretty Cinjin. Rather than calling me dishonest, or asking me what I'm selling, you could always handle this single objection that I've raised. I have been honest, I have provided numbers (we could dispute those numbers, that would be a start),

Obviously, if two people dispute what the other considers to be fact than both people have to run on the assumption that his opponent is being dishonest, if at the very least, only with himself. You sir, may consider me to be dishonest because I dispute what you consider to be fact just as I do the same. Don't take it as such the great insult. If I felt that you were being completely honest with yourself, we would have absolutely nothing to contest. I don't feel your point is at ALL fair, therefore I find it to be (not you personally, only your point) "dishonest."

I've asked a legitimate question (multiple times) and I get nothing.

I have answered the questions that I have deemed fair. You have answered my questions, most often, with only more questions. If out of the two of us, someone has avoided more direct questions - it has been you sir.

Look, you asked me if I was a science denier not but one post ago, what do you think those emission numbers are?

and? It was simply a question not an implication, as you made above. I wanted to know where the man I was debating stood on the issue. Now I know. Also, I did indeed read the link of the emission numbers you sent.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's low man. Saying that you don't hold grudges against anyone for needing things implies that I was holding just such a grudge. I made no such remark nor was it implied.

Well, your remark about 7 billion people using resources and polluting would seem to be a jab as well, it;s not like all 7 billion of them are actually doing a whole hell of alot of polluting, and a pronounced lack of resources characterizes large swathes of that seven billion. If I wanted to take a jab at you Cin...I would have been a tad more explicative -you've watched me post for a good year now-. Calling my objections dishonest rather than addressing them isn't exactly putting the toe on the line and taking manly shots at each others chins is it? Nevertheless, I didn't intend to imply that you did. Perhaps I could rephrase. A certain level of pollution per capita is acceptable to me as the cost of a human life.

Hell, even in the US the average human being eats food that traveled on average 1500 miles to get to their plate. Telling people that some overpopulated country doesn't put out quite as much emissions as some country less crowded and using it as an example of how population is not a factor is dishonest in my opinion.

Obviously, if two people dispute what the other considers to be fact than both people have to run on the assumption that his opponent is being dishonest, if at the very least, only with himself. You sir, may consider me to be dishonest because I dispute what you consider to be fact just as I do the same. Don't take it as such the great insult. If I felt that you were being completely honest with yourself, we would have absolutely nothing to contest. I don't feel your point is at ALL fair, therefore I find it to be (not you personally, only your point) "dishonest."

Explain what isn't fair about it? What I consider to be a fact is that a disproportionately small number of us contributes a disproportionately large amount to the overall shit pie. What I consider to be a fact is that the overall population of society doesn't seem to be the deciding factor in it's ability to pollute. Is this what we have a disagreement about? You and I personally could bang our heads together and find a way to pollute at a greater rate than a number of small countries, and judging by the numbers we see, it almost seems as though somewhere, at some time, people actually did this....

I have answered the questions that I have deemed fair. You have answered my questions, most often, with only more questions. If out of the two of us, someone has avoided more direct questions - it has been you sir.

I'm sorry, let me address that, ask again, bullet points maybe. I'll try to answer as directly as possible. I'll even repeat myself...if it;s absolutely neccessarry. Let me just add this, since it seems important to you...I've answered questions that I have deemed unfair. I'm not trying to avoid a god-damned thing in this discussion. I suggested that we kill all the marmosets......remember?

and? It was simply a question not an implication, as you made above.

As you interpreted above, but that's okay, i suppose i could have worded it differently and that wouldn't have been an issue.

I wanted to know where the man I was debating stood on the issue. Now I know. Also, I did indeed read the link of the emission numbers you sent.

And? After reading that link you still feel that my objections or my questions in support of those objections are unfair? I would really like to know why. How am I supposed to offer you sdupport for my position if it's going to be dismissed as "unfair"? How are we going to have a discussion about this?

[Cinjin]

And? After reading that link you still feel that my objections or my questions in support of those objections are unfair? I would really like to know why. How am I supposed to offer you sdupport for my position if it's going to be dismissed as "unfair"? How are we going to have a discussion about this?

These questions seem to address the heart of the matter, so I'll simply bring it back down to these.

Yes, after reading the link I still find your objections unfair. What I'm curious about is why you think I didn't tell you why. I very clearly already told you why:

Regarding India and any other country that has slightly lower greenhouse emissions:
First of all, most of India is a shithole that has been in the dark ages up until recent. Secondly, the world is a global market, and just because India only recently became economically viable doesn't mean that they are not contributing to the "need" factor. They need products, they need fuel, they need all the stupid shit that we pretend to need in this world, and somewhere someone else has to make that shit and ship it all over the planet. Hell, even in the US the average human being eats food that traveled on average 1500 miles to get to their plate. Telling people that some overpopulated country doesn't put out quite as much emissions as some country less crowded and using it as an example of how population is not a factor is dishonest in my opinion. We live in a global market. That massive population is creating those emissions elsewhere and eventually they'll raise their own numbers. Lets see if India's doing so well with their emissions in 30 years. Predictions? Everybody loves 'em.

The bold remarks is the basic premise of why I think it was unfair to use India's low emissions as a justification for unlimited, and what amounts to, irresponsible population growth.

Since you feel India is the shining example of population and it's "non-effect" on global warming, does this mean the human race should have carte blanche on breeding into oblivion with no concern about what effects we are supposedly not having on our planet?


EDIT: I gotta get some sleep. I'll pick up with this again soon as I can.