Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
I think the human race will be driven to the very brink of extinction before it can stop destroying this planet. Earth will be fine ... eventually ... as long as the majority of us aren't on it. Sadly.
in terms of nuclear war, any of you guys played fallout?
in my opinion i dont think our race is in any immediate trouble, sure we're running out of resources which could set us back technologically for a while but we'll certainly overcome it. we'll be around for millions of years to come no doubt.
(April 25, 2011 at 7:30 am)Napoleon666 Wrote: in terms of nuclear war, any of you guys played fallout?
Fallout, any version, is a bad example. The physics of that universe aren't even the same as ours.
"How is it that a lame man does not annoy us while a lame mind does? Because a lame man recognizes that we are walking straight, while a lame mind says that it is we who are limping." - Pascal
(April 25, 2011 at 7:30 am)Napoleon666 Wrote: in terms of nuclear war, any of you guys played fallout?
Fallout, any version, is a bad example. The physics of that universe aren't even the same as ours.
lmao i wasn't saying that would be the outcome of a nuclear war, i'm pretty sure super mutants wouldnt be walking around.
i just thought it was an interesting take on it
The human race will definatively die out at some point in time and for at least one of the following reasons:
1) We would eventually outgrow our own existance. Humans would replace ourselves with something better.
2) We would naturally evolve into another species (a variation of #1 as #1 assumes the same thing, technologically induced)
3) We wipe ourselves out (nukes, runaway greenhouse effect from global warming, antimatter explosion that obliterates the crust of the earth, - take your pick)
4) Natural death, such as by gamma-ray burst, a super-solar flare, etc - take your pick.
It's only a matter of time before one of the above things happen, though I'm sure if 1 or 2 were true, we'd have genetic archives of ourselves as we originally were just because that's how humans roll.
If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools and next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers...
Ignorance and fanaticism are ever busy and need feeding. Always feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers; tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lecturers, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After a while, Your Honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth centry when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind. ~Clarence Darrow, at the Scopes Monkey Trial, 1925
Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. ~Ronald Reagan
April 25, 2011 at 12:46 pm (This post was last modified: April 25, 2011 at 5:07 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(April 25, 2011 at 5:39 am)Cinjin Cain Wrote:
(April 25, 2011 at 5:34 am)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote:
Cinjin Cain Wrote:#1 the current condition of the resources of this planet
They are fine. When we start dying, they will still be fine.
yes, that is one side of the debate. The other side, of which there is far more evidence, is that earths resources are not "fine" ... but I do enjoy the "nuh uuh" argument when people like myself express concern about our planet.
Define "not fine".
(April 25, 2011 at 7:28 am)Cinjin Cain Wrote: Hell, I'm just going to say it.
I think the human race will be driven to the very brink of extinction before it can stop destroying this planet. Earth will be fine ... eventually ... as long as the majority of us aren't on it. Sadly.
I dislike the vainglorious word "destroy" thrown around in relation to our planet. Our civilization's industry and economy depends on the preservation of a much more strongent set of environmental conditions on the earth then is required by bulk of the ecosystem to survive. If we actually set out to destroy the planet, our civilization will keel over and croak from the initial effects long before we go far enough to endanger the earth's carrying capacity for life in the long run.
April 25, 2011 at 2:14 pm (This post was last modified: April 25, 2011 at 2:17 pm by ib.me.ub.)
Quote:The report, based on scientific data from across the world, reveals that more than a third of the natural world has been destroyed by humans over the past three decades.
not fine = finite.
chuck Wrote:If we actually set out to destroy the planet, our civilization will keel over and croak from the initial effects long before we go far enough to endanger the earth's carrying capacity for life in the long run.
We don't need to set out to do anything, all we need to do is carry on as usual.
An asteroid hit of the magnitude of Chicxulub would probably suffice to wipe us out but failing that I expect that we will suffer through a major die-off but there will be enough survivors to start all over again fucking things up.
April 25, 2011 at 3:23 pm (This post was last modified: April 25, 2011 at 3:28 pm by Violet.)
Cinjin Cain Wrote:objection here. Firstly, this is just your opinion, and thank god for that, cause if everybody treated this opinion of yours as some kind of 'truth' we'd have nothing but dry rainforests, fish free seas and oil coating the surface of the ocean. Secondly, how is having enough food for everyone on the planet a question of "how does this work out efficiently?" What "industry is being damage" when we run out of water or fuel? We ask those questions all the time and quite frankly ... we're trying to do both... protect the planet AND feed the masses.
Value is a subjective quantity. Rainforests do a relatively small amount for us, fish free seas would have us lose wild seafood (which means that an entire industry that I happen to value somewhat highly would be shut down), and why the fuck would we dump oil into the oceans when tourism absolutely thrives on beaches?
We don't need to have enough food/water/fuel on the planet for everyone, and it would be inefficient and damaging on a whole for everyone to receive all of that. We are not going to run out of water. We may run low to the point that many die... but there will still be water.
It's moronic to try to feed the masses without a controlled population. Start limiting births, and you can start talking about trying to feed everyone. It's even more ridiculous to try to accomplish protecting the planet when the most damaging thing to it *is* that massive unchecked population.
Quote:An example: China has lost millions of acres of farmland due to massive water shortages. This in turn, does no allow them to grow the necessary food they need to support their own country. This is happening elsewhere. It's happening all over. Read the article I posted ... it's easy to have a cavalier attitude about the earth's resources when you've got a full belly and plenty of video games to play.
It is quite easy for me to let them starve and die while I have a full belly and enjoy myself. I am willing to cut a portion of what is mine to give it to others... but I am not willing to try to feed every member of a population I do not support.
Quote:The concern over this planet is not misguided and here's why ... we don't want people to die. You would be right if all we were talking about was the overall survival of the earth itself. Yep, no problem, the earth will survive just fine. But since many of us are concerned more about the people living on this planet - we can't afford the luxury of sharing your attitude and just ignore the amount of resources that have been diminishing over the past 30 years. The article clearly states that if the all the nations of the world used what the US and the UK use in resources we would need two more planets just to sustain human life on this one. And the world is very quickly moving in that direction.
People do die, and I accept this. Do I want a few billion people to die? Absolutely. Do I also want science to step up and support an even larger population? Of course. I feel it is worthless to help someone that can't control themself, and similarly will see control before I'm going to attempt to help with anything past helping them gain control.
You *can* support the luxury of sharing my attitude, and you can also ignore the amount of resources that have been diminishing since life came into being on this planet. Many countries do not have masses nearly so rich as I, and the US hopefully uses much more than the UK. We have a larger population after all.
Quote:Ending on my original point: There is much concern by the scientific community that the human race could be in real trouble in the relatively near future.
And why not encourage those scientists to do what they can to mitigate the damage done by the rampaging toddler that is humanity? The human race is always in real trouble, and with all these idiotic military alliances and human rights conventions: we do not war nearly enough. It's all well and good that people want to be all nice to each other... but they are fools that think a change in philosophy without a change in how we act comes without cost.
(April 25, 2011 at 7:28 am)Cinjin Cain Wrote: Hell, I'm just going to say it.
I think the human race will be driven to the very brink of extinction before it can stop destroying this planet. Earth will be fine ... eventually ... as long as the majority of us aren't on it. Sadly.
It won't be driven to the brink of extinction before it changes its collective attitude... but it will likely be as a result of many of it dying
(April 25, 2011 at 7:30 am)Napoleon666 Wrote: in terms of nuclear war, any of you guys played fallout?
in my opinion i dont think our race is in any immediate trouble, sure we're running out of resources which could set us back technologically for a while but we'll certainly overcome it. we'll be around for millions of years to come no doubt.
Mutation by nuclear war is in no way that severe. Most will die to the radiation long before they can mutate at all... and those things that do mutate will do so marginally.
However, we are going to be around for millions of years to come if not eternity.
(April 25, 2011 at 3:23 pm)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote:
Cinjin Cain Wrote:objection here. Firstly, this is just your opinion, and thank god for that, cause if everybody treated this opinion of yours as some kind of 'truth' we'd have nothing but dry rainforests, fish free seas and oil coating the surface of the ocean. Secondly, how is having enough food for everyone on the planet a question of "how does this work out efficiently?" What "industry is being damage" when we run out of water or fuel? We ask those questions all the time and quite frankly ... we're trying to do both... protect the planet AND feed the masses.
Value is a subjective quantity. Rainforests do a relatively small amount for us, fish free seas would have us lose wild seafood (which means that an entire industry that I happen to value somewhat highly would be shut down), and why the fuck would we dump oil into the oceans when tourism absolutely thrives on beaches?
We don't need to have enough food/water/fuel on the planet for everyone, and it would be inefficient and damaging on a whole for everyone to receive all of that. We are not going to run out of water. We may run low to the point that many die... but there will still be water.
It's moronic to try to feed the masses without a controlled population. Start limiting births, and you can start talking about trying to feed everyone. It's even more ridiculous to try to accomplish protecting the planet when the most damaging thing to it *is* that massive unchecked population.
Quote:An example: China has lost millions of acres of farmland due to massive water shortages. This in turn, does no allow them to grow the necessary food they need to support their own country. This is happening elsewhere. It's happening all over. Read the article I posted ... it's easy to have a cavalier attitude about the earth's resources when you've got a full belly and plenty of video games to play.
It is quite easy for me to let them starve and die while I have a full belly and enjoy myself. I am willing to cut a portion of what is mine to give it to others... but I am not willing to try to feed every member of a population I do not support.
Quote:The concern over this planet is not misguided and here's why ... we don't want people to die. You would be right if all we were talking about was the overall survival of the earth itself. Yep, no problem, the earth will survive just fine. But since many of us are concerned more about the people living on this planet - we can't afford the luxury of sharing your attitude and just ignore the amount of resources that have been diminishing over the past 30 years. The article clearly states that if the all the nations of the world used what the US and the UK use in resources we would need two more planets just to sustain human life on this one. And the world is very quickly moving in that direction.
People do die, and I accept this. Do I want a few billion people to die? Absolutely. Do I also want science to step up and support an even larger population? Of course. I feel it is worthless to help someone that can't control themself, and similarly will see control before I'm going to attempt to help with anything past helping them gain control.
You *can* support the luxury of sharing my attitude, and you can also ignore the amount of resources that have been diminishing since life came into being on this planet. Many countries do not have masses nearly so rich as I, and the US hopefully uses much more than the UK. We have a larger population after all.
Quote:Ending on my original point: There is much concern by the scientific community that the human race could be in real trouble in the relatively near future.
And why not encourage those scientists to do what they can to mitigate the damage done by the rampaging toddler that is humanity? The human race is always in real trouble, and with all these idiotic military alliances and human rights conventions: we do not war nearly enough. It's all well and good that people want to be all nice to each other... but they are fools that think a change in philosophy without a change in how we act comes without cost.
(April 25, 2011 at 7:28 am)Cinjin Cain Wrote: Hell, I'm just going to say it.
I think the human race will be driven to the very brink of extinction before it can stop destroying this planet. Earth will be fine ... eventually ... as long as the majority of us aren't on it. Sadly.
It won't be driven to the brink of extinction before it changes its collective attitude... but it will likely be as a result of many of it dying
(April 25, 2011 at 7:30 am)Napoleon666 Wrote: in terms of nuclear war, any of you guys played fallout?
in my opinion i dont think our race is in any immediate trouble, sure we're running out of resources which could set us back technologically for a while but we'll certainly overcome it. we'll be around for millions of years to come no doubt.
Mutation by nuclear war is in no way that severe. Most will die to the radiation long before they can mutate at all... and those things that do mutate will do so marginally.
However, we are going to be around for millions of years to come if not eternity.
You have a cold cold heart ... and no amount of debate on my behalf can change that. Clearly you have made up your mind about the value you put on human life - little to none. Disturbing - but really no surprise I spose after I read your remark about 9/11.
![[Image: Evolution.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk619%2Fjcincain%2FPublic%2FEvolution.png)
