[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
tom63 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The climate isn’t changing.
Man isn’t powerful enough to change it.
I agree, but I think it’s better to say we are not changing it. I think the we are changing it is bordering on narcissism. we are SO important and have to do something because only WE can do it!
Every single person dies tomorrow on this planet and the planet will still go on.
hmmmmm…[/quote]
So? What is the optimum population of the planet (for all organisms), pray tell?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
hmmmmm…
GL - you’re too sadistic for me (and that’s saying something) - why would you advocate killing that many people![/quote]
Nice logical jump. Or did you just intend it as a pure strawman?
As a slight aside, what happens to birthrates when a country becomes “developed” economically?
In your response, could you please throw some of that crazy shit around? Cheers.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
tom63 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The climate isn’t changing.
Man isn’t powerful enough to change it.
I agree, but I think it’s better to say we are not changing it. I think the we are changing it is bordering on narcissism. we are SO important and have to do something because only WE can do it!
Every single person dies tomorrow on this planet and the planet will still go on.
hmmmmm…
So? What is the optimum population of the planet (for all organisms), pray tell?[/quote]
You’d think someone with at least a rudimentary understanding of economics and history to realize that things are not as they once were. What has happened to world production over the last 200 years? world population?
“Man isn’t powerful enough to change it”? Perhaps with the population at .5billion and world production steady…what happens when we start jumping exponentially?
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
You’d think someone with at least a rudimentary understanding of economics and history to realize that things are not as they once were. What has happened to world production over the last 200 years? world population?
[/quote]
That doesn’t prove whether it is a bad thing or not…
Technology has made the earth more productive. Technology will continue to prove the naysayers wrong.
[quote]pwilliams wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Every single person dies tomorrow on this planet and the planet will still go on.
This is actually what the environmentalists want.
They see themselves as custodians of the environment and only their class of people have rights to exist on it.
Read Rainbow 6?[/quote]
No, should I?
I agree with many of the sentiments here, and would like to add:
Man loves to think he is more important than he is. He loves to think that HE is changing the climate, maybe because that makes him think he has some control over it.
He also loves to make doomsday predictions.
And some love to elevate themselves to “saviour of the planet” or something similar.
But the worst thing is, there are some who have a lot of power and influence and usually not our best interests in mind, who will manipulate all the above to their own gains.
I predict: worldwide carbon tax designed to steal money from everyone and put it in the pockets of the few, and also restrain / influence whole countries.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
hmmmmm…
GL - you’re too sadistic for me (and that’s saying something) - why would you advocate killing that many people!
Nice logical jump. Or did you just intend it as a pure strawman?
As a slight aside, what happens to birthrates when a country becomes “developed” economically?
In your response, could you please throw some of that crazy shit around? Cheers. [/quote]
Well apparently - they dropped to less than sustainable rates and a lot of illegal aliens start moving in . . . .
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
hmmmmm…
GL - you’re too sadistic for me (and that’s saying something) - why would you advocate killing that many people!
Nice logical jump. Or did you just intend it as a pure strawman?
As a slight aside, what happens to birthrates when a country becomes “developed” economically?
In your response, could you please throw some of that crazy shit around? Cheers. [/quote]
I also demand a recount of the census’ taken prior to the birth of 1000 AD - I think someone’s got some splainin to do about how they figured out how many people there were before we figured out how to find them . . .sounds like a government bureaucrat to me . . .
From what I have encountered of latin americans - they are a horny bunch and breed like jackrabbits . . .
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
hmmmmm…
GL - you’re too sadistic for me (and that’s saying something) - why would you advocate killing that many people!
Nice logical jump. Or did you just intend it as a pure strawman?
As a slight aside, what happens to birthrates when a country becomes “developed” economically?
In your response, could you please throw some of that crazy shit around? Cheers. [/quote]
and another thing - why are the environmentalist always trying to fix the wild places and unspoiled nature that are doing great without them? - hell, their the ones flying into these remote places and messing up the natural ecosystems. . .crazy bunch of loons - why aren’t they trying to really accomplish something amazing like clean up NYC or LA . . .ohhh nooo, let’s go mess with the lumberjack out in the middle of freaking nowhere who’s practicing sustainable logging practices and make his life a living hell . . .let’s pick on the original environmentalists- farmers - and make their tough life even tougher with a bunch of asinine rules and regulations - yeah - they’ve really tackled the tough ones alright - the fist environmentalist group that can clean up Mexico City will be the first one that actually deserves any kind of attention . . . the rest should commit ritual suicide and relieve the planet’s burden of sustaining a polluting gas bag . . .
(takes deep breath)
anyone bother to notice that there are more wooded acres in the continental US today than when the original settlers arrived?
First
Then,
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Technology has made the earth more productive. Technology will continue to prove the naysayers wrong.
[/quote]
So “we” aren’t powerful enough, but our technology is? And what “naysayers” are you talking about?
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
First
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The climate isn’t changing.
Man isn’t powerful enough to change it.
Then,
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Technology has made the earth more productive. Technology will continue to prove the naysayers wrong.
So “we” aren’t powerful enough, but our technology is? And what “naysayers” are you talking about?[/quote]
You cannot change “the climate” with technology. It’s like trying to stop the rise of the tides by damming the oceans. Nature will just find another way to relieve the pressure. What technology allows us to do is “transcend” nature but we will never completely escape it.
The naysayers are the ones saying man shouldn’t do certain things that “hurt Mother Earth”. They are the ones shouting about “overpopulation” and the destructiveness of mankind.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
hmmmmm…
GL - you’re too sadistic for me (and that’s saying something) - why would you advocate killing that many people!
Nice logical jump. Or did you just intend it as a pure strawman?
As a slight aside, what happens to birthrates when a country becomes “developed” economically?
In your response, could you please throw some of that crazy shit around? Cheers.
I also demand a recount of the census’ taken prior to the birth of 1000 AD - I think someone’s got some splainin to do about how they figured out how many people there were before we figured out how to find them . . .sounds like a government bureaucrat to me . . . [/quote]
So you don’t think there has been an exponential population increase in the last couple of centuries?
And just to keep us all on our toes, huh?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
hmmmmm…
GL - you’re too sadistic for me (and that’s saying something) - why would you advocate killing that many people!
Nice logical jump. Or did you just intend it as a pure strawman?
As a slight aside, what happens to birthrates when a country becomes “developed” economically?
In your response, could you please throw some of that crazy shit around? Cheers.
and another thing - why are the environmentalist always trying to fix the wild places and unspoiled nature that are doing great without them? - hell, their the ones flying into these remote places and messing up the natural ecosystems. . .crazy bunch of loons - why aren’t they trying to really accomplish something amazing like clean up NYC or LA . . .ohhh nooo, let’s go mess with the lumberjack out in the middle of freaking nowhere who’s practicing sustainable logging practices and make his life a living hell . . .let’s pick on the original environmentalists- farmers - and make their tough life even tougher with a bunch of asinine rules and regulations - yeah - they’ve really tackled the tough ones alright - the fist environmentalist group that can clean up Mexico City will be the first one that actually deserves any kind of attention . . . the rest should commit ritual suicide and relieve the planet’s burden of sustaining a polluting gas bag . . .
(takes deep breath)
[/quote]
Why in the hell would you ask me this? I’m not an environmentalist.
Interesting, care to provide a link or source?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
First
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The climate isn’t changing.
Man isn’t powerful enough to change it.
Then,
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Technology has made the earth more productive. Technology will continue to prove the naysayers wrong.
So “we” aren’t powerful enough, but our technology is? And what “naysayers” are you talking about?
You cannot change “the climate” with technology. It’s like trying to stop the rise of the tides by damming the oceans. Nature will just find another way to relieve the pressure. What technology allows us to do is “transcend” nature but we will never completely escape it.
The naysayers are the ones saying man shouldn’t do certain things that “hurt Mother Earth”. They are the ones shouting about “overpopulation” and the destructiveness of mankind.[/quote]
So you don’t think that pollution has an effect on mankind? Or that population increases have placed additional strains on existing resources? Is this right?
I do not think man is smart enough to grasp , the mechanics of nature , I do feel the world should live as to impact the earth as little as possible
I tend to think environmentalists shoot them selves in the foot by touting such an unknown as man made global warming. I do not know the answer to your question and neither does anyone else
We should be very angry at people that fuck up nature.
http://www.risq.org/article196.html
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
First
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The climate isn’t changing.
Man isn’t powerful enough to change it.
Then,
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Technology has made the earth more productive. Technology will continue to prove the naysayers wrong.
So “we” aren’t powerful enough, but our technology is? And what “naysayers” are you talking about?
You cannot change “the climate” with technology. It’s like trying to stop the rise of the tides by damming the oceans. Nature will just find another way to relieve the pressure. What technology allows us to do is “transcend” nature but we will never completely escape it.
The naysayers are the ones saying man shouldn’t do certain things that “hurt Mother Earth”. They are the ones shouting about “overpopulation” and the destructiveness of mankind.[/quote]
You speak in a philosophical tone, like you have just read a book that has all the answers, the world has a population problem, we also have a pollution problem, and if I were to put my finger on the biggest problem our Earth faces is potable water. It is going to be Fricken expensive
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
So you don’t think that pollution has an effect on mankind? Or that population increases have placed additional strains on existing resources? Is this right?
[/quote]
Slow down. I thought we were only talking about the “fragility of Mother Earth”.
The earth isn’t going to flinch from anything we’re capable of doing to it.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do not think man is smart enough to grasp , the mechanics of nature , I do feel the world should live as to impact the earth as little as possible
I tend to think environmentalists shoot them selves in the foot by touting such an unknown as man made global warming. I do not know the answer to your question and neither does anyone else
We should be very angry at people that fuck up nature.
http://www.risq.org/article196.html[/quote]
I actually pretty much agree with you… wow.
If we are going to get all tree hugging hippy, and help the environment, there are much better ways to spend time and money.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
So you don’t think that pollution has an effect on mankind? Or that population increases have placed additional strains on existing resources? Is this right?
Slow down. I thought we were only talking about the “fragility of Mother Earth”.
The earth isn’t going to flinch from anything we’re capable of doing to it.[/quote]
You are wrong
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
So you don’t think that pollution has an effect on mankind? Or that population increases have placed additional strains on existing resources? Is this right?
Slow down. I thought we were only talking about the “fragility of Mother Earth”.
The earth isn’t going to flinch from anything we’re capable of doing to it.
You are wrong[/quote]
All out thermonuclear war?