OilFinder2 wrote:If someone wants to complain about population growth, that is fine. But if you yourself aren't willing to starve to death to save the planet, you should not be complaining about creating new farmland to feed all the other people who, just like you, don't want to willingly starve to death to save the planet.
BTW, the ice age I referred to above was around ~600-800 million years ago, not 300. Info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryogenian#Climate
rangerone314 wrote:OilFinder2 wrote:If someone wants to complain about population growth, that is fine. But if you yourself aren't willing to starve to death to save the planet, you should not be complaining about creating new farmland to feed all the other people who, just like you, don't want to willingly starve to death to save the planet.
BTW, the ice age I referred to above was around ~600-800 million years ago, not 300. Info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryogenian#Climate
Why do they have to starve to death instead of making fewer babies, to save the planet?
I'm not a crack addict and I have every right to complain if someone burns down a forest to grow coca.
Maybe the problem is the 3rd world is addicted like crack addicts to unprotected sex without birthcontrol.
OilFinder2 wrote: If you yourself aren't willing to voluntarily starve to death or jump off cliffs to save the planet, and since you don't expect anyone else to do the same, how do you expect to feed all the people who have the same needs as you do?
OilFinder2 wrote:This is the tree-hugger dilemma: they don't really HAVE a solution for this. If you tell them there are bountiful amounts of usable farmland in Russia and Brazil, they complain that this will enable the feeding of too many people at the expense of nature. But when you tell them the alternative is to let them all starve, they themselves aren't eager to be one of those willing to starve, so why would anyone else do so? Is it OK for you to eat, but not anyone else? What hypocricy!
rangerone314 wrote:Why do they have to starve to death instead of making fewer babies, to save the planet?
[/quote]rangerone314 wrote:Maybe the problem is the 3rd world is addicted like crack addicts to unprotected sex without birthcontrol.
eXpat wrote:Because the moron thinks he found some valid counter argument to support his consumption dreams. For the record i would gladly starve off in front of the cameras 24/7 if that would stop the disproportionate destruction of nature by morons like you, but it won´t happen, you know why?, because i can do it, and all the people in the forum can go for it but it won´t be change anything because morons like YOU have to have their cozy lifestyle, here is an example, tell me did this:
stop the Vietnam war? here you have people self immolating as you want for an issue less important than the one we are discussing here. What changed? nothing, nothing at all.
So stop trying to change the issue. YOU are the one advocating the destruction of the little virgin land that still remains in this planet to feed even more people.
What about your proposals? what about some voluntary powerdown, from the countries than use more energy and food? what about drastic measures to control population? are you in favor of that? Of course not, i bet you are in the camp that says "eventually population will stabilize for itself" very nice argument. kick the solution to some indefinite future to others take the responsability. And lets keep our way of life, what the hell, i´m not to blame.
Finally the true colours of Shitfinder have appeared eh? nothing will stand in the way to my plasma tv and my disney holidays. Wow, what a pathetic excuse for a human being.
eXpat wrote:So stop trying to change the issue. YOU are the one advocating the destruction of the little virgin land that still remains in this planet to feed even more people.
OilFinder2 wrote:You have answered your own question. If you aren't willing to kill yourself to save the planet, or if you aren't willing to let yourself starve to save the planet, then you cannot expect anyone else to. Here you are, eating food just like everyone else, typing words in front of a plasma computer sceen in your home, and yet you are trying to tell us that we shouldn't eat and that we shouldn't engage in consumptive lifestyles. Is there any wonder why so many consider your movement to be a fringe movement?
Pretorian wrote:OilFinder2 wrote: If you yourself aren't willing to voluntarily starve to death or jump off cliffs to save the planet, and since you don't expect anyone else to do the same, how do you expect to feed all the people who have the same needs as you do?
Excuse me? i do not expect to feed them at all. It is their problem to find their own alimentation, just as I find mine in the fridge and restaurants. What are they, my children that I have to expect to feed them?
Pretorian wrote:OilFinder2 wrote:This is the tree-hugger dilemma: they don't really HAVE a solution for this. If you tell them there are bountiful amounts of usable farmland in Russia and Brazil, they complain that this will enable the feeding of too many people at the expense of nature. But when you tell them the alternative is to let them all starve, they themselves aren't eager to be one of those willing to starve, so why would anyone else do so? Is it OK for you to eat, but not anyone else? What hypocricy!
Why would anyone else do so? Nobody asks to starve anybody. Its not like you get to choose. Most of the people who expect to be fed are up for some news very soon . We all compete for resources. The losers will die. And I sure hope they will die before cutting off all the trees.
OilFinder2 wrote:If you are right, and you are one of the ones who "expect to be fed," you won't have such a cavalier attitude about those destined to die if you yourself or some people you know are among the "losers" destined to die.
rangerone314 wrote:What we have here is basically a values conflict, and a timescales conflict.
One could also say, in a billion years, does it matter if a few humans starved to death?
2 Questions that need to be answered:
#1) Why is it NECESSARY for population to increase?
#2) Why should anyone or anything OTHER THAN the people being irresponsible, suffer or be responsible for them?
Pretorian wrote:OilFinder2 wrote:If you are right, and you are one of the ones who "expect to be fed," you won't have such a cavalier attitude about those destined to die if you yourself or some people you know are among the "losers" destined to die.
You know, if grandma had testicles, she'd be a grandpa. Too much "ifs" and "ands".
I am not the one who expets to be fed. I am the one who expects to eat, one way or the other. My food supply can come from cornucopian's thighs for all I care. No need to plow over cerrado for that.
OilFinder2 wrote:rangerone314 wrote:#2) Why should anyone or anything OTHER THAN the people being irresponsible, suffer or be responsible for them?
No, in a billion years it would not matter if a few humans starved to death, anymore than it would matter if they were all well-fed.
#1) It is not "necessary" for population to increase. But if it *does* increase, it is "desirable" to feed them. The reason it is "desirable" to feed them is because all humans want and need to eat, and no one wants to starve. Since no one wants to starve, a way to feed them should be found. Essentially it is applying to everyone else that which you would apply to oneself:
-- I do not want to starve to death. Therefore I must have food to eat.
-- Everyone else has the same need and desire as I. Therefore they all must have food to eat.
And back to the population, as noted above human population growth has been slowing. Someday it is likely to stop growing. But this is not going to happen overnight. In the meantime the population *will* grow and all those new people will want to eat, just like you and I.
#2) Not sure what you meant here. But if I understood you correctly the answer to this question lies in my response to #1. It is not a question of someone being "responsible" for anyone else. It is a question of everyone wanting the same thing you and I want - to have food and not starve to death. Thus we are led to the question of how they will be provided with food.
rangerone314 wrote:If you make too many people, why SHOULDN"T they starve
OilFinder2 wrote:Maybe if I put it more succinctly it will make more sense.
1) In the very long term, nothing matters.
2) In the short term, there is a choice:
-- A. Everybody can eat
-- B. Everybody be allowed to starve
The reason I say "everybody" is because I'm assuming no one is any more or less special than anyone else. You would have to provide a compelling reason why you are special and should be allowed to eat while others are less special and can be allowed to starve. In absense of that compelling reason, everybody has the same needs. Next . . .rangerone314 wrote:If you make too many people, why SHOULDN"T they starve
Where do you draw the line at "too many?" What if TPTB had decided 5 years before *you* were born that there were "too many people" and food production should be curtailed, and thus by the time you were born there were food shortages, and so it was *you* who would now be starving? Once you tell me "there are too many people" you are essentially telling me that you are special and that everyone born after you (or after your arbitrary date) *isn't* special. As I said, you're going to have to come up with a compelling reason to explain the reasoning behind your "specialness" and the "non-specialness" of others born after you.
As for your self-feeing farm, imagine everyone in the entire world doing that, just like you. If that's the way to go, then you'd *really* have to worry about the Brazilian cerrado being plowed over.
OilFinder2 wrote:Once you tell me "there are too many people" you are essentially telling me that you are special and that everyone born after you (or after your arbitrary date) *isn't* special. As I said, you're going to have to come up with a compelling reason to explain the reasoning behind your "specialness" and the "non-specialness" of others born after you.
rangerone314 wrote:Maybe the problem is the 3rd world is addicted like crack addicts to unprotected sex without birthcontrol.
rangerone314 wrote:Imagine everyone in the entire world doing that. But they're not, because they have stuff like the cerrado being plowed over. Because TPTB think that is acceptable rather than people being independent or societies living within their means because they TPTB want more slave ants.
Actually "ants" is a misleading term, as in the ant and the grasshopper fable. Most people are grasshoppers... (sometimes known as locusts)
And since everyone is NOT doing that, maybe I *AM* special. All the wonderfully pro-business, pro-expanding economy, pro-responsibility conservatives emphasize self-reliance.
Return to Geopolitics & Global Economics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests