How do they think the food supply can be increased so much?

[OilFinder2]

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.

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?

As for the items on your list, I have nothing against them - but ironically, it's already happening even without any "drastic measures." On this list here for example, you'll discover that per capita energy consumption in the US has been flat or declining for over 30 years. Bet you didn't know that. If it weren't for population growth, we would already be "powering down" without much of a deliberate attempt to do so. This will happen in the rest of the developed world (probably already is happening) and will eventually be followed by the developing world. So the only thing you've got left to complain about is population growth.

Now, I don't share your environmental doomsday p.o.v. even *with* population growth, but I'll humor you for the time being. To understand why I don't share your view, all you have to do is read the many past predictions of environmental doomsday, and get a laugh at their track record. I'm still waiting for that Dieoff which was supposed to happen in the 70's, and then the 80's, and the 90's . . .

[OilFinder2]

BTW, this is a gross mischaracterization of the cornucopian view:

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.

You act as if we are jumping up and down in joy yelling, "Yeah! Rip up that cerrado! Plow over the rainforests! Woohoo!" Cornucopians like nature and wilderness as much as everyone else. The reason why we accept some "destruction" of nature is because:

1. It is necessary to feed a growing human population. As mentioned before, if that population stops growing, then - fine! But if it doesn't, then . . .
2. There is more than enough tillable land and other resources to feed them. And lastly . . .
3. Humans aren't going to be here forever, cornucopia or not. Once we're gone, nature will carry on as it has for a billion years before us. Though nature, too, will eventually disappear once the earth starts to fry up from an expanding sun.

Your time horizon is about a hundred years, maybe 500 or a thousand at the most. Mine is like . . . a billion years. The longer your time horizon is, the more it becomes obvious that nothing we do here on planet earth matters.

[eXpat]

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?

There you go again POS, you brought that idea of self sacrifice, to which i already answered but i going to say it again, the immolation of an individual of a group of individuals would do nothing to alleviate the situation, just let the way free for morons like you without any sense of responsability whatsoever.
I must confess that I used to image Shitfinder as a naive tecnocrat, dazzled in his dreams of eternal progress, misguided but honest fighting in denial; well, today i see that i was dead wrong, the real shitfinder is stark naked in front of you all, and all everybody can see is greed, greed and egotism. I´m done with you Shitfinder POS, welcome to my ingore list.

[OilFinder2]

The fact you can only call me names and cannot even begin to address the points I made (such as: a billion years vs. 500 years) makes it plainly obvious you *have* no response to what I said.

But since you like showing pictures I'll do the same and show you one to remind you how ultimately important your little green frogs in the Brazilian cerrado are.



EDIT: BTW you still missed the point about self-sacrifice. It wasn't self-sacrifice to make a political statement, it was self-sacrifice to solve the problem you are proposing needs to be solved. You don't need to light yourself on fire in front of TV cameras to let everyone know how you feel. You are right - nobody cares and it won't make a difference. It WILL, however, make a difference in the amount of resources which are consumed. If everybody killed themselves to save the planet, then the planet would be saved. But you don't want to kill yourself to save the planet, so you cannot expect anyone else to either.

And since you cannot expect anyone else to kill themselves to save the planet, you are going to have to figure out a way to feed all those people.

[OilFinder2]

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?

No, I do not expect you to feed them. But just as you get your food from the fridge and restaurants, they will want to do the same. Now, where is the food to fill those refrigerators and restaurants going to come from?

Why, from the abandoned farms of Russia and the Brazilian cerrado, of course. It sure isn't going to appear out of thin air.

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.

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]

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?

Seems like nobody wants to take responsibility for their own actions, whether it is a drunk driver crashing into a family, a factory spewing pollutants into the water supply or a 3rd world double-Y-chromosome beauty cranking out baby #12 with his wife with no plan to feed it.

Another thread is about cat-brain simulation. Maybe someday they will do human-brain simulation and figure out why, despite having brains, humans still act like a yeast colony.

[Pretorian]

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]

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?

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.

[OilFinder2]

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.

Yes, you are expecting to be "fed." You are creating a false dichotomy between "eating" and "being fed." The growing populations in China and India aren't expecting to be given handouts while you get your food from the fridge or a restaurant - they are expecting to get their food from their fridge or a restaurant, too. Thus, by your definition they won't be "fed" either, they'll be "eating" just like you. This is a ridiculous division. Whether you call it "feeding" or "eating," the food must come from some crops somewhere.

[rangerone314]

#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.

More simply:

Why should the natural world or for that matter tribes suffer simply because irresponsible humans can't keep their zippers closed?

If you make too many people, why SHOULDN"T they starve.

Sure we all want the same thing, to have food and not to starve to death.

The thing me and someone else DON'T seem to agree upon is that I'd rather not live in a cesspool simply because that someonelse wants to breed like fleas.

I'm planning on growing all my own food and have the land for it, so I don't have a problem there.

I say the same sort of thing about people who live in a desert like Los Angeles and ludicrously import water in from areas that naturally have water. I lived THERE for 3 years and THAT area was close to a cesspool.

I have no intention of living like a locust and I'd prefer that people starve to death who DO want that.

I think there are some places in the developed world that also have too many people, so I should not just in fairness single out the 3rd world. Importing food is a bad idea. Doesn't Britain's 50-60 million people import much of their food?

I believe in trade for stuff like my wine glasses for your yoyos, but food...

[OilFinder2]

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 . . .

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.

[rangerone314]

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 . . .

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.

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.

[Ludi]

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.

What about the statement "there seem to be plenty of people"? Is it ok to say "that's enough people"? Are the not-yet-conceived as special or not-special as the currently living? More special? Less special? Equally special? Is every sperm sacred? What about every egg?

<<<loves babies, cares about fetuses, could give a rat's patootie about eggs, sperms, and zygotes.

[Ludi]

Maybe the problem is the 3rd world is addicted like crack addicts to unprotected sex without birthcontrol.

I hope you're helping them get access to the birth control they want but can't get.

http://www.populationconnection.org

Don't forget, one First World baby uses many times the resources as a Third World baby. I don't see you complaining much about First Worlders having kids.

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/

[OilFinder2]

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.

I think you've gotten off-topic with the stuff about TPTB telling people it's acceptible to be "ants." Most people these days prefer to live by buying stuff from a store, rather than gardening everything themselves and being "self-sufficient." No one is being coerced to shop at Safeway and live in a house, and no one is being coerced to live on a homestead out in the country if that's what they want. People do whichever they prefer, for the most part. Sorry if you disagree.

When you say "that" I assume you were referring to my statement about everyone in the world living off their own land and garden. My last sentence in my post above was meant to say, "Beware of what you ask for, you just might get it." I'm not one who believes such an arrangement would be environmentally preferable to a mass-production agricultural system.

[OilFinder2]

What about the statement "there seem to be plenty of people"? Is it ok to say "that's enough people"? Are the not-yet-conceived as special or not-special as the currently living? More special? Less special? Equally special? Is every sperm sacred? What about every egg?

<<<loves babies, cares about fetuses, could give a rat's patootie about eggs, sperms, and zygotes.

We aren't talking about the ethics of abortion and birth control. We were talking about people who *do* come into existence. Rangerone314 is no more or less special or privileged than someone born 10 years from now. Therefore, that person born 10 years from now has the same right to food supplies as Rangerone314 does.

[ralfy]

Foreign aid to developing countries has always made up less than one percent of total expenditures of industrialized nations, which means the aid given is very small.

Still, there is one report (Soc Gen?) showing increasing transfers of wealth from industrialized nations to emerging economies.

[Pretorian]

Rangerone314 is no more or less special or privileged than someone born 10 years from now. Therefore, that person born 10 years from now has the same right to food supplies as Rangerone314 does.

Excuse me? Right to food supplies? What kind of bill of rights has a right to food supplies? Aside of all these "rights" being nothing but a neat idea, a friction of imagination, what kind of idiotic law-maker had put this "right" among other "rights" ?

[sparky]

.

Ah Pretorian ! , a breath of fresh air

There is no right or wrong , only life and death

.

[Ludi]

Therefore, that person born 10 years from now has the same right to food supplies as Rangerone314 does.

So you see access to food as a "right"? So any given person on the planet, now or in the future, has the same "right" to food as you or Rangerone? What about people in the past? Did they have a "right" to a food supply?

If a group of people obtain their food from a piece of land, do others have an equal "right" to obtain food from that piece of land? For instance, do the natives of the Amazon have a "right" to obtain food from their tribal lands? Do Europeans have a "right" to food supplies from that same piece of land? Do Bangladeshis have a "right" to food grown in the United States?

Is the "right" to food a natural right (endowed by the Creator)? Or is it a right bestowed by governments? Who enforces this "right"?