[peeb]

[QUOTE=ebuddy;3385139]Yes that's absolutely what I'm telling you. There is positively no population issue on our planet. Period. [QUOTE]
Is that a joke?

- people collect in clusters for socio-economic reasons in exchanging goods and services, and to enjoy the benefits of the civil apparatus.

Correct, but not relevant.

- people inhabit less than 3% of the earth's land surface.

Yes, mostly the coastal and river deltas, the fertile areas. Antarcitca, the deserts etc, are not habited, nor will they be.

- If you granted 1,250 square feet to each person, all the people in the world would fit into the state of Texas. (7,438,152,268,800 square feet in Texas, divided by the world population of 5,860,000,000, equals 1269 square feet per person.) The population density of this imaginary city would be less than the Bronx.

It's not about area of land, it's about carrying capacity of ecosystems. Look at the collapse of fish stocks, for example.

- World population growth is actually in decline.

Right. The rate at which is it increasing is slowing, but that does not mean it is not increasing at an alarming rate. Ecosystem collapse is already starting to happen. You can stick your head in the sand if you like, I guess that's what the Easter Islanders did as they cut down their last tree.

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Ecosystem collapse is already starting to happen.

How is something that started happening millions of years ago still only starting to happen?

Ecosystems have always been collapsing, to be replaced by new ecosystems. No reason to think this will stop in the foreseeable future.

Circle of life, dude.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Is that a joke?

This is not a joke. I repeat, this is not a joke.

Correct, but not relevant.

It's absolutely relevant. For example; people don't cluster in California only because they have to. I dare say most are there because they want to be.

Yes, mostly the coastal and river deltas, the fertile areas. Antarcitca, the deserts etc, are not habited, nor will they be.

Again long on rhetoric, short on substance. Uninhabitable land surface comprises approximately 12.5% of overall land surface. This leaves 87.5% of land surface for habitation. If people populate less than 3% of the overall land surface and you deduct 12.5% for land uninhabitable, you've made .004 of 1% difference. Showing examples of waste and greed upon exhausting fish supplies and other examples of "cash crops" and wasteful use of land is a political issue, not a geographical issue or evidence of ecological collapse. This requires change in practice, not advocating a 25% reduction of the current population by monetarily encouraging non-reproductive habits. This is just a ridiculous notion. Your ideal is nothing short of cutting off your entire head to address a zit on your nose.

Right. The rate at which is it increasing is slowing, but that does not mean it is not increasing at an alarming rate. Ecosystem collapse is already starting to happen. You can stick your head in the sand if you like, I guess that's what the Easter Islanders did as they cut down their last tree.

I can understand your cringing at watching another fallen tree, but maybe some perspective will ease your paranoia;

- There is absolutely no credible evidence for supposing population increase is alarming.
- The US Agriculture Department reports 749 million acres of forest land today. In 1920, there were 735 million acres of forest. Why? Using your logic, this could only mean Ecological incline. No. Technology has now allowed us to grow 5 times more food per acre. Again, this is addressing wasteful use of land through innovation without advocating some ridiculous notion of reducing population by 25%. The problem is not over-population, it is poor stewardship of resource and poor governance in general.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by subego 

How is something that started happening millions of years ago still only starting to happen?

Ecosystems have always been collapsing, to be replaced by new ecosystems. No reason to think this will stop in the foreseeable future.

Circle of life, dude.

So you don't think that the exponential increase in the rate of ecosystem collapse is alarming at all?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The problem is not over-population, it is poor stewardship of resource and poor governance in general.

Well, it might be possible to show a theoretical utopia where more people do not cause more environmental degradation, but here in the real world the carrying capacity of the planet is starting to creak. I'll trust the observable facts on this one, rather than your back-of-the-envelope calculations of how good it would be if the population was spread out more in the fly-over states. The fact is that people have always shown pretty poor stewardship and governance, and hoping that as they continue to double in number every few years they will figure that out before it's too late isn't very convincing to me. Let's promote homosexuality, and save humanity.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Well, it might be possible to show a theoretical utopia where more people do not cause more environmental degradation, but here in the real world the carrying capacity of the planet is starting to creak. I'll trust the observable facts on this one, rather than your back-of-the-envelope calculations of how good it would be if the population was spread out more in the fly-over states.

This alarmism is nothing new. We've seen it all before, and it was just as much bunk then as it was now:

The Population Bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But...didn't you get the memo? After the mid-eighties, when it was clear that the Malthusian catastrophe argument was pretty much discredited, that the new alarmist fad was to be global warming (actually, global cooling alarmism fell somewher in between, but I digress).

GET WITH THE NEW CENTURY, WOULDJA??

[peeb]

Alarmism aside, the world's scientists are virtually unanimous on the issue of ecosystem collapse. There is too much environmental impact in the world, and while you might want to fiddle while the planet burns, and concoct utopias where huge numbers of people manage not to cause any impact, I want to act - by promoting homosexuality as a civic virtue.

[stupendousman]

"Virtually unanimous"? Is that something like "technically a virgin"?

I know of no overwhelming majority of CREDIBLE scientists who believes that bunk. Not only is it bad science, it's bad science fiction. Back in the mid-80's when it was proven that just about the opposite of everything the population alarmists claimed was true, Ehrlick had his ass handed to him so many times over this stuff that he no longer can sit down without inflating a rubber donut.

Sell it to Simon and Schuster....I ain't buying.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

"Virtually unanimous"? Is that something like "technically a virgin"?

I know of no overwhelming majority of CREDIBLE scientists who believes that bunk. Not only is it bad science, it's bad science fiction. Back in the mid-80's when it was proven that just about the opposite of everything the population alarmists claimed was true, Ehrlick had his ass handed to him so many times over this stuff that he no longer can sit down without inflating a rubber donut.

Sell it to Simon and Schuster....I ain't buying.

It never ends... I tell him that the problem is not overpopulation, but poor stewardship and governance. I cite facts, figures, and data to argue my point. I give him statistical perspective on the fallacy of his points. I give him an example of good stewardship in action having produced more crops per acre freeing up 14 million new acres of forestation and he just continues to go down the tired "overpopulation" route advocating a 75% reduction in population. He just keeps spouting off unsubstantiated rhetoric in repeating the same BS time and again with absolutely nothing to affirm his arguments. He's absolutely shameless. It's like talking to IMs "smarter child", but worse. Instead of automated responses, it's like a chattering gibbon clapping hand-cymbals on the other end.

I've basically stopped having any conversation with this moron at all. He's completely beyond reasoning and rationale.

[peeb]

dp.

[peeb]

dp.

[peeb]

dp.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It never ends... I tell him that the problem is not overpopulation, but poor stewardship and governance. I cite facts, figures, and data to argue my point. I give him statistical perspective on the fallacy of his points. I give him an example of good stewardship in action having produced more crops per acre freeing up 14 million new acres of forestation and he just continues to go down the tired "overpopulation" route advocating a 75% reduction in population. He just keeps spouting off unsubstantiated rhetoric in repeating the same BS time and again with absolutely nothing to affirm his arguments. He's absolutely shameless. It's like talking to IMs "smarter child", but worse. Instead of automated responses, it's like a chattering gibbon clapping hand-cymbals on the other end.

I've basically stopped having any conversation with this moron at all. He's completely beyond reasoning and rationale.

So you are a global warming denier too? You've found a couple of web-pages that tell you that the planet is in fine shape, and we never landed on the Moon, and the rest of science is 'unsubstantiated rhetoric'?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

So you are a global warming denier too?

Can't we just call me a person? *BTW; If you'd take a moment to relax, you'd find 'refresh' will avoid the dp issue.

You've found a couple of web-pages...

You haven't even gone this far.

... that tell you that the planet is in fine shape, and we never landed on the Moon, and the rest of science is 'unsubstantiated rhetoric'?

I've found literally thousands of scientists who question the hype. Google the subject, read the conclusions. Listen to the debates. I've given some examples of, but a few of them. While you continue to spout off meaningless talking points, you'll allow science to continue being science I hope?

I've not once mentioned we never landed on the moon or even that the planet is in fine shape. I've claimed your statements are nothing more than unsubstantiated rhetoric, certainly not the rest of science.

Are familiar with straw-men? Do you understand the logical fallacy of using them in an argument? Do you even care?

[OldManMac]

What does this have to do with homosexuality. There's a thread already established for global warming (or not, depending on your view).

[peeb]

Global climate change and ecosystem crash is caused by human activity. Fewer humans --> less human impact. More homosexuals --> fewer humans born --> Better change of survival of the human race. Therefore, we should encourage homosexuality.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

What does this have to do with homosexuality. There's a thread already established for global warming (or not, depending on your view).

I have absolutely no clue. It seems peebrain got smacked down so badly in the global warming threads that he decided to take up arms here in a completely unrelated thread. This is at least the second time he's done this.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I know of no overwhelming majority of CREDIBLE scientists who believes that bunk. Not only is it bad science, it's bad science fiction. Back in the mid-80's when it was proven that just about the opposite of everything the population alarmists claimed was true, Ehrlick had his ass handed to him so many times over this stuff that he no longer can sit down without inflating a rubber donut.

Uhhhhh, I'm not really gonna get into the homosexual debate, or the population debate, but I'd just like to point out that your ridicule of Paul Ehrlich is somewhat unfounded. His theory of exponential population growth and subsequent crash is not entirely without merit – ecologists can point to many different examples we can now examine in the natural world. Ehrlich's theory was also certainly derailed by the advent of birth control; if you look at the data before the late 1960s (ie. the stuff he used), there certainly were indications of massive uncontrolled population growth.

So yeah, while the Population Bomb theory certainly seems curious in retrospect, it certainly isn't a ridiculed as you make it out to be. Ehrlich is very well-respected and extremely brilliant, and his ideas have been quite influential. That this particular idea didn't pan out as he'd predicted doesn't mean he was somehow an idiot, or that his ideas were simply useless.

greg

[peeb]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I have absolutely no clue. It seems peebrain got smacked down so badly in the global warming threads that he decided to take up arms here in a completely unrelated thread. This is at least the second time he's done this.

If you had read them, you would know I had never contributed to any global warming threads, let alone been 'smacked down'. You whole line of argument seems to be abusive nonsense.

[Graviton]

Homosexuals cause global warming with their supernatural powers.

This is a well known fact. I have a graph and everything.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Global climate change and ecosystem crash is caused by human activity. Fewer humans --> less human impact. More homosexuals --> fewer humans born --> Better change of survival of the human race. Therefore, we should encourage homosexuality.

I hope you're not serious.

[peeb]

Absolutely serious.

[OldManMac]

Wow! I mean, just WOW!

[peeb]

You don't believe in global warming?
You don't believe people are causing it?
You don't beleive homosexuals have fewer kids than hetros?
Where is your issue?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You don't believe in global warming?

Nope. I believe in global tensions warming which is far more dangerous and imminent a threat today. Sometimes when it's cool outside, I like to go start the car to see if I can hasten the whole warming BS.

You don't believe people are causing it?

Nope. People go to work every day and are focused on making ends meet. Rich folks drinking lattes at Starbucks have created warming because they are bored. Do you believe in Starbucks?

You don't beleive homosexuals have fewer kids than hetros?

I don't believe it's any of your business whether homosexuals or heterosexuals have kids and how many. There is no such thing as ecological collapse due to overpopulation. Nothing at all. Zip, nada, zilch, zero. Period. Absolutely nothing.

Where is your issue?

The question is, where is the global warming/overpopulation issue?

A; #6,335 and #6,336 located just behind toothpicks for all schnauzers.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Nope. I believe in global tensions warming which is far more dangerous and imminent a threat today. Sometimes when it's cool outside, I like to go start the car to see if I can hasten the whole warming BS.


Nope. People go to work every day and are focused on making ends meet. Rich folks drinking lattes at Starbucks have created warming because they are bored. Do you believe in Starbucks?


I don't believe it's any of your business whether homosexuals or heterosexuals have kids and how many. There is no such thing as ecological collapse due to overpopulation. Nothing at all. Zip, nada, zilch, zero. Period. Absolutely nothing.


The question is, where is the global warming/overpopulation issue?

A; #6,335 and #6,336 located just behind toothpicks for all schnauzers.

OK, then we're done. You and the Moon Landing Conspirators are entitled to your opinion, but the science is in on planet earth, the only people who are still disputing this are on Exxon payroll, or in community care. Good luck with your alternative reality.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You don't believe in global warming?
You don't believe people are causing it?
You don't beleive homosexuals have fewer kids than hetros?
Where is your issue?

I believe that there is a change happening, and that man has some affect on it, although how much is debatable. On a planet with six billion people, we're bound to have some influence. It's also quite obvious that homosexuals have fewer kids than heteros. What I am astonished, dumbfounded, and absolutely incredulous at is your position that we can somehow "encourage" homosexuality. Being a homosexual is something you either are, or aren't; it isn't something that you decide to become one day. That belief is held by far too many who are ignorant and irrationally fearful that they're somehow going to be converted if they allow homosexuals to marry, which is what this thread has been about for far too long. And then along you come, implying that we can change the climate by somehow encouraging more homosexuality. Incredible! I'm curious; how old are you?

[peeb]

Point taken. I am not seriously suggesting that we can 'encourage' homosexuality, any more than we can 'encourage' heterosexuality. I am simply pointing out that if society wants to reward one or the other for its contributions, it should be homosexuals.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I, as the resident 5th grader insist on having the last word!!!

[peeb]

Ah yes. More lies. You have run out of even a pretense at an argument, and resorted simply to blatant lies about what other people say. Good bye!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There is no such thing as ecological collapse due to overpopulation. Nothing at all. Zip, nada, zilch, zero. Period. Absolutely nothing.

Hey, maybe we can take this to another thread if you'd like, but I find this statement interesting since there is solid historical evidence for "ecological collapse due to overpopulation." Of course, that "overpopulation" can also be termed "misuse of available resources," but of course that misuse became an issue because of overpopulation in the first place.

So, what is this claim based on? I find it quite curious, since ecological collapse due to overuse (ie. from overpopulation) on a local scale is entirely well-documented throughout the world, both currently and historically.

greg

[peeb]

Of course there is a boat-load of evidence for ecological collapse due to operpopulation. If I could give you a gift, it would be that you do not follow ebuddy down another rabbit-hole.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Hey, maybe we can take this to another thread if you'd like, but I find this statement interesting since there is solid historical evidence for "ecological collapse due to overpopulation." Of course, that "overpopulation" can also be termed "misuse of available resources," but of course that misuse became an issue because of overpopulation in the first place.

So, what is this claim based on? I find it quite curious, since ecological collapse due to overuse (ie. from overpopulation) on a local scale is entirely well-documented throughout the world, both currently and historically.

greg

I say we should take all the idiots in the world, and ship them off to Tasmania... I'm sure the result would be perfect evidence of ecological collapse due to overpopulation.

Ebuddy, let us know how it all works out, eh?

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There is no such thing as ecological collapse due to overpopulation. Nothing at all. Zip, nada, zilch, zero. Period. Absolutely nothing.

You couldn't possibly mean what you are saying here. A quick thought experiment will prove that your position is logically untenable. You ought to clariffy what you actually mean by this.

[unixfool]

When people start marrying animals, I'm killing myself...and it's just a matter of time before someone starts lobbying to do just that.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by unixfool

When people start marrying animals, I'm killing myself...and it's just a matter of time before someone starts lobbying to do just that.

People ARE animals, you know.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Hey, maybe we can take this to another thread if you'd like, but I find this statement interesting since there is solid historical evidence for "ecological collapse due to overpopulation." Of course, that "overpopulation" can also be termed "misuse of available resources," but of course that misuse became an issue because of overpopulation in the first place.

Please cite some links and a list of those regions who've experienced an ecological collapse due to overpopulation.

[Angus_D]

Originally Posted by unixfool 

When people start marrying animals, I'm killing myself...and it's just a matter of time before someone starts lobbying to do just that.

It has already started.

[OldManMac]

That settles it then, doesn't it?

[unixfool]

Originally Posted by Angus_D 

It has already started.

OMFG! I almost threw up in my mouth. Let me go find a knife...

[unixfool]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

People ARE animals, you know.

In a very basic sense, yeah, but we're MUCH, MUCH more than that. How many other animals do you know of that create technology in the way that we do?

Are you saying that you think it's OK to sleep with animals?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by unixfool 

OMFG! I almost threw up in my mouth. Let me go find a knife...

Why?

[unixfool]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Why?

Why what? Why get a knife? Read up a few posts. Why did I almost throw up in my mouth? Read below:

Because it is frikkin disgusting. The guy was caught mounting a goat. You don't think that is even unusual? I guess that type of stuff is normal where you come from...not where i'm from, though...

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by unixfool 

Why what? Why get a knife? Read up a few posts. Why did I almost throw up in my mouth? Read below:

Because it is frikkin disgusting. The guy was caught mounting a goat. You don't think that is even unusual? I guess that type of stuff is normal where you come from...not where i'm from, though...

Of course, it's "frikkin disgusting." The question I would then pose to you is, what does it matter to you what he does? Does this action, by some individual in a foreign land, have an effect on your life? If so, why?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Please cite some links and a list of those regions who've experienced an ecological collapse due to overpopulation.

Uhhhhh...I'm not too sure what you're getting at here. Historically, it would seem too obvious that man's ecological affects have caused considerable trouble: whether you look at the first recorded civilization of the Sumerians, down to the Greeks, the Romans, the Mayans, the Easter Islanders...right down to present-day examples such as the current massive decline of fish stock populations in every area around the world. (I'm from Newfoundland, so I can tell you first-hand about the affects of massive ecological collapse.)

I will not provide links for those examples, both because I have recently moved halfway across the continent and they enjoy considerable coverage in popular media and/or literature (and are thus easily Googled).

So, it seems curious that you're suggesting this isn't the case. The only thing I can come up with is that you're somehow trying to differentiate between "overpopulation" and "overharvesting resources." I would have a hard time with someone trying to cut a fine line between those two, but please do let me know what you were trying to say.

greg

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by unixfool

In a very basic sense, yeah, but we're MUCH, MUCH more than that. How many other animals do you know of that create technology in the way that we do?

You are so much more than all the other animals because of the way you create technology? Have you personally created this technology? Do you understand how the technology you use every day works, meaning, can you build it from scratch? Did you invent the internet? Do you make your own microchips?

I'm guessing not. If technology‑creation is the standard you set for human specialness, most humans fail at it. When you go out and pick some other human to fuck, do you test how good they are in the technology‑creating department?

Fucking is animal behaviour. Most animals do it, and discriminating against other animals because you think you're superior by some arbitrary standard is specism at its worst.

Originally Posted by unixfool

Are you saying that you think it's OK to sleep with animals?

Of course it's not okay to rape non‑human animals, they have as much right to not be raped as human animals.

On the other hand, what if the non‑human animal wants to get it on? It's not unheard of, dolphins, for example, are very horny animals, they practically throw themselves at humans all the time.

Seriously, man, you need to move beyond your specist attitudes. Specism is wrong.


I'd hit it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Uhhhhh...I'm not too sure what you're getting at here. Historically, it would seem too obvious that man's ecological affects have caused considerable trouble: whether you look at the first recorded civilization of the Sumerians, down to the Greeks, the Romans, the Mayans, the Easter Islanders...right down to present-day examples such as the current massive decline of fish stock populations in every area around the world. (I'm from Newfoundland, so I can tell you first-hand about the affects of massive ecological collapse.)

... and by any measure, is Newfoundland overpopulated? Was Greece, Rome, etc...? If I'm one man with 40 acres of land all to myself, but I have this small problem with pyromania, the problem is not overpopulation. The problem is me. When someone advocates a 75% reduction in the human population, I think they're obligated to provide some data to back the claim that the problem is overpopulation, over poor stewardship of that region's resources. The example I used earlier showed that man inhabits less than 3% of the earth's land surface.

So, it seems curious that you're suggesting this isn't the case. The only thing I can come up with is that you're somehow trying to differentiate between "overpopulation" and "overharvesting resources." I would have a hard time with someone trying to cut a fine line between those two, but please do let me know what you were trying to say.

The US Agriculture Department reports 749 million acres of forest land today. In 1920, there were 735 million acres of forest. Why? Using your logic, this could only mean Ecological inclination/lower population. No. Technology has now allowed us to grow 5 times more food per acre. Again, this is addressing wasteful use of land through innovation without advocating some ridiculous notion of reducing population by 75%. The problem is not over-population, it is poor stewardship of resource and poor governance in general. That's absolutely what I'm trying to say.

ebuddy; my car seems to be running a little sluggish. I wonder if I need to get a tune-up.

shortcut; no. What you need to do is get rid of the car.

[ebuddy]

You are so much more than all the other animals because of the way you create technology? Have you personally created this technology? Do you understand how the technology you use every day works, meaning, can you build it from scratch? Did you invent the internet? Do you make your own microchips?

Is this even a reasoned approach to your argument? Maybe the owl above could interject some wisdom here.

I'm guessing not. If technology‑creation is the standard you set for human specialness, most humans fail at it. When you go out and pick some other human to fuck, do you test how good they are in the technology‑creating department?

No, but by using an online dating service he may in fact be filtering out those without technology in their homes. Not to say there aren't at least a couple of dogs posting in them.

Fucking is animal behaviour. Most animals do it, and discriminating against other animals because you think you're superior by some arbitrary standard is specism at its worst.

What the heck is "specism"?

So let me get this straight; when you smell a female in the vicinity, do you start mounting those around you? Tree stumps? Air? Do you screw because you're trying to ease fight or flight responses? Do you start mounting a guy who gets angry with you in traffic and comes over to your car to show him that you're more aggressive? Animals don't always screw because they're horny. They often use sex in ways entirely foreign to humans. Of course, you already knew this. Right? Maybe I shouldn't assume anything here.

Afterall, you've gone through some pains just to see the word "fuck" on the internet. There's a reason they've made swearing difficult in this forum. Maybe you should try to respect that. Odd behavior.

On the other hand, what if the non‑human animal wants to get it on? It's not unheard of, dolphins, for example, are very horny animals, they practically throw themselves at humans all the time.

Is it possible a dolphin would throw itself at humans for reasons other than "because they're horny", simply using their reproductive habits to show it? How do you know the dolphins aren't simply nervous at you being around? We tend to equate animal sexuality with human sexuality in error. They are using reproductive habits in ways entirely unique from humans.

Seriously, man, you need to move beyond the intellect of a gibbon.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Of course it's not okay to rape non‑human animals, they have as much right to not be raped as human animals.

It's funny that people object to folks having sex with animals much more than they object to killing and eating them...

[Dakarʒ]

Waste not, want not...