jdhuyvetter
SWFMAS Event Coordinator
Isn't this an opinion?
for those who claim to truly care... ;-p
- Thread starter vitz
- Start date
- Status
Isn't this an opinion?
atreis
New member
My point is: stating "the problem is over-population" is easy. Very easy. So ridiculously easy that it serves no useful purpose.
The hard part is coming up with a solution that works to solve the problem. Some problems (and I think this is one) are intractable. There is no solution that solves the problem, so identifying the problem accomplishes nothing.
Therefore, move on. Come up with a problem that CAN be solved - possibly a piece of the larger problem.
Examples:
How do we reduce the growth in population? China has one solution, but hopefully it's obvious that the people of other countries wouldn't put up with it. Are there other solutions that can be implemented, even incrementally, in other countries? (Possible example: Improved educational opportunities, especially for women.)
How do we reduce the per-capita consumption of resources by the over-large population we are stuck with? (This is where the environmental movement comes from, and whence this thread sprang.)
Phixer
New member
Emulate China, personally could care less about providing opportunities for the weak. If folks focused more on themselves they would be less of a burden on society. Life is survival and no matter how it gets churched up with PC there are predators and prey no matter how noble it may seem to help the weak. Trying to change this with more laws only distances mankind from nature.
Sound cruel and heartless? Sub-human perhaps, cold and mean... or may a dose of reality in alignment with nature? How does nature address the problems of opportunities for the weak? Or are we as humans above all of this with our superior intellect and knowledge of the universe. Lets create a few more laws to fix the weather too.
It comes down to efficiency and effectiveness my friend. I know your looking for an argument but I dont work that way, it's just that I really dont care what others think and respect their right to disagree. To argue about something I've lived would be like arguing with the same weather. It's true for me and thats all that matters.
If the response to this were the length of the Gettysburg address filled with substance, I doubt if it would change your mind. Most peoples opinions do not change even when the truth is stares them in the face. Trying to do so is simply a waste of energy and bandwidth...LOL.
Fact is...
There is tons of factual data...LOL and personal experience to counter and dissolve each of your points in detail as I have personally lived in many of these countries for years at a time as required of my profession. Some things are futile. My experience based on living in these countries is overpopulation. You would have more luck convincing someone who hasn't lived it. I would invite you to do as I have and spend a few years living in India or PI or Africa or Pakistan ....or pick one and I'll describe it for you based on living there.
Last edited:
MidwesternTexan
Average Joe
Hello? Did someone mention Global Warming?
What a SCAM!
The climate has changed on Earth before the Steam, of internal combustion engine was ever invented.
Are you aware that the REAL evidence, not the left winger kind, shows no warming for 15 years?
Are you aware that the poles on this planet have seasons too?
Catch in the warm season- oh yea, the ice is melting.
When has this planet been entirely without change and stable?
I'll bet my 21 mpg v-8 truck, will haul more stuff/gallon, than your Honda Insight, Prius, or whatever. Not that there's anything wrong with those cars.
To each his own, oh wait a minute, the Fed. with all their micro-management
is basically dictating everything.
People, vote responsibly- and more important- don't be a low information voter.
I'll stop my rant here, thank you
r-balljunkie
Registered Reefer
interesting article..
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/opinion/climate-change-has-reached-our-shores.html?_r=0.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/opinion/climate-change-has-reached-our-shores.html?_r=0.
atreis
New member
You have no idea who I am, in what countries I have lived (or traveled to for work or family), or what life experiences I have had - yet you resort to personal attacks, apparently assuming that I am a particular type of person with no evidence of that. As such, I can only conclude that you're a troll and not interested in anything even close to useful or responsible discussion.
Phixer
New member
Yup, and respectfully I, dont care either :sad1:....noticed the old condescension trick though LOL.... conclude all day. The problem is still overpopulation. It affects trolls too.
Attachments
Last edited:
power boat jim
Well-known member
Who has said that overpopulation is not a problem in this thread? You are arguing that the problem is the cure. How you go about attaining zero growth is really the issue. Given the wide variety of education, culture and religious beliefs it is not one that will likely be solved any time soon.
The only significant dips in the planets population have been through war , famine or disease. Whether we like it or not, one or more of these will probably be the only way some regions numbers problems will be reduced. Of course this is only one guys opinion.
Phixer
New member
How does nature balance itself? Yes, IMO the problem is the cure if left alone with no human intervention, the thing is most people will not or cannot leave things alone and allow nature to work unattended. They must intervene and start saving things, maybe it makes them feel good to change things I suppose. People always ask, what if it were you or your kid... and thats a hard position to be in. I would default to how things work in nature, as humans we seem to think we know better? Maybe we should take the safety labels off and let the problem solve itself. Cold, inhumane, barbaric, insensitive or would doing so strengthen the species as it does in nature?
Last edited:
power boat jim
Well-known member
So it sounds like the answer you are proposing is to let human kind and society run itself back into the stone age using survival of the fittest. Thats not really a solution to population control its a road to the end of civilization. We cant be like every other animal on the planet, we have no natural defense like claws,teeth, poison bites or overpowering strength to keep us alive. We have zero natural survival tools. Our key to survival is our "superior " intelligence.
We no longer play by the same rules that apply to the rest of the animal kingdom. Therefore the whole let natural selection take its course with human kind wont work, that ship sailed along time ago when we first discovered penicillin.:beer:
Phixer
New member
Yes, why not? a natural re-alignment. It woulnt go back to the stone age either, mankind as a species would become stronger by evolving. Nature works that way now (the herd concept) and thats exactly the solution. The herd dosent revert back it becomes stronger. Niave and arrogant to think we are above what was here 6 million years before us...perhaps we are too afraid to even consider it so we remain dependent upon a system that is designed to consume itself. We are conditioned to think this way. There is a lot of fear when it comes to the survival of the fittest concept because of the dependency created by this system, it's like dialysis. LOL, sounds like the Matrix.
Also considering nothing else has made a dent, more rules, more laws and more overpopulation with less natural resources. Jim, we have developed each one of those exact survival tools. What would you call, steel, machinery, electricity or weapons. A lot of people would be able to survive on their own, I know I would. Perhaps chaos for awhile and then survival of the fittest.
We no longer play by the rules of the animal kingdom or nature because for some reason we think we know better. Are we better? How... we have chaos, nature has harmony?
Consider just the physical element. How does one become stronger physically? by taking penicillin? no by building an immunity to not require penicillin.
Of course it would work, we have chaos, nature has harmony? and nature doesn't require penicillin.
Last edited:
Taking from this NOAA site.
While the current measured sea level rise hasn't been enough to make any islands up and disappear, it has been enough to have some ecological impacts on coastal salt marshes. There are species expanding their ranges poleward due to increasing ocean temperatures, and conversely cold water species shrinking their ranges and/or exhibiting health issues in the warm extremes of their range.
if getting rid of your car, or stopping driving using combustion engines of any kind, was the only way to save reefs worldwide. would you be willing to do it ?
i'm presenting this more as a 'food for thought' post, as opposed to seeing what folks say to justify their lifestyle vs. their professed 'caring' about the reefs
I thought private transport has a relatively minor contribution to CO2 emissions. From the EPA/IPCC..
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/GlobalGHGEmissionsByGas.png
vitz
New member
interesting how most of you never even addressed the original question, or avoided the simple yes/no answer required to address it. so again:
if owning a car, and having reefs were mutually exclusive (regardless of ANYTHING else, including whether or not you think climate change is bs ), would you give up your car? it's a simple yes or no. (you may assume that for the purposes of the question,having a car isn't required for you to get to work, or you live close enough for it to not be an issue).
i'm not trying to make any assertions regarding whether climate change is real, or whether cars are a contributor, etc etc.
in other words-car or wild reefs. which would you choose IF THAT WAS THE CHOICE. no rationalization/justification necessary, or needed, or even wanted
IT'S A (mebbe not ;-p) HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION!!!! WITH A ONE WORD ANSWER! :lol:
instead, i'm seeing most posts here not having anything to do w/ the original question/post that's quickly degrading into what will be a locked/closed thread.
you people are funny, and your reading comprehension is a tad dissapointing ;-p
if owning a car, and having reefs were mutually exclusive (regardless of ANYTHING else, including whether or not you think climate change is bs ), would you give up your car? it's a simple yes or no. (you may assume that for the purposes of the question,having a car isn't required for you to get to work, or you live close enough for it to not be an issue).
i'm not trying to make any assertions regarding whether climate change is real, or whether cars are a contributor, etc etc.
in other words-car or wild reefs. which would you choose IF THAT WAS THE CHOICE. no rationalization/justification necessary, or needed, or even wanted
IT'S A (mebbe not ;-p) HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION!!!! WITH A ONE WORD ANSWER! :lol:
instead, i'm seeing most posts here not having anything to do w/ the original question/post that's quickly degrading into what will be a locked/closed thread.
you people are funny, and your reading comprehension is a tad dissapointing ;-p
If getting to work were not an issue, I'd absolutely go from a two car family to one, but I don't think I'd give up the freedom of having my own transportation.
This, of course, is thinking from a standpoint that very, very few people would give up their car, and that by doing so, I'm suffering pretty much alone and solving nothing.
If we're truly all in it together, and everyone is giving up their car for the common goal of saving the world's reefs, I'm in.
This, of course, is thinking from a standpoint that very, very few people would give up their car, and that by doing so, I'm suffering pretty much alone and solving nothing.
If we're truly all in it together, and everyone is giving up their car for the common goal of saving the world's reefs, I'm in.
power boat jim
Well-known member
interesting how most of you never even addressed the original question, or avoided the simple yes/no answer required to address it. so again:
if owning a car, and having reefs were mutually exclusive (regardless of ANYTHING else, including whether or not you think climate change is bs ), would you give up your car? it's a simple yes or no. (you may assume that for the purposes of the question,having a car isn't required for you to get to work, or you live close enough for it to not be an issue).
i'm not trying to make any assertions regarding whether climate change is real, or whether cars are a contributor, etc etc.
in other words-car or wild reefs. which would you choose IF THAT WAS THE CHOICE. no rationalization/justification necessary, or needed, or even wanted
IT'S A (mebbe not ;-p) HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION!!!! WITH A ONE WORD ANSWER! :lol:
instead, i'm seeing most posts here not having anything to do w/ the original question/post that's quickly degrading into what will be a locked/closed thread.
you people are funny, and your reading comprehension is a tad dissapointing ;-p
If you wanted one word answers with no justification, reasons or discussion, you should have just taken a poll. My one word answer is no.
jdhuyvetter
SWFMAS Event Coordinator
Ditto to what ^^^^ he said
- Status
