1BC Civ Forums / Off Topic Discussions / More Than a Game, Civ in Real Life / Politics & Religion / Offshore Drilling time? / Latest Posts

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

-M- — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:16:23 GMT

Hmmma... what the hell... since you are so aprihensive of hijacking... start a thread... I cannot be much of dialog partner on the subject but still would be interesting to know what you think.

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

Scipio Africanus — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:28:24 GMT

I totally see what you mean Nuke and it is IMO an excellent point.

In our primal human condition, we were (in general) astute 'ecologists,' and devoted 'democrats.' You don't hear of too many tyrannical, hierarchical, dynastic hunter-gatherer 'Empires.'

In short (and I'm generalizing liberally here) 'Civilization' had to teach us to be non-sustainable consumers of nature, to be mindless God-King followers, to be subjects. Certainly the psychosocial capacity for these mindless worldviews existed all along, but it took a major shift in social organization: basically packing a whole bunch of the average sheepol into a relatively small area, with a few of the most cunning and charismatic sheep-dog(s)/wolve(s) at the top of the pyramid filling their minds with nonsense.

We've been working out way out of that initial 'fall from grace' for about 10,000 years.

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

Nuclearcow — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:46:37 GMT

Quoting back a page:[quote]I was refering to progressive generations getting progressively complex teachings handed to them aspect. This kind of thinking is flawed bcz it assumes that a human being at any given point of time can not handle the whole truth.[/quote]
[quote]NC, Growing up of a child & progress of greater humanity is not a good analogy. So please do go ahead and exponenciate, but dont jump from thread to thread. That just tends to confuse me. [/quote]Oh boy. We could still hijack this thread easily on a big tangent. I'll try to be more brief than I could be. If we can just keep Roadkill away long enough to debate religion. ;)

For the sake of debate, lets say that each of the main religions founders were all inspired by "God." From the Judeo-Christian-Muslim faiths... in the days of Abraham, if the Monotheistic concept of one God was foreign to most people, how could you teach them more advanced stuff if that one huge, main-point was hard to accept? By Moses's day, despite golden calfs, people were ready en mass for more. So 10 commandments were given, plus various other strict Mosaic laws as they perhaps needed them for whatever higher purpose. By Jesus's day, the people had that stuff down okay, though not perfect, so Jesus taught higher practices of loving thy neighbor, non-judgment, etc, etc and that the Mosaic law was no longer necessarily. People en mass were ready for more. Muslims could go further with Mohammad and the various higher teachings that most Westerns are ignorant of. Baha'is a step further perhaps, at least in each of their own minds.

If one doesn't have the moral basis to know that its wrong to kill another man merely because he angered you, will he readily accept higher teachings?

Go back in time quite a ways to older cultures. What if cultures are towards the extreme end of selfishness, greed, racism, elitism, sexist, etc, etc, etc, can you really teach them that women are equal in regards to man in spirituality? That your enemy is really equal in the eyes of God, despite sex, color of your body's skin, etc? Wealth, position of birth, title, etc is irrelevant compared to ones actions?

I could continue, but this is already longer than I intended. Are you sure you don't want your own thread for this debate? :P

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

-M- — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:06:24 GMT

[quote] Do you think it's not a good idea to preserve anything? [/quote]

My belief is that preservation will happen in the natural order. Much like whales were preserved out of brink due to emergence of alternatives, preservation of rainforrests is already on the way bcz our recordkeeping is shifting towards electronic media. Ask any paper mill company that has been struggling to make ends meet in the last few years if demand for paper is not on the decline.

Talking of preservation I find hypocritical, while I live in a consumer society that doesnt even take enough care about its bagels :p

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

Tosk — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:29:16 GMT

[quote]ahem... formal education and intelligence are not mutually dependent.[/quote]

Man does that ever need a QFE!!!

In my experience formal education (in the U.S. at least) is one of the greatest determents to natural intelligence as man has ever devised ... turning otherwise bright people into molded clones ... thank goodness we still have people who can take the learning and skip the indoctrination.

[quote]You must learn 1st grade math before you can learn 2nd. 5th before 6th, etc. You cannot skip straight to calculus because you can handle calculus, can you?[/quote]

Were you my freshman counselor???
The one that told me I could not take algebra 1, algebra 2, plain and solid geometry in the same semester ... yes I did and I passed them all ... but I cheated ... I learned them outside the classroom ... I just needed to sit in for the transcript grade ... see -M-'s quote above. ;)

Back on subject ... China is drilling 50 miles off our coast, Cuba is drilling a couple hundred yards off the Florida Keys ... it is no longer a question of hoarding *our* reserves it's a question of allowing others to steal it while we debate the issue ... don't ya think?

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

-M- — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:57:50 GMT

I never said you have to eat them. I said I would go pick it up from under feet to stop it from being so sacralaged. But the bigger point is to take enough care not to drop that bagel in the first place.

NC, Growing up of a child & progress of greater humanity is not a good analogy. So please do go ahead and exponenciate, but dont jump from thread to thread. That just tends to confuse me.

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

cleopatra143 — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:00:19 GMT

[quote][b]jerm (7/10/2008)[/b][hr]
I don't get your point about eating dirty bagels :w00t:.[/quote]
ROFL! I thought I was the only one.

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

jerm — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:55:54 GMT

The difference is the effect. Micro defines what is affected by a single person/family/community and macro by what is affected by Nations/continents/the world at large. Killing an animal for food is different than wiping out an entire species. When the species is gone, so is the food... at least from that animal. Cutting down a few trees to build a house won't have any effect but when a rainforest is gone to make room for human development, it's gone. Also, on the micro scale, we have invented farming and Animal Husbandry so that those animals don't go away. Shouldn't we also, if the macro is the same, find ways of preserving systems for our benefit? I'm not saying we should not use the resources on the earth, in fact, I have no problems with logging, fishing, farming or population growth (if you'd read the rest of this thread, you'd know that). Do you think it's not a good idea to preserve anything?

I don't get your point about eating dirty bagels :w00t:.

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

Scipio Africanus — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:33:10 GMT

I agree with you on the waste point Muk, and I also agree with you on the learning by steps point Muk. What point you're making about Bahai I do not comprehend LC! :P

Basically, I still stand pretty solid on my hypothesis: Humanity and Earth would be better off in the long-run if there were fewer of us humans; not ~7 billion, and not more of us.

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

Nuclearcow — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:28:30 GMT

[quote]I was refering to progressive generations getting progressively complex teachings handed to them aspect. This kind of thinking is flawed bcz it assumes that a human being at any given point of time can not handle the whole truth.[/quote]I could hijack this thread with a big response, so I'll keep it to a minimum, unless you want another thread to debate this. :P

You must learn 1st grade math before you can learn 2nd. 5th before 6th, etc. You cannot skip straight to calculus because you can handle calculus, can you? ;)

If most of mankind was once slaughtering each other for various petty things, it would be hard to convince them of higher-teachings until they mastered the 'stop slaughtering each other' piece. 2nd grade after 1st.

Thats all I'm going to say unless you want another thread to debate this further. :P

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

-M- — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:52:09 GMT

Scip...Thats an interesting read, but doesnt that all sound a bit too socialistic, a bit too artificial? Where does quality parenting with its ratio of 2 parents to 1 child fit in that scenario?

LC...As for Bahai comment, I did not state it in specifics, did I? I was refering to progressive generations getting progressively complex teachings handed to them aspect. This kind of thinking is flawed bcz it assumes that a human being at any given point of time can not handle the whole truth. Therefore, if progress is constant, then it follows that past generations are dumber than present & future generations will be smarter. While natural selection will insure that this is the case, that change is not going to be of any significance in the short time frame that is recorded human history. The caveman from 20,000 years ago is as smart as me. Albight much less informed of modern trappings just as I am ignorant about what makes his world tick.

As for your statment about educated people having less children, while the uneducated having more tends to dumb down the overall population... ahem... formal education and intelligence are not mutually dependent.

Jerm... so where does micro stop & macro begin? Why is the rainforrest being cut down if not for use on micro level? I will tell a story... back in college we had a cafeteria... an average college, 2000 students... hundreds if not thousands of them all over the States... on any given day at luch I could find a bagel lying on the floor, being stepped all over, but nobody cared. Except that is for me... See, back in my country I was brought up to believe that stepping on bread was sacrelage. So I would go & pick that peice of bread up... all americans thought i was a wierdo foriegn student & girls refused to go out with me, but thats another story :P. Anyway the short of it... if I went to an average college & found 3 wasted bagels in an average week, then how many bagels are wasted throughout all of the colleges (numbering in the thousands in here). And if a college cafeteria is but one place in a much larger society and an average american student's behavior is a sample of that societies values, then how many bagels are wasted all over the States? Same goes about the paper, a paper that is made out of those rainforrests that are being cut down. The only difference between micro & macro is that of scale. All else is same.

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

Scipio Africanus — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:49:40 GMT

Muk, you assume that in order to enjoy the benefits of "more siblings" they must be biological relatives. I think with alternative forms of social organization, such as [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz#Psychological_aspects]communal child care[/url], that need not be the case.

LC difference between eating meat and destroying a rain forest is one of sustainability. At some point, destroying an ecosystem is irreversible and not sustainable for a healthy planet. Harvesting meat (domestic or hunted) may be totally sustainable forever if done properly.

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

jerm — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:55:37 GMT

[quote]How is consuming meat different from consuming a homestead or recreation in a park? Except the fact that those products satisfy different needs?[/quote]

You're still using micro scale. Macro would be a rainforest like Locus, or even a continent. A homestead or a park is still pretty small scale. Do you not think we need to try and conserve the natural environment of places, even as we grow? Doesn't doing so contribute to our quality of life?

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

Locus Coeruleus — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:33:01 GMT

How is consuming meat different then say, consuming (destroying) a rain forest that is habitat to millions of species?

[quote]Concern that we have grown too fast for our own good is one that assumes that past generations were dumber than present & that future generations will be smarter than us. While that is true overall due to natural selection, this thinking does not apply to the breif pariod of time that is recorded human history. That is much like Bahai religious teaching and is as flawed as that.[/quote]

Come again? If the more educated folks are breeding less than the less educated folks, wouldn't there be a trend towards future generations becoming dumber than present and past generations? :D And what of the Bahai religious teaching? What, unity? That humanity is advancing on a quest towards truth and harmony? What of it? :P

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

-M- — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:22:47 GMT

How is consuming meat different from consuming a homestead or recreation in a park? Except the fact that those products satisfy different needs?

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

jerm — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 12:48:41 GMT

[quote]Are you a vegetarian? Even if you arent, let us consider how a vegetarian comes about his diet. He says consuming animals is immoral bcz animals have are live. But then arent plants just as live as an animal? Or how about the fact that tons of live pests were exterminated in the process of producing a sanitarily prepared quality tofu burger? Arent those pests live too?[/quote]

....um, that's not what I meant. Killing an animal to feed yourself/family is not the same as destroying a habitat and replace it with something else. Not that I'm against this but I was trying to define the question, "Is it moral to push out others for our benefit?" There's a difference between the micro and the macro. I don't think it's immoral, however I think that every effort should be made to limit the macro effects we do create.

[quote]We know there is a tradeoff beween quality parenting (and offspring outcomes) in larger families that have to provide quantity parenting. It is a self-evident axiom. If you have 2 close friends who need your help/guidance/feedback in the next two days, what you will be able to give them will be substantitively different than what you can give them if there are 10 of them who all need some help/guidance/feedback in the next two days. Too many of us lowers our quality.[/quote]

I don't know if that's true to be honest. Mind you, this is just anectodal to this discussion but it seems pretty universal. Children with no siblings tend to be a bit spoiled from my observation. Even at later stages in their lives, the ones I've known, seem to be a bit self centered as well. On the flip side, the people I've known who have grown up in large families have tended to be much more well rounded. When you have so many siblings you have to learn early that you are part of a group and not just an individual, and yet because you don't have all the attention on you, you grow up a bit faster. Perhaps it's a good thing to not have so much one on one time with Mom or Dad. If there is any problems in our society, it's not that people are growing up too fast. In fact I think the reverse would be true.

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

-M- — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 06:49:19 GMT

[quote] Is it moral to push out others for our benefit? [/quote]

Are you a vegetarian? Even if you arent, let us consider how a vegetarian comes about his diet. He says consuming animals is immoral bcz animals have are live. But then arent plants just as live as an animal? Or how about the fact that tons of live pests were exterminated in the process of producing a sanitarily prepared quality tofu burger? Arent those pests live too?

From where I stand, it is visible that a vegetarian comes about his diet where convinience of survival meets with taught values.

Growth was created by technological advances. Vaccination anyone? Concern that we have grown too fast for our own good is one that assumes that past generations were dumber than present & that future generations will be smarter than us. While that is true overall due to natural selection, this thinking does not apply to the breif pariod of time that is recorded human history. That is much like Bahai religious teaching and is as flawed as that.

[quote] Must they be taken totally literally, and must they be taken out of context? [/quote]

Having more siblings is advantagious to having less. While you do make valid points as to quality parenting, parenting is only 1 part of the equasion. A child is brough up by the whole society, not just his parents. In roman times a child came of age when he was 15. Why? Well efficiency of their society demanded that children start producing at an earlier age. Today we can afford him to idle around much longer. At the same time our older people can be productive well into the ages that were considered senile back then. If it is the question of overall productivity of any given individual, a decreasing population will not be detremental to the well being of a society when the produce of a contributing member can feed himself & 2 or more non producing members. That is 3 in the least. Are we at that point?

We have sex not for the sake of creation but for recreation. Children are the side effect. In industrialized societies, young people have more choices than in the 3rd world. Hence they become parents at a later stage in their lives. That gives them less time to creat more children. Fertility goes down with age, while wisedom as to matters of how to prevent unwanted side effects goes up. If the human society is a selfregulating natural phenomenon, then 7 billion of us is not a mistake.

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

Scipio Africanus — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 03:07:33 GMT

[quote]

An ageold wisedome states: "count your blessings, be thankful & multiply" Multiplying is the only way that life has sustained itself on on earth from the begining. Life got a foothold on this planet under much harsher conditions than are present today, or so the scientists say. The question is: "can we outgrow our own selfagrandizing tendencies?" Decreasing population is bad for economy.

[/quote]

I know about this. But two questions. Must they be taken totally literally, and must they be taken out of context? By literally I mean: if most couples have a single child, a few have zero, and a few have >1 the net effect will ge a gradually diminishing pop size. This on the one hand constitutes "going forth and multiplying." Must we take it so literally as to mean "make as many babies as you possibly can?

We know there is a tradeoff beween quality parenting (and offspring outcomes) in larger families that have to provide quantity parenting. It is a self-evident axiom. If you have 2 close friends who need your help/guidance/feedback in the next two days, what you will be able to give them will be substantitively different than what you can give them if there are 10 of them who all need some help/guidance/feedback in the next two days. Too many of us lowers our quality.

While I can totally empathize with the spirit of the age-old axioms extolling reproduction, I take issue with them being applied too literally and withoutcontext. Human beings are us, and we are awesome. We belong here, playing the role of steward, and doing what is necessary to promote sustainable human-and-natural ecological dynamics. More of us will always be necessary for the interminable future to play that role. The question is relatively how much more?

I want to argue that we do not need to maintain our numbers at 7billion to the best job for our species and other species. We could very likely do it just as well or better at 3billion or even 990,000,000. Yes, there would be dramatic macroeconomic adjustments to be made, but can't those be made without cataclysm if the transiition to smaller population is suffiencient understood, guided, even controlled and regulated?

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

Nuclearcow — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 01:59:30 GMT

[quote]What created such a fast growth in the last century? [/quote]Cindy Crawford. :Wow: "WOW!"

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

jerm — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:57:53 GMT

It's funny that you singled me out in this M. I get the feeling you just read the last post of mine in this thread ;). The problem is that using resources may in fact be detrimental to other species/ecosystems. In short, we're gobbling up resources (including land) which would have been otherwise used by other creatures. I think the only question here is one of morality. Is it moral to push out others for our benefit? Shouldn't we try and find a way to cohabitate with the rest of creation?

[quote]Currently there are nearly 7 billion human beings 7,000,000,000. Through most of human natural history, that figure probably hovered in the millions.[/quote]

This is the issue of course. Growth is good, perhaps such fast growth (without the time to realize the problem and develop solutions) does create problems on the macro-ecological scale. What created such a fast growth in the last century?

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

-M- — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:25:04 GMT

Jerm

Thinking there is something that needs to be repared & that repairing should be done by us, assumes that we are alien to the system.

Let us not forget that hard we may try, we will never outgrow earth's capacity to bear life. At given times we may comprise a bigger percentage of total biomass than at other times, but let us not forget that each additional mouth needs feeding. Feeding takes resources and without those resources that mouth will not be around for very long. Earth's absolute capacity to bear life may vary itself and that is independent of our activities.

Scip

As to your book... worry not if the force is with you. Instead charge ahead and mey be the direction you have charged will be the direction the force has gone too.

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

Scipio Africanus — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:48:35 GMT

Good point about Japan LC, and yes you are correct Jerm: the DT is not the same everywhere it has occurred, but it did occur in U.S. too. DT does not necessarily mean zero birth growth. It just means dramatically reduced birth and death rates: in short, a slower circulation of people or as I would put it: an emphasis on Quality instead of Quantity.

Guys, I still don't think you are even really getting my point on this, which maybe is a good sign that it might really be a controversial book.

Currently there are nearly 7 billion human beings 7,000,000,000. Through most of human natural history, that figure probably hovered in the millions.

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

jerm — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:25:18 GMT

The Demographic Transition link was helpful and even helped me understand the article I posted :P. For some reason I had pictured ancient, classical and medieval civilizations when you said, "throughout history." The thing with the DT is that it seems to be a natural progression as societies become more industrialized and free and especially, the introduction and availability of contraception. What's the need for a push by governments? If anything, spreading these values to the developing world is what is needed. Also, we have yet to see the final outcome of the Demographic Transition in Europe. It appears the The U.S. never really followed this trend either. We still have more births than we do deaths, though our growth is slow and steady. Not really arguing here, just commenting... :hehe:

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

Locus Coeruleus — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:14:13 GMT

Don't know how relevant this would be to your book, Scip, but an interesting case scenario with regards to societal depopulation is Japan. In terms of fertility rates, Japan looks much like Western Europe/Canada/Australia etc. But unlike these countries, esp. Western Europe, Japan has virtually no immigration and no growing Islamic population, so there are relatively no buffers in place in Japan to affront the shrinking population. In terms of it's current economy, Japan is likely projecting upon it self the societal Hari kiri in the decades to come. So you want a good analysis of non-imposed voluntary depopulation, one need look no further than the land of the rising sun.

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

Scipio Africanus — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:13:52 GMT

Cool, thanks for the link.

As for "populations that have willingly restricted their growth: virtually all the industrial powers underwent the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition]Demographic Transition[/url] back in the 19th century, and many other nations are undergoing it today.

Part of this is couples having fewer children.

I think I now see what it is I need to write my book on . . . hope you guys don't mind if I try out different ideas on youze.

Thing about being in higher education for about 22 years straight: you stop perceiving what normal people automatically know in an instant with your head up in the clouds. Maybe that is why so many times my posts on here seem to end threads? Engaged to post some more, but a bit tired tonight.

As for whether "more people = more environmental degradation," being debatable, you are likely correct that there is a fundamental debate there. But I'll be if I set about collecting the evidence, I can formulate a very cogent argument that more people will (all else being equal) always lead to more environmental degradation.

. . . wow, finally 1BC might just prove to be a seed-bed for something that can go on my CV :)

ADDIT: one point I should make: I might argue pretty heavily in favor of declining population sizes, and my 'intuition' is strongly leaned in that direction. But in honesty, I have not yet done all the background work that I sincerely know I need to do to reach the 99% confidence interval (let alone the 95%). I will with skepticism acknowledge that technology might even allow bigger and BIGGER populations to create better, and BETTER human-natural ecological sustainability. But I'm highly, HIGHLY dubious of such an hypothesis in any short- to medium-term time-frame, which I do believe is the time-frame that needs to be considered.

Some of these "Global Warming" guys on here I know detest me because I'm a fly in their ointment. But I do agree heartily with them that we need to be highly 'up in arms' about the state of Earth's natural ecologies. I am just skeptical that it can be such a simplified story as "human industrializtion=global warming: therefore, reduce carbon emissions = silver bullet."

I think most of the actual environmental problems that derive from human beings have more to do with our use of geography than anything else: habitat loss, riverine sequestration, etc.

Anyway, anyone who is keen to get in on this, I want to invite you to speak your mind. It will help me in actually moving forward on the book. And I need to write the book to decide which hypothesis seems more tenable (a) Jerm's "Technology Can/Will Save Us" hypothesis or my own (b) There are too many of us hypothesis.

ADDIT: thought this was appropos, [url=http://www.metacafe.com/watch/134851/malaysian_girl_at_mmu_college/]Malaysian Girl having Fun at MMU University[/url]

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

jerm — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:55:23 GMT

Found this article just from a skim of google:

[url=http://www.popcouncil.org/pdfs/councilarticles/pdr/pdr291demeny.pdf]Population Policy Dilemmas in Europe at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century[/url]- Paul Demeny

I'm not sure who this guy is and if it supports either of our sides but it seems apt to the discussion. I think you'd at least find it interesting Scip.;)

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

jerm — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:46:33 GMT

Whether or not the earth is an "ecological disaster" is a matter of opinion, though I respect it. Many ecological systems are certainly not what they were 10,000 years ago but whether or not mankind's large population is 'good' or 'bad' is a matter of opinion. I think one can objectively say that the earth would be "different" with higher populations, even as it is different now than it was a century ago. I'd certainly agree that we should take measures to limit our impact and even repair what we can. I think with technology, this will be more and more possible, especially with a society that cares.

I also have a problem with your "teachings of Jesus" cultural analogy. Firstly, I did not say that cultures cannot continue for thousands of years, only that I'm skeptical that cultures which advocate (or at least are successful at this) depopulation can exist for thousands of years. You've mentioned that several societies throughout history have chosen to limit their populations. Could you mention a few? Not that I don't believe you, I'd just like to be able to comment on them and compare them with our (western) society and discover how long they lasted with this policy in place.

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

Scipio Africanus — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 08:06:21 GMT

Jerm you're right that the Earth COULD hold many more thousands of times what it currently holds, but the question is: what would the Earth be like under those circumstances?

At present, Earth is an "ecological disaster." Major natural ecosystems that remained largely intact at around 10,000 BC are largely relicts. We need to get back to that sustainable homeostasis, and we have the technology, the morality, and the intelligence to do it.

As for how to make a 1000 year pattern persist? Change the Culture.

The Teachings of Jesus emerged more than 2000 years ago and have not just 'hung in there,' they have spread, persisted, and come to thrive.

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

Nuclearcow — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 02:19:54 GMT

If fewer population is wanted... what are some non-nefarious ways to accomplish this? Governmental tax breaks to people who have fewer kids, rather than tax breaks for more? Pay young people to sterilize themselves? Make women wear burkas? What else? :D

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

Scipio Africanus — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 22:32:51 GMT

Will ty to get to this tomorrow when I'm mor cogent. Remind me if I'm derelict.;)

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

jerm — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 18:15:50 GMT

Nuke, I've said it over and over. I do not wish to downplay the effects of a nuclear meltdown. We should do whatever is necessary to ensure that it doesn't ever happen. I believe that deciding to not use nuclear power is not the only way to do this. Chernobyl isn't the only meltdown BTW, but it is the worst case scenario and the [i]only[/i] one which caused long term damage. Even with the long term damage, life is flourishing in the area directly around the event. All I'm saying is, it's not the end of the world.

Scip, I've looked and looked but it's hard to find due to the radical change threads go through ;). One that just occured to me :grumbles after lengthy search that he thinks of it on the fly so quickly: is from the Photo Album in a thread origionally started about Cleo's birds.

[url=http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2256507-60-3.aspx]Best Friends Forever[/url] Scipio's last serious post:

[quote]

No, I think that that is utterly false. The demographic transition (basically smaller family sizes and slowing population growth rate) has occurred repeatedly in myriad nations where certain social, economic, and/or ecological factors existed. That means that there is extremely sound historical evidence that average people in a variety of societies have CHOSEN to have fewer children, if not, no children at all, repeatedly in recorded history, whenever they experience certain socio-cultural environments. That tells me that, people can "unlearn" their "instinct" that procreating is the natural and indeed, seemingly inevitable thing for us to all do.

In short, we must change our minds, and that can be effected by changing our cultures. I have not done the math, but my gut instinct on it from having taken a few courses in demography: If something like merely half of us chose to have zero children one-quarter to have only 1, and that last quarter to have 2 or more, and that pattern persisted for 1000 years, we could easily regain a sustainable human population size. To be sure, there would be SERIOUS social and economic adjustments necessary along the way, but we can do it, if we accept it as something that we all want to happen in the long-run.

There is nothing insidious, evil, or suspect about the position I am expressing, and there is nothing hateful toward anything underlying it. I love children, I love human beings, and I love life, and that is why I feel strongly about this matter, and why I feel compelled to communicate about it here. We must shrink our numbers, willingly, and through self-restraint, if not a certain degree of institutional imposition, somewhat akin to China's One Child Laws. It will NOT require draconian, much less even totalitarian measures to achieve, IF we start talking about it now, and realizing it is something that our children should also understand.[/quote]

My last serious post:

[quote]1000 years? Has any society, let alone "policy" ever lasted 1000 years? I don't think that any goal which looks to 1000 years as the "end date" could be possible. That said, I think as cultures become more and more secular, populations in those countries will at least equalize. I don't know if this is necessarilly a good thing though. Currently Europe is not repopulating itself with natural born citizens. As a result heavy immigration from countries who's culture encourages repopulation has grown. We've heard the saying that in 50 years Europe will have more muslims than Europeans. Even if it's 100 years, that culture will prevail if it is the one which repopulates itself. So it's kind of a catch 22. If you try to decrease your population, you will eventually be phased out by the new culture who's population continues to grow. Now your culture is dead and so is your idea to lower population.

I happen to think that the Earth can hold many more times what it currently holds. With current technology perhaps not but I seriously doubt 100 years ago, the Earth could hold half the population we have today. I won't speak to whether this is a good thing or not, only that institutionalized population control doesn't sound very pragmatic and may have very serious unintended consequences.

You will have to convince everyone to go along with you and this cannot be done in a free society. Look how polarized this country is over every issue under the sun, imagine what kind of resistance you will get with this subject. No, institutionalism on this issue is a no win in my book. I'm not even sure the goal is possible or even a good idea.[/quote]

After that we all kind of realized it wasn't the right place for the discussion I suppose :w00t:. If you want to start a thread about this go ahead but I'm trying to limit my time debating on these boards at the moment due to real life issues so I don't think that would help me :P.

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

Locus Coeruleus — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:40:25 GMT

But folks.... Depopulation is a reality. In most of Europe, in Japan, in Canada, in Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong and various other nations.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate]List of Countries and Territories by Fertility Rate[/url]

Granted the Global Fertility rate may be on the plus side, but in significant sections of the planet it is in the negative. And this, no doubt will have an impact on these parts of the world.

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

Nuclearcow — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 01:54:27 GMT

[quote]Where did I dismiss it? In fact, I even said, "it should not be taken out of the equation," didn't I? [/quote]Errr... the stuff on it being "just" 50 x 50 miles of useless land on the planet for many generations to come. That sounded minimizing to me. No one would miss Rhode Island? :P What about water table contamination spreading and all that? I'm not against nuclear power, but just made my above comment because of your multiple posts that sounded like you were minimizing a meltdown to me.

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

Nuclearcow — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 01:04:57 GMT

Maybe even debate some odd depopulation methods. Governmental bonuses to people who sterilize themselves? :D We could come up with some interesting ideas.

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

Scipio Africanus — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:10:46 GMT

[quote]I have addressed your depopulation theory with concerns but have never received a counter point to it. We also have to come to grips with the fact that at this point in history, depopulation is not likely. We can wish all we want but for now we must deal with the issues at hand[/quote]

I'm sorry; I must've missed that ;) Actually, I was kinda disappointed that nobody seemed to even give a nibble on any of my repeated baitings to discuss the "Depopulation Hypothesis."

Just link to whereever you stated your rebuttal, or better yet, copy it to a new thread and we'll get going.

This is not like something I'm militant about. More philosophical than anything, but I do believe it is true. So, in short, might actually be fun to get a little debate going on it.

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

jerm — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:21:50 GMT

[quote]Jerm, you're dismissing a nuclear meltdown and an area that is now unlivable in for a long time. What the?[/quote]

Where did I dismiss it? In fact, I even said, "it should not be taken out of the equation," didn't I?

[quote]I think the original point was that for nuclear technology being MOSTLY safe, there is still that inherent risk that is quite unlike any other risk out there in any other field. With oil and refineries, the biggest risk you have is starting a massive blaze that could burn like crazy, but certainly won't make an area uninhabitable or create mutations, etc. Nuclear technology has a risk to it, albeit unlikely, to jack things up like nothing else in existence can. Except for maybe Rosie O'Donnell. She probably could too.[/quote]

I do understand the original point, I just don't find it all that compelling. Some do, I don't. I believe the risk is worth it. That is, while the potential damage is high, it seems that the odds of it ever happening again are extremely low and in fact negligible, at least in the first world... which brings us to one of Scipio's points:

[quote]But then, how can malfeasance and maliciousness, let alone sabotage, ever be ruled out 100%?[/quote]

Could this be a reason for limiting who gets to use this technology? I know it kind of runs into the other thread but I kind of do fear what a desperate for power nation like Iran would do to "push the limits". That said, why should the responsible world be punished for using such a technology responsibly?

[quote]But me personally? I want 90% of all human-impacted land to be turned back to wilderness, and anything that threatens that long-term goal has to be regarded with hesitancy if not suspiscion.[/quote]

That is an honest answer and I respect that. I have addressed your depopulation theory with concerns but have never received a counter point to it. We also have to come to grips with the fact that at this point in history, depopulation is not likely. We can wish all we want but for now we must deal with the issues at hand.

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

cleopatra143 — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:31:11 GMT

[quote][b]Scipio Africanus (7/4/2008)[/b][hr]I definitely hear ya Jerm. I noted that part about how and why Chernobyl happened. It was not at all an "unavoidable" or "freak" accident. It was malfeasance if not maliciousness. But then, how can malfeasance and maliciousness, let alone sabotage, ever be ruled out 100%?

I also hear ya that Rhode Island is piddly squat compared to the awesome swath of ecological destruction called "The Greater Los Angelos Metropolitan Sprawlathon." :P

But me personally? I want 90% of all human-impacted land to be turned back to wilderness, and anything that threatens that long-term goal has to be regarded with hesitancy if not suspiscion.

Again, I think the real solution here is not (a) more oil; or (b) more alternative energy forms; nor even (c) more recycling, reusing, and efficiency . . .

I'm not arguingthat noneof these partial, and interim if not short-term solutions should be explored and/or carried out. But I will argue that they are never going to fully solve the problem on a planet with a bunch of nasty-dirty randy big-brained apes intent on fully infesting Mother Earth with their progeny.

The Ultimate Solution is: fewer dirty damned apes. Combine that with elements of (a) (b) and (c) above for a thousand years or so, and = no more problem![/quote]the end is near.

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

Scipio Africanus — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:21:43 GMT

I definitely hear ya Jerm. I noted that part about how and why Chernobyl happened. It was not at all an "unavoidable" or "freak" accident. It was malfeasance if not maliciousness. But then, how can malfeasance and maliciousness, let alone sabotage, ever be ruled out 100%?

I also hear ya that Rhode Island is piddly squat compared to the awesome swath of ecological destruction called "The Greater Los Angelos Metropolitan Sprawlathon." :P

But me personally? I want 90% of all human-impacted land to be turned back to wilderness, and anything that threatens that long-term goal has to be regarded with hesitancy if not suspiscion.

Again, I think the real solution here is not (a) more oil; or (b) more alternative energy forms; nor even (c) more recycling, reusing, and efficiency . . .

I'm not arguing that none of these partial, and interim if not short-term solutions should be explored and/or carried out. But I will argue that they are never going to fully solve the problem on a planet with a bunch of nasty-dirty randy big-brained apes intent on fully infesting Mother Earth with their progeny.

The Ultimate Solution is: fewer dirty damned apes. Combine that with elements of (a) (b) and (c) above for a thousand years or so, and = no more problem!

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

Nuclearcow — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 01:28:47 GMT

Jerm, you're dismissing a nuclear meltdown and an area that is now un-livable in for a long time. What the?

I think the original point was that for nuclear technology being MOSTLY safe, there is still that inherent risk that is quite unlike any other risk out there in any other field. With oil and refineries, the biggest risk you have is starting a massive blaze that could burn like crazy, but certainly won't make an area uninhabitable or create mutations, etc. Nuclear technology has a risk to it, albeit unlikely, to jack things up like nothing else in existence can. Except for maybe Rosie O'Donnell. She probably could too.

RE: Offshore Drilling time?

jerm — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:20:19 GMT

You can sure count on "The Nation" to give unbiassed reporting. Still, they even point out:

[quote]Yet as scientists will tell you, what is commonly called the "accident" at Chernobyl was anything but. For this disaster was born of human decisions. The engineers at the plant had long been eager to test a theory. Those on the night shift decided to conduct an unauthorized test. Not specialists in nuclear science, they powered the reactor down, disabled emergency backup systems in order to see how long the turbines could operate and, hoping to learn how the reactor's coolant system would function on low electricity, instead learned how its core would melt. [/quote]

Also:

[quote]Pretty dang big area for ONE worst case scenario nuke plant meltdown to become useless to humanity for effectively "forever" if you ask me[/quote]

Rhode Island isn't even 50 miles x 50 miles. The greater Los Angeles (I use that because that's where I grew up) area could hold Rhode Island 3 times. Yeah, it's a lot of land and it should not be taken out of the equation but it's hardly what I'd consider a "pretty dang big area."