superstition defeats science

unclehobart said:
In a world with finite resouces, I disagree. You can structure the Earth to feed 5 times what we do... but what are you going to do when the oil runs dry and the trees are roasted. It can only go so far until that cliff is reached. The air would probably be rather toxic by then anyway. Pulmonary diseases will climb 10 fold. Only a determined effort to go 95% nuclear, wind, geothermal... basically non-coal/oil based energy.
Click to expand...

If you want to take that tact ..... all of those are also finite. Just not on the same scale. But .... oil can be renewed .... eventually. What you really need ia a better way to produce new oil on a faster, balanced, scale. That's what bio-fuels are aiming at. And refine the combustion systems to stop atmospheric discharge of the combustion products.

Minkey (sorry spike) .... you're working with a brush that's a little wide, guy. Plenty of scientists have merged their scientific and religious beliefs. I, for one, have no trouble aligning both evolution and Genesis. If you don't tighten up your commentary, you're gonna offend someone. And if you're not careful, that might just qualify as a AUP violation.
 
Professur said:
If you want to take that tact ..... all of those are also finite. Just not on the same scale. But .... oil can be renewed .... eventually. What you really need ia a better way to produce new oil on a faster, balanced, scale. That's what bio-fuels are aiming at. And refine the combustion systems to stop atmospheric discharge of the combustion products.
Click to expand...

Or go to hydrogen, then your main atmospheric discharge is water...

prof said:
Spike .... you're working with a brush that's a little wide, guy. Plenty of scientists have merged their scientific and religious beliefs. I, for one, have no trouble aligning both evolution and Genesis. If you don't tighten up your commentary, you're gonna offend someone. And if you're not careful, that might just qualify as a AUP violation.
Click to expand...

That was 2minkey's tirade...spike is on ignore...;)
 
I like a nice combo of hydrogen and solar. At least the sun isn't going to run dry soon, and hydrogen can take over when the sun is gone and batteries are running low.
 
Professur said:
My appologies, Spike.
Click to expand...

No problem. I've noticed this ignore feature sso afr seems to be used by people who just can't tolerate a different opinion or defend their own opinion well. These people are using insults first and then the ignore.

My guess is that since Gato_Solo has already started insulting 2minkey that 2minkey will be ignored soon also. It's a shame people act this way but if you can't tolerate a difference of opinion it's probably better if they stay out of the discusssion anyway.
 
It's not so much that the different opinion isn't tolerated, as the way it's presented is ... irritating. It usually has more to do with the poster's style and phrasing as the issue. I know for me, the posters that wind up on the list have usually proven themselves to be talking out their assholes just before they hit the list. I'm more than happy to share time thrashing out differences of opinion, and we're often left agreeing to disagree. But when people start arguing that 2+2=5 .... welcome to the list.
 
chcr said:
Gotholic said:
I agree with you for the most part, but not that overpopulation is the cause. Birth rates in nearly all industrialized nations are actually below replacement levels. The real problem is improper use of resources.
Click to expand...
What is that, 5% of the nations on the planet? I think the population problem is overstated, but there are real consequences.
Click to expand...

You need to look at the percentage of the world's population in industrialized nations, which is about 20% or so. Besides just industrialized nations, global fertility and birth rates have been rapidly decreasing for about the past 25 years.
 
Mmmm'kay

So like yer a sub-Saharan savage foraging for firewood to
to cook the game you took with yer spear.

The energy released from the firewood and the energy
that grew the grass that the game ate came from good old Sol

The hydrocarbons extracted from the earth that power the
first world economies yep it came from the Sun

In an odd way...
the energy that is released from the uranium 'burning' in
103 U.S. nuclear plants came from explosions of supernovas.
(once again stars)

So yeah the concept that we'd ever run out of energy isn't really valid.

The earth’s capacity to support the human population isn't at issue,
perhaps the why is?

Does the Cosmos really need people?

Are there any other sentient life forms that deserve to continue
to exist anymore than us?

Prolly not.

Let’s shoot all them baby embryos into the Sun!
 
Winky said:
So yeah the concept that we'd ever run out of energy isn't really valid.
Click to expand...
You're right, there will always be plenty of energy available. The problem will arise when we don't have a viable means to use it. Might never happen, but given the human prediliction for waitng until after the last minute...

Re the population problem, lots of examples in anthropology of species outstripping their food supply. It's called famine and there are certainly other factors involved but there it is. The trends of the past twenty-five years are meaningless. Five hundred years is barely a moment in time. As I say, the population problem (just like the global warming one) is vastly overstated but the potential still exists.
 
As long as theres a large enough segment of cool people like us that
post on chat boards all day (night) the werld will be fine.
 
Winky said:
As long as theres a large enough segment of cool people like us that
post on chat boards all day (night) the werld will be fine.
Click to expand...
I feel so much better now. :D
 
chcr said:
Re the population problem, lots of examples in anthropology of species outstripping their food supply. It's called famine and there are certainly other factors involved but there it is.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Ireland potato famine of 1845 comes to mind. But I can not think of anything that was soley caused by a "local overpopulation".


chcr said:
Gotholic said:
Besides just industrialized nations, global fertility and birth rates have been rapidly decreasing for about the past 25 years.
Click to expand...
The trends of the past twenty-five years are meaningless. Five hundred years is barely a moment in time.
Click to expand...
I believe history has proven that concept wrong. Do not forget the Baby Boom, which was a rapid population growth for the United States during the span of only 18 years.

chcr said:
As I say, the population problem (just like the global warming one) is vastly overstated but the potential still exists.
Click to expand...

The real problem is that it is decreasing almost everywhere.
 
What? You have the teeny tinyest doubt
that our typing here won't save the werld?

Pshaw!
 
Gotholic said:
I believe history has proven that concept wrong. Do not forget the Baby Boom, which was a rapid population growth for the United States during the span of only 18 years.
Click to expand...


Gotholic said:
The real problem is that it is decreasing almost everywhere.
Click to expand...
The second one more or less refutes the first. :shrug:
 
chcr said:
The second one more or less refutes the first. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Not at all.

Notice I said almost everywhere.

The Baby Boom for the United States ended in 1964. As of right now, the replacement level for United States is just barley keeping its head above water.
 
Gato_Solo said:
And now you, personally, are a judge of religion?
Click to expand...

i think it's well within anyone's right to be a critic of things they find less than super duper. mike brady, reasonable guy he is, would probably agree.

in my opinion, when religious doctrine outweighs what appears to be rational, pragmatic choice, yeah, then i have a problem with it. for instance, when parents deny medical treatment to their kids because of some kooky beliefs, then yeah, i would call that "stupid religion."

are you qualified to make your own personal judgements on things? yes? hmmm... then so's everyone else. or maybe you should be the arbiter of... everything? and then, again, whomever appears to have a different point of view is a hypocrite? sounds great. sign me right the fuck up.
 
Sounds good to me as well.

Sign me right the 'fuck-up' too!

Winky, arbiter of everything!
 
2minkey said:
when religious doctrine outweighs what appears to be rational, pragmatic choice,
Click to expand...

I've lost count. What's the point of this thread? Anyways, that quote says it all. APPEARANCES. I think any fool who refuses emergency or life saving medical care to anyone on religious grounds are idjits. However, if said idjit has the authority to chose, then we ought to stand by & be sad about thier choice (assuming no other conditions persist)
 
Free will
independent thought?

Hell no we can't have that!

We have to look to a Priest or the Government or something!

Reminds me of a recent verbal war I engaged a far left liberal in.

Three quarters of the way through I realized he actually couldn’t even begin
to grasp my idea.

He kept falling back to the crap about how everyone makes things up as they
go along how morality is subjective.

I realized it was totally beyond his ability to grasp my position.

A is A reality exists
I don’t make the rules
I sure as hell don’t get too make it up as I go along

I found it odd and he found it something that drove him (further) too distraction

I can understand the basis for the commie-libs position

They can’t even begin to fathom ours, hence the irritation.

The really does exist
it is your job to grasp that truth not seek to evade it at every turn
or delude yourself that you can make it up as you go along.

Sorry Johnny
welcome to real life…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top