How to Feed the World

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
The dictionary definition is for laymen only. It is not accurate from a strict, linguistic or philosophic standpoint.

Argument by appeal to authority is not much of an argument at all. In this case, I reject the authority you cited.

Reject whatever you want. I still think you’re the DICTIONARY definition of racist. And it is accurate from any normal standpoint. We’re not your “university” buddies, we’re just guys on a bodybuilding forum.

Might want to get off the pedestal.[/quote]

I don’t disagree whatsoever. I would merely point out that most people raised in PC Western societies are instilled from early on to have a knee jerk reaction against any racially charged statement. The majority never stop to consider the matter on a deeper level than they were taught.

What’s the point of berating me because my beliefs are not “normal”? I thought that members of this site took some pride in setting themselves apart from the ignorant masses, in more ways than one?

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
What’s the point of berating me because my beliefs are not “normal”?[/quote]

Because we’ve been taught, as PC thinkers, that its ok to be superior to someone else concerning our beliefs but not in any other ambiguous biological factors.

Dear god, watch the walls come tumbling down if you were to point out how much better particular classes of athletes were at some activities compared to others…

The notion that people cannot be molded like clay by society but are born with innate talents, virtues and vices is a bedrock conservative principle.

Biology trumps all.

Some people who call themselves “conservatives” would do well to stop making noise and take a refresher course on what conservatism is really about.

I get amused when liberals (neocons) tell me that I’m not a true conservative because I’m not PC.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Start shipping truckloads of sarin gas to third world hell holes.

Fuck those fuckers, they arent even white anyways.

Problem solved.[/quote]

Damn NP, Have a heart.

It’s going to take an invasion from another planet for some people to understand race.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
I don’t disagree whatsoever. I would merely point out that most people raised in PC Western societies are instilled from early on to have a knee jerk reaction against any racially charged statement. The majority never stop to consider the matter on a deeper level than they were taught.

What’s the point of berating me because my beliefs are not “normal”? I thought that members of this site took some pride in setting themselves apart from the ignorant masses, in more ways than one?[/quote]

I’d say you’d be the ignorant one. It matters not though. In 1000 years we’ll all be a hybrid of Chinese and Indian.

Russell Peters ftw.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
lixy wrote:
Overpopulation depicts a situation where an organism’s numbers exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat.

A population will NEVER exceed a given habitat’s carrying capacity. That is information that is provided by the definition of carrying capacity.

On the other hand, production verses consumption determines to what extent any habitat will carry a given population. Before agriculture and technological innovation the environment couldn’t sustain much life. That is hardly the case now. My argument still stands.

Try finding overpopulation as the concept exists in any other species than humans and I will concede your point – in some cases humans have even made it possible for other species to exist in greater number than before (Fido, the family pet for example). Overpopulation is a made-up concept to guilt humans into consuming and reproducing less.

The fact that governments steal from the productive capacity of its citizens doesn’t help matters much either.[/quote]

This (and the above argument) is persuasive to me, and makes sense.

I do not think your trying to deny that a state exists where a population presently is greater then the immediate resources, but rather that this state does not naturally develop–and that what we see as “overpopulation” is the result of other causes (war, mismanagement, etc…). correct me if i’m wrong.

(just trying to get my positive posts in for the day)

Heil Hitler!

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
I do not think your trying to deny that a state exists where a population presently is greater then the immediate resources, but rather that this state does not naturally develop–and that what we see as “overpopulation” is the result of other causes (war, mismanagement, etc…). correct me if i’m wrong.
[/quote]

Yes. This is the argument I was trying to make.

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
I sympathize with some of Pollan’s positions and have enjoyed his books but the idea that we should all just eat corn and grain for the good of the masses is pure shit.

[/quote]

Hmm…I actually just finished reading both of his books, and he is extremely against the consumption, subsidization and growth of corn, period.

Aside from that, I completely agree with everything else you said…Great points

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
I’m racist. And quite possibly genocidal.

Yes. Yes you are.

Haha!!!

Nominal I dare you to basically agree. You know you want to.

Any person who acknowledges the concept of race, even at its most superficial level (for instance, via recognition that “black people” exist as a group distinct from “whites”) is, strictly speaking, a “racist”. Beyond that, we’re arguing semantics.

That’s one way for me to answer the question.

The other way would be for me to say, of course I’m a racist - I’m male. To be anti-racist is to be anti-male.

Discrimination is a basic survival skill. Human life would be impossible without it.

My views on overpopulation categorize me as a humanitarian because I don’t believe in allowing countless millions of people to live pointless lives filled with agony and toil.

Death is a perfectly natural course of action for things that never should have existed in the first place.

We are basically keeping billions on life support by shipping modern antibiotics and vaccines to third world nations.

This represents a planned human intervention into the mechanism of natural selection which is, intrisically, no different from the practice of eugenics. The consequences of this cannot be ignored for long, though some may find it politically expedient to do so.

As a trained economist, I realize that the third world cannot be “brought up” without bringing down the first world, if at all. That’s a trade that I’m not willing to make.

Everyone is trying to save one group at the expense of another. Some people who don’t understand economics (namely, liberals and neocons) fail to realize that the betterment of one group must necessarily result in the downfall of another. At least, this is true as far as statist, wealth-redistribution policies are concerned.

If we are going to practice eugenics - and I have already demonstrated why this must be the case - then I would much prefer them to be applied towards the betterment of the noble, civilized races instead of the savage hordes.

Western governments are quite racist, indeed. They are openly biased towards minorities and against their native, white populations.[/quote]

Excellent information, I agree with you on some points…

You are incorrect in one major point though - Our country is not breaking or falling apart because of our humanitarian beliefs and practices - I take exception to this quote of yours - “As a trained economist, I realize that the third world cannot be “brought up” without bringing down the first world, if at all. That’s a trade that I’m not willing to make.”

Quite simply, that isn’t true. On average, we donate .1% of our GDP in humanitarian aid. Thats it. Its more total money than anyone else(and applaud us for that) but its not like we are going poor by helping 3rd world countries.

Either wa, one could also agrue that by bring up 3d world countries, we are also creating generations of consumers of american products

[quote]Get out the Door wrote:
Its more total money than anyone else(and applaud us for that) [/quote]

Hum.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1689081,00.html