[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Yes, we have had this damn thread resurrected more times than Jesus ?!?
Can we get back to shit that is much more relevant, like the problem of overpopulation of this
small blue orb floating in space by the most destructive of all animals…US ![/quote]
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/[/quote]
Yours was too easy… let’s see if you can spot the bias or ulterior motive in my link in under 30 seconds too (if it exists).
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Yes, we have had this damn thread resurrected more times than Jesus ?!?
Can we get back to shit that is much more relevant, like the problem of overpopulation of this
small blue orb floating in space by the most destructive of all animals…US ![/quote]
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/[/quote]
Yours was too easy… let’s see if you can spot the bias or ulterior motive in my link in under 30 seconds too (if it exists).
http://www.overpopulation.org/[/quote]
The first name I see is Henry W Kindall. Here’s a quote from Kindall:
“…Such circumstances have been of concern since Thomas R. Malthus first called attention, in 1798, to the consequences of their continuation; decreasing per capita food and great human suffering.”
As I told you the Malthusian Catastrophe was proved nonsense over 150 years ago. These are crackpots known as ‘Neo-Malthusians.’ Do you know anything about what I am talking about? No? What makes you feel you are fit to hold an opinion on something you know nothing about? Dunning Kruger effect? I used to believe the world was overpopulated as well - until I actually researched it. It required reading, thinking critically and analysis of sources.
Environmental destruction including global climate change either entirely brought on by anthropogenic causes or natural and anthropogenic causes due to increases in industry, increases in population, and a strive for affluence is something to worry more about than increasing population in and of itself.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Environmental destruction including global climate change either entirely brought on by anthropogenic causes or natural and anthropogenic causes due to increases in industry, increases in population, and a strive for affluence is something to worry more about than increasing population in and of itself.[/quote]
And if it were not a problem, is increased population actually helping us or at best can we hope to maintain quality of life. Unless we have something to gain from increasing population I don’t see the point in promoting it as a non-problem.
It would depend where you’re promoting it wouldn’t it? For example, in Italy they have an average birthrate of 1.1 children and there will be only half as many Italians by 2050. Whereas in Niger the birthrate is an average 7.6 children per woman. Niger cannot sustain an increased population growth of that rate. Italy cannot sustain a decreased population growth. Neither has anything to do with whether the world is overpopulated. The world has demographic problems not overpopulation problems. But like I said, Dunning Kruger effect.
I’m more worried about increased industry and greater affluence in China more than a lot of things. Also deforestation which will have unpredictable effects including desertification, carbon sequestration, and possibly even effects on albedo that may have a global impact. There possibly going to be where America was in the 1950’s, except a billion people depending on how the trend of rural peoples going to cities continues. If everyone had the same global footprint as your average American, I don’t know what specifically would happen, but it wouldn’t be good.
It’s going to take global appreciation for the environment and increases in ‘green technology’ to either prevent or mitigate changes that are going to happen. As I see it, we need to develop technology that will prevent further destruction and pollution and to deal with the damage that’s already done and continues to harm the environment well after the fact. Chloroflourocarbons are a good example of such a pollutant.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]krazykoukides wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
They make the claim, yes. However, their theology is off track.
[/quote]
What are you comparing to come to this conclusion?[/quote]
Comparing what? Their theology? [/quote]
Yes, I meant specifically what in their theology made you come to the conclusion that they do not worship the same god as yourself.
But hey, never mind, I won’t derail this thread with something that has apparently been discussed many times.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Environmental destruction including global climate change either entirely brought on by anthropogenic causes or natural and anthropogenic causes due to increases in industry, increases in population, and a strive for affluence is something to worry more about than increasing population in and of itself.[/quote]
And if it were not a problem, is increased population actually helping us or at best can we hope to maintain quality of life. Unless we have something to gain from increasing population I don’t see the point in promoting it as a non-problem.[/quote]
So, you’re saying if it’s a non-problem, but doesn’t benefit you in some way personally, you’d like to kill a few billion people. Interesting.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
As I’ve said before if you got into a bad accident and needed an immediate operation to save y our life you wouldn’t ask the doctor if he was a Christian before going under the knife. You’d simply want him to be qualified to perform a successful operation.
[/quote]
What about a less immediate operation where not choosing that doctor doesn’t imply death?[/quote]
That’s an easy answer but I’m not sure I want to talk to a religious bigot. And I’m very serious.
I am far more open minded about non religious people than you are of religious people–BIGOT.[/quote]
I am only against those who are intolerant of others, maybe we aren’t so different after all.[/quote]
You are the very definition of intolerant. You mock Christianity under the guise of humor. And I’ve read other snide remarks made about those who are religious. That is not being tolerant of others who share beliefs that you do not. [/quote]
Compared to what?
The inquisition?
The stakes?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Yes, we have had this damn thread resurrected more times than Jesus ?!?
Can we get back to shit that is much more relevant, like the problem of overpopulation of this
small blue orb floating in space by the most destructive of all animals…US ![/quote]
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/[/quote]
Yours was too easy… let’s see if you can spot the bias or ulterior motive in my link in under 30 seconds too (if it exists).
http://www.overpopulation.org/[/quote]
The first name I see is Henry W Kindall. Here’s a quote from Kindall:
“…Such circumstances have been of concern since Thomas R. Malthus first called attention, in 1798, to the consequences of their continuation; decreasing per capita food and great human suffering.”
As I told you the Malthusian Catastrophe was proved nonsense over 150 years ago. These are crackpots known as ‘Neo-Malthusians.’ Do you know anything about what I am talking about? No? What makes you feel you are fit to hold an opinion on something you know nothing about? Dunning Kruger effect? I used to believe the world was overpopulated as well - until I actually researched it. It required reading, thinking critically and analysis of sources.[/quote]
That this was proven “nonsense” is not quite true.
Had the industrial revolution not happened that is pretty much what would have happened.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Environmental destruction including global climate change either entirely brought on by anthropogenic causes or natural and anthropogenic causes due to increases in industry, increases in population, and a strive for affluence is something to worry more about than increasing population in and of itself.[/quote]
And if it were not a problem, is increased population actually helping us or at best can we hope to maintain quality of life. Unless we have something to gain from increasing population I don’t see the point in promoting it as a non-problem.[/quote]
So, you’re saying if it’s a non-problem, but doesn’t benefit you in some way personally, you’d like to kill a few billion people. Interesting.[/quote]
Do you even know how to read?
for those that do not believe in global warming (either man made or naturally) please do use a favor and take a
hose from your lincoln navigator tailpipe, route it into your passenger compartment, seal the windows and turn
the engine on…see what happens ?? We are living in a FINITE closed ecosystem. Once the natural resources have
been blown/eaten through, well I guess you christians out there dont have to think about that since you are
heaven bound anyways…To simplify: we have ONE pie, 10 people eating it is one thing, 10 BILLION is a whole
different situation ! feel free to start flaming
Most of those people are being born in areas where people have very low quality of life and a very small global footprint. Most of the burden lies on developing and industrial nations like the US, China, India, and Europe. The biggest worries in those 3rd world countries from more population is deforestation and depletion of soils. Not to say it’s small fry, but probably not the biggest problem. And in a way, it’s related to developed nation’s ‘needs’. We buy that lumber cheap from places that don’t have sustainable forestry regulations or unable to enforce said regulations.
But we have seen civilizations fall due to local depletion of resources. As our world becomes more affected by each other and more united in many ways, this could very well become a global issue. What happens if deplete resources at a global level?
I’m not suggesting imminent disaster and time to invest in shelters, but I do think it’s a good idea to not find out what happens if we totally rape this planet the hard way. Granted, we will have to learn how to live with some of the irreparable damage that has already been done.
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:<<< please do use a favor and take a hose from your [Ford Focus] tailpipe, route it into your passenger compartment, seal the windows and turn the engine on…see what happens ???[/quote]COOOOOL!!! MY CAR STARTED!!!
Just throwing in there that there’s lots of folks that enjoy the Daily Show that a) don’t agree with everything said, b) think there are parts that aren’t funny all the time and yet can still enjoy the segments that are funny or have good insight and are not mind-numbed, 20 year old idiots. 
Stewart has and does rip on everyone (including Dems, Liberals, other religions, etc.), weird how I’ve never seen a bunch of whining when he rips on them…
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Do you even know how to read?[/quote]
No, I failed kindergarten.
You said, “[a]nd if it were not a problem…Unless we have something to gain from increasing population I don’t see the point in promoting it as a non-problem.”
So, unless it benefits you, we should call it a problem? Continue to kill innocents?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Do you even know how to read?[/quote]
No, I failed kindergarten.
[/quote]
Harsh.
How did they tell you?
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Just throwing in there that there’s lots of folks that enjoy the Daily Show that a) don’t agree with everything said, b) think there are parts that aren’t funny all the time and yet can still enjoy the segments that are funny or have good insight and are not mind-numbed, 20 year old idiots.
Stewart has and does rip on everyone (including Dems, Liberals, other religions, etc.), weird how I’ve never seen a bunch of whining when he rips on them…[/quote]
Sorry, I was not aware that if you are upset about someone disrespecting your religion–especially during a time when you face a gargantuan level of disrespect from the federal and state government by ignoring your 1st amendment rights–you are merely whining and you need to shut up.
Sorry, I do not find blaspheme funny. And if you think I, or other Catholics, are going to stop “whining” and not stand up against anti-Catholic bigotry…well you’re in for a surprise.
The fact is that the man crossed the line, he’s apologized before when he’s been far less disrespectful: He apologized for insulting President Harry Truman, for his relationship with Anthony Weiner, for smearing Fox News Viewers.
Update: Delta dropped Jon Stewart.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Do you even know how to read?[/quote]
No, I failed kindergarten.
[/quote]
Harsh.
How did they tell you?[/quote]
More nap time for you.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Do you even know how to read?[/quote]
No, I failed kindergarten.
You said, “[a]nd if it were not a problem…Unless we have something to gain from increasing population I don’t see the point in promoting it as a non-problem.”
So, unless it benefits you, we should call it a problem? Continue to kill innocents?
[/quote]
I am not the bible so you can’t interpret what I say to mean anything you want. No where did I mention or imply killing anyone.