PETA is full of bullshit. They will oversensentionalize anything that helps them push their extremist agenda down the publics throat. F–k PETA!
Overall, I’m an advocate of the fair treatment of killing animals. Sounds a little odd, but I think there’s definitely better ways of going about slaughtering animals for food.
Yeah, I do love animals, but I love eating them just as much, too. It’s something so simple as not supporting KFC, because they cut the beaks off their chickens to ensure that the chickens won’t peck at each other and shit like that. I don’t see any real reason for that kind of shit, but as long shit like that doesn’t happen, or they’re on the endangered species list, lemme eat those tasty little buggers.
[quote]dk44 wrote:
I EAT VEGETARIANS!!! [/quote]
Me too.
Girls can pee standing up too, you clod! And for those that lack pelvic control and can’t master the technique there’s always this:
Now, run along.
[quote]lixy wrote:
dk44 wrote:
I EAT VEGETARIANS!!!
Me too.
Lixy you squat when you pee. GirlyMan.
Girls can pee standing up too, you clod! And for those that lack pelvic control and can’t master the technique there’s always this:
Now, run along.[/quote]
Did you ever place your order for the “human” doll?
[quote]dk44 wrote:
lixy wrote:
dk44 wrote:
I EAT VEGETARIANS!!!
Me too.
Lixy you squat when you pee. GirlyMan.
Girls can pee standing up too, you clod! And for those that lack pelvic control and can’t master the technique there’s always this:
Now, run along.
Did you ever place your order for the “human” doll? [/quote]
???
Lars and the Real Girl you donkey.
Srry, for the Hijack OP. (I have to meet my quota of smartass remarks to Lixy, and I am behind this week)
[quote]dk44 wrote:
Lars and the Real Girl you donkey.
Srry, for the Hijack OP. (I have to meet my quota of smartass remarks to Lixy, and I am behind this week)[/quote]
Focus on quality, not quantity.
Ha. I’m really starting to like you Lixy Poo.
[quote]
The Mage wrote:
Now as far as this “overpopulation” thing, bullshit.
lixy wrote:
You don’t think the strain humans are exerting on Earth’s ecosystem (yes, that includes cows!) is directly proportional to the number of people?[/quote]
Really depends on what we do. Most of what we hear about the ecosystem is total crap. For example people actually think we are running out of places to put garbage, when the truth is that landfills are competing for that trash. And in fact it was estimated that there is the equivalent of 10,000 years worth of landfill space.[quote]
Don’t get me wrong, the planet could sustain a lot more, but it doesn’t necessarily make it a good thing to pursue. Just imagine if the whole world reaches a standard of living comparable to that of the US. We’ll waste every single resource in a couple of centuries.[/quote]
I fully expect this to happen eventually. If it suddenly happened overnight, that could be bad. But right now the world is slowly evolving so that it is happening in a manageable way. As we move forward, we keep finding more and more solutions to problems. (Unfortunately politics gets in the way.)
Now how long before we start harvesting resources outside of this planet? Within the 2 centuries you brought up? [quote]
Most people do not realize this, but the primary problem is water. And seeing how we’re polluting and all, it’s going to be the source of major conflicts in the near-future. You watch![/quote]
Yes water is a big issue, always has been. But really we just need to be able to move it. We can clean it, we can desalinate it, we can purify it. The only logistic involved is getting it from point a to point b. And that is simply an engineering problem (and political) more then anything.[quote]
And I don’t expect people who think with their religion rather their brains to understand any of that. [/quote]
Ok, this really confuses me. First that this is coming from you, and second, assuming you are referring to me, that you should know by now I am an atheist.
[quote]skidmark wrote:
A similar computation I saw elsewhere had everyone living on a half-acre in a land area the size of texas. So it’s a matter of economic delivery of nutrients, essential services and waste disposal, and the economics of the secondary systems that support those systems - not one of population, per se.[/quote]
It was Marylin Vos Savant who answered the question years ago, but only gave 2 sq ft per person, while I was more generous and gave 10. (Ok, I was just being lazy with the math. I was even rounding up for most of it instead of being exact.) I remember this because at the time I wondered what it would look like in 3 dimensions, but with each person having their own 10x10x10 room. I came up with a cube with a height, width, and depth of ~ 3 miles. (3x3x3)
I was fully expecting somebody to bring up the idea of what it takes to sustain those people, (us) but still it somewhat misses the point. That what we think is an enormous population really isn’t.
But it also does bring up the point that we are not really having the problem with resources that many think we are. People do not starve because there is not enough food in the world. Floods are the biggest initial cause of starvation in the world. But politics may be an even bigger problem.
Just look at the most recent disaster in Myanmar. The government is not allowing aid in, and in fact has seized some of the shipments coming in. This is actually a more common problem then many people think.
All that “We are the World” donations (anyone remember the 80’s?) resulted in tons of food taken by governments, and rotting in warehouses.
The world is actually producing more then enough for to feed the population, and do everything else we do.
The problem is with that little word FINITE. People think it is synonymous with scarce. But guess what, we only have a finite amount of sand on this planet. The Sun only has a finite amount of fuel before it runs out. Sorry, its true. Just another 4 billion years, and poof. (Well, not exactly. Something worse happens.)
[quote]Dirty_Bulk wrote:
Just because no one wants to live in Nebraska doesn’t mean that ‘empty space’ isn’t being used to feed the people who are already living like sardines right now.[/quote]
Really?
The 76,000 I mentioned was sq miles if I didn’t make that clear, not the population. (I reread it and wasn’t sure if I did.)
Remember the number I gave was with everyone having 10 sq feet. And even that is not sardine closeness. The entire population of Earth would only cover a third of the city I live in.
[b]Isn’t it great when the political forum leaks out into the other forums?
i dont see whats wrong with cannibalism
[quote]pushharder wrote:
If indeed the opposite was true, the Americas would have had vast aboriginal populations and early Europeans would have been easily driven back into the Atlantic.[/quote]
History does not agree here. Read Gun, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond for a recount of what 168 Spanish soldiers did to the Inca army in 1532 - they killed 7000 of them and captured their leader. That was against an army of 80000. Do not underestimate the barbarity of the Europeans because they had the means and the will to slaughter anyone who got in their way.
[quote]905Patrick wrote:
pushharder wrote:
If indeed the opposite was true, the Americas would have had vast aboriginal populations and early Europeans would have been easily driven back into the Atlantic.
History does not agree here. Read Gun, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond for a recount of what 168 Spanish soldiers did to the Inca army in 1532 - they killed 7000 of them and captured their leader. That was against an army of 80000. Do not underestimate the barbarity of the Europeans because they had the means and the will to slaughter anyone who got in their way.[/quote]
Maybe if the Incas had had proper nutrition, they could have fought a little harder.
Your post makes no point other than to blame the white man. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
pushharder wrote:
If indeed the opposite was true, the Americas would have had vast aboriginal populations and early Europeans would have been easily driven back into the Atlantic.
History does not agree here. Read Gun, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond for a recount of what 168 Spanish soldiers did to the Inca army in 1532 - they killed 7000 of them and captured their leader. That was against an army of 80000. Do not underestimate the barbarity of the Europeans because they had the means and the will to slaughter anyone who got in their way.
Maybe if the Incas had had proper nutrition, they could have fought a little harder.
Your post makes no point other than to blame the white man. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand. [/quote]
It corrected a misconception.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Maybe if the Incas had had proper nutrition, they could have fought a little harder. [/quote]
When you read the book, did you not realize that the Inca’s had developed a very advanced societies? They had food and order.
I was engaging pushharder’s point that the abundance of food would have been sufficient to make the native people strong enough to fight off anyone who tried to take over their land. This became part of the subject at hand when pushharder brought it into the discussion.
I agree that it has little to do with the morality of eating some animals while having others are pets but I spoke to that a few pages back.
Your post doesn’t have anything to do with the subject at hand either so who are you to chastise me for it?
[quote]905Patrick wrote:
Read Gun, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond for a recount of what 168 Spanish soldiers did to the Inca army in 1532 - they killed 7000 of them and captured their leader. That was against an army of 80000. Do not underestimate the barbarity of the Europeans because they had the means and the will to slaughter anyone who got in their way.[/quote]
Did you read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond? If you did you would know that barbarity had nothing to do with it.
[quote]lixy wrote:
hungry4more wrote:
And Lixy…have you ever taken a good long drive? Say across the USA for example? I have; trust me, overpopulation is NOT a legitimate problem. There are thousands upon thousands of miles of open, perfectly good land totally unpopulated in the midwestern USA, and most other states as well. If you don’t believe me, use mapquest, and just look around for a bit.
80 years ago, we were 2 billion. As of today, we are 6,666,666,666 running around.
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html
Look at the conditions we’re raising animals in. Look at what we’re doing to the planet. Probably nothing in the near future, but if longevity keeps evolving, we’re down the road of big trouble.[/quote]
And we still have plenty of perfectly good land with plenty of empty space. And as has been covered, until you’ve raised your own animals for food, it’s hard to objectively speak on this issue. Livestock are very easily satisfied animals; besides, the whole point of raising them is eating them. Shouldn’t you be complaining about the aphids that ants raise for the food they provide the ants? That doesn’t sound very fair either, does it?
You probably believe in the whole global warming scare too…good heavens.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
Read Gun, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond for a recount of what 168 Spanish soldiers did to the Inca army in 1532 - they killed 7000 of them and captured their leader. That was against an army of 80000. Do not underestimate the barbarity of the Europeans because they had the means and the will to slaughter anyone who got in their way.
Did you read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond? If you did you would know that barbarity had nothing to do with it. [/quote]
I did read it. That day was not a picnic and the Spanish soldiers did not convince the Inca’s to kill themselves. They won by using whatever methods they had at their disposal. I’m not using the term babarity as a judgement, just as a way to discribe their approach vs. the approach of the native people. It was barbaric by comparison as most of the take-overs are.