Re: Soylent Green (Re: Atheists: America's most distrusted minority)

On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 22:53:03 +0000 (UTC), Jonathan Biggar <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mox Fulder wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 01:31:45 +0000 (UTC), Jonathan Biggar
<jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [...]
>
>>Perhaps the brain tumor comes from a knee-jerk reaction to Stein's
>>statement rather than deeply considering it?
>
>
> No, it comes from the absurdity and wrongness of those statements.

No, it comes from you declaring them absurd and wrong without actually
examining the basis behind them.

No, saying that "more population" is the answer to poverty, and that we
have "unlimited resources" to support that population, is still pretty
damn stupid. The issue is not whether the sun is going to fade out in the
near future, OK? I know the energy from the sun is unlimited for all
practical purposes. That is not the issue. If we do not have the
infrastructure to put that energy to work, it doesn't make one flarn of a
difference. I'm not talking about "unlimited resources" in theory, but in
the practical world. It is nothing other than moronic to suggest that we
can sustain the current population growth with our current energy
production.

[...]
First off, I believe the world's oil resources are much higher than most
believe. Second, so what? We burn oil while it is cheap and switch to
something else when it is not. *Not* doing that slows economic growth
and compounds the pain and misery of the third world because it takes us
that much longer to grow their economy enough to lift them out of poverty.

Piece of cake, then. But if it's so easy, why are we paying more than $3
for gas? Seems to me, we are *not* doing such a great job switching energy
sources.

[...]
Wrong. More people = more labor = more ability to exploit resources of
*any* variety.

Only if you want to use child labor, and force people to work until they
die. Even then, very young children and old people would not produce as
much as a healthy adult. They would get sick a lot, and require medical
attention, or simply die. Your equation has some serious flaws. And that's
assuming you have no morality at all.

[...]
> India has a population of one billion, with a "B"--half of them are
> below the poverty line, and illiterate.

You're ignoring the *great* strides that India has taken in the last 50
years or so to raise their population out of poverty.

Good for them. Maybe in another 50 years they will only be 40% illiterate.

> I'm supposed to believe that the
> solution is for that population to grow even more? One BILLION is not
> enough? Really? What is the magic number, exactly, that will make babies
> come out of the womb knowing how to read, and already holding a graduate
> degree and a job?

Ah, more rants, less light.

Is this supposed to be some kind of meaningful response?

> It's simple: More people consume more resources and produce more waste.

And more people *produce* more resources to support their consumption.

WRONG. When you say "more people," you are thinking "more productive
adults," and you are IGNORING the fact that "more people" ALSO means more
children and more elderly people, who DO NOT PRODUCE, but CONSUME
resources.

And waste isn't that forever, it's just a resource waiting for a
rational to recycle it.

Indeed, radioactive waste will be harmless in another 10,000 years.

[...]
Sigh. Unable to access resources is not the same thing as them running
out. Lack of access to clean water is a problem not caused by not
having water, but that we haven't brought the world up to late 20th
century sanitation standards. There is *no* critical lack of raw
resources that is causing that problem.

***Who gives a flying flarn about "raw resources"?*** And what do they
have to do with ANYTHING, much less, a discussion about overpopulation,
poverty, and so on? The only energy resources that matter are those we can
put to work, and only if the capacity meets the demand.

--
20060605 1655
This .sig is not available at the moment. Leave your message after the beep.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Free energy???
    ... then you're going to have to demonstrate that the risk is worth it. ... is not worth the risk of assigning personnel resources to it. ... See below following your particle accelerator example. ... Even if it ends up proving that free energy in any form is totally ...
    (sci.physics)
  • OT: Business As Usual? Scary....
    ... lifting the ban (who gets to determine exactly what 'public opinion' ... this pressure to find ways to maximize our energy efficiency. ... creative) and its extensive national resources were not enough to save ... in Business As Usual only dooms us to failure at a more severe level, ...
    (rec.outdoors.fishing.fly)
  • Re: The Moon
    ... Rising population levels and limited resources mean a rise in poverty. ... Solar power at a cost that displaces oil, ... All this is possible by the development of space faring technology. ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: OT: One more for the deniers
    ... But what's so fucking wrong with trying to make Earth a better place? ... forms of energy be established, ... Are they more economically efficient that oil? ... But they acted as if resources were infinite. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: U.S. Can Remain Strongest Nation Via Space and Ocean Resources
    ... U.S. expands its economy into outer space, we will acquire resources ... essentially inexhaustible source of energy ... It's true that 1kg of anti-matter has the same energy ... the lion's share of UNDER OCEAN resources! ...
    (alt.politics)