"It's easy to be a saint in paradise."
- Benjamin Sisko, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
Humans not behaving like a plague is a great way to avoid a lot of suffering to human beings.
Quoted for truth. All the egalitarian hand-wringing over the "human plague" really has only one solution. It has been stated clearly. The radical environmentalists and all their off-shoots and acolytes want to reduce the population of humans on earth from their current levels (about 7 billion) to roughly 1.4 billion (the population of earth in 1880). This (they claim) will "bring the planet into balance". By this they are almost universally talking about carbon dioxide emissions, though to some extent they also infer other things such as water consumption, et al.Aside from that, to 'correct the human plague' would require at minimum some form of overarching world government with complete and utter control over the entire human population, even just to implement some sort of contraceptive measures. Look to the Kyoto Agreement to see just how effective simple promises are. There is no question, force would have to be used to bring those who disagree into line. Anyone who supports such thinking should be kept away from any positions of power; they've already stated that they're willing to murder anyone who disagrees to achieve their goal.
So - after you boil away all the crap, the word-smithing, and the high-falutin' double speak - the real goal and thrust of the environmental movement is to eliminate 5.6 billion human beings. In short, they are the most heinous, genocidal, mass-murdering James Bond type super-villains that the world has ever known. Roll up Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and every other homocidal butcher in history together and it still isn't even in the same league as these Enviro-kooks.
No offense to the poster of this, but it is a fine example of the thought process. Here is a person who is seriously advocating that government withhold FOOD from children as a means of controlling population size. That isn't just creepy. That's horrifying. And yet it is said as calmly as if they're talking about a tea party, or a game of chess.For example, maybe government can give out food stamp based on number of adults only and no longer increase based on number of children
Like I said, if the Enviro-nuts had their druthers, they'd march 5.6 billion people into gas chambers tomorrow morning. And they think they'd be heroes and saints while they were doing it. That's the scariest thing of all about the Enviro-nut movement. It takes human beings, and convinces them they are angels while they're plotting atrocities that even devils would recoil from.
Where exactly does Richard Attenborough defend killing or letting people die?
He is known to advocate legislation to limit having children to 2, not unlike many others, though, for the reasons above, i think it's completely unnecessary. But never killing people or letting people die, unless you are grossly misrepresenting his words.
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.
Exactly what it says: either we limit our population growth (see how he says population growth ie the speed with which we create more people, instead of saying 'reduce our population'), or the natural world will do it for us, which is also true. And it's also true that the natural world is already doing it.What does he mean by this nugget?
‘Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now.’
When a group of people settle in a region, and there are not enough resources in that region to sustain them, either they receive food from outside or they starve. That they need to receive food from outside is proof that they are settled in an area that doesn't produce enough to sustain their numbers. Completely different matters are whether we should or not give them that extra food (of course we should), and whether we should help them settle in another place (we should too). But the fact that they cannot produce enough food to sustain their numbers is objective.
---------- Post added 2013-01-26 at 02:36 AM ----------
In fact a general trend has been that the fittest survive in eras where temperatures are high and weather is very humid, which means more vegetation = food sources are plentiful. In this environment specialization is rewarded: because food is plentiful in every niche as you get the most advantage by being the best in your niche.
But when temperatures are low and the atmosphere is dry, and the planet becomes nearly a desert, that's when adaptability is rewarded: no niche is going to give you enough nutrients, so you need to tap on different niches at the same time, and need to be able to endure different climates as you probably have to move along large distances along the year (dry climates mean seasonal differences are larger) to feed.
(This is why i'm convinced intelligent species can only come up when the global climate is cold and dry: intelligence is the ultimate tool of the non-specialist, the greatest adaptability tool.)
Last edited by jotabe; 2013-01-26 at 09:50 AM.
Need another big war imo.
You may remember me from such threads as!
We are a threat to other species, that's called competition and we just happen to be pretty damn good at it. Humans> other animals is my overall mentality when I see or hear things like this. The day a plant or an animal threatens us with nuclear war is the day when I agree we are a plague, but until then we are an extremely productive species that is the absolute Apex predator of Earth.
"Death is not kind. It's dark, black as far as you can see, and you're all alone."
Civilization is not a process of destruction. The way we do it, however, is.
humanity is absolutely a cause of irritation to me; I'd be happier if their numbers dove some 80%
Last edited by Mech; 2013-01-27 at 09:02 PM.