• Posts: 3,454

Re: Condom?

> ☭ Fokker wrote:

> Noth that I was talking to you, but:

When did I do that?
Quote me exactly, word for word.

To be honest I just want Avogadro to explain to me what on this worthless ball of rock makes him think we can copy god and simply make everything out of dirt when we've used up all available resources, but I doubt that will happen.


the subject i was talking about was that the max amount of human population the earth could sustain. at first you attacked my position, "You are aware that the Earth is finite, and therefore any natural resources are also finite, right? I ask because I get the impression from your post that you see them as infinite, or at least not finite enough for you to worry about it."  after i successfully defended my position, you changed the subject from what we are capable of to the morality of it... "I would think a Christian (of any sort) would have more respect for God's creation, regardless of how they define being given "dominion" of a world."

i never claimed we can copy god and make everything out of dirt. my argument is right now, we are not utilizing anywhere near all the resources we have available. im not purposing dirt being magically turned into something else. better technology leads to higher efficiency, making less wasted, meaning more can be supported. it also increases the product available to us. for example, technology that would either make the removal of salt from water cheaper, or make electricity in general cheaper, would lead to a greater amount of fresh water available to support a larger human population...

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 2,151
  • Tag points: 4

Re: Condom?

> the subject i was talking about was that the max amount of human population the earth could sustain. at first you attacked my position, "You are aware that the Earth is finite, and therefore any natural resources are also finite, right? I ask because I get the impression from your post that you see them as infinite, or at least not finite enough for you to worry about it."  after i successfully defended my position, you changed the subject from what we are capable of to the morality of it... "I would think a Christian (of any sort) would have more respect for God's creation, regardless of how they define being given "dominion" of a world." <

  Your defence was an empty generality: "the thing is that we are utilizing nowhere near all of the earth."
  Followed by a statement that seems to be a response to something I never said: "so to say that technology cant increase the amount of humans the earth can support is nonsense"
  Followed by a weird combination of blind faith and science-fiction: because technology can help us utilize more of the earth, which would allow the earth to support more humans
  And even if this were the case such efforts would only slightly raise the number of people Earth can accommodate above 1bn, not 6-7bn.
 
  One day you WILL be right, but by that time it won't happen as it will be irrelevant; something will have already broken, and I think it will be us.


> i never claimed we can copy god and make everything out of dirt. <

  Sorry, that was an annoying assumption by me.

> my argument is right now, we are not utilizing anywhere near all the resources we have available. <

  Because we can't. Oil under New York, Gold under the Amazon, fek knows what at the bottom of the ocean... now claimed by Russia. Stuff on the moon...
But even if we could get at them we would not have enough of the most important resource in the world: Food.

> im not purposing dirt being magically turned into something else. better technology leads to higher efficiency, making less wasted, meaning more can be supported. it also increases the product available to us. <

  Really must finish reading before replying...

> for example, technology that would either make the removal of salt from water cheaper, or make electricity in general cheaper, would lead to a greater amount of fresh water available to support a larger human population... <

But in order for that to happen people have to stop being such soft southern nancies and accept the fact that we NEED nuclear power, seeing as though everyone thinks Windmills are too ugly to have in their back yard.

"So, it's defeat for you, is it? Someday I must meet a similar fate..."

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 1,263

Re: Condom?

"everyone thinks Windmills are too ugly to have in their back yard."

add some bling blings?

Brother Simon, Keeper of Ages, Defender of Faith.
~ &#9773; Fokker

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

79 Reply by avogadro (edited by avogadro 09-Dec-2009 02:01:32)

  • Posts: 3,454

Re: Condom?

first of all, when a population is larger then the enviroment can support, you dont see extinction of the population, you just see a sharp drop off. the idea that humans are going to become extinct because of the large population is unlikely.

2nd, i never said that technology will fix the problem with overpopulation, but that it can. you're the man with some kind of fucked up faith. not faith that we will succeed, but faith that we will fail...  where is your crystal ball? with the insane rate technology has been increasing the last 50 odd years im amazed at your confidence that technology cant get far enough soon enough....

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 642

Re: Condom?

Overpopulation due to overcrowding wont become a problem for many
thousands of years -- we have the area to support hundreds of billions
of people: Think about how dense the population can get in apartment
buildings and condensed areas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density#Human_population_density

"The world population is 6.8 billion [1], and Earth's area is 510 million square
kilometers (197 million square miles) [2] . Therefore the worldwide human
population density is 6.7 billion

I am sKoE
Do you know what the chain of command is here? It's the chain I go get and beat you with to show you who's in command.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 3,454

Re: Condom?

> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:

>
The problem isn't overpopulation. Its starvation. No land for farmers, no food for people,
people die. Even then we'd just convert to cannibalism anyway, allowing the human
race to continue to survive...


the problem is starvation caused by overpopulation...

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

82 Reply by &#9773; Fokker (edited by Skyroshroud 04-May-2010 15:44:17)

  • Posts: 2,151
  • Tag points: 4

Re: Condom?

> avogadro wrote:

> first of all, when a population is larger then the enviroment can support, you dont see extinction of the population, you just see a sharp drop off. the idea that humans are going to become extinct because of the large population is unlikely. <

  :confused: I never said that we were going to become extinct. At least not for that reason.


> 2nd, i never said that technology will fix the problem with overpopulation, but that it can. <

  You mean could. And that was the impression you gave. And I didn't say it can't, I said that it would not be as effective as you believe given the numbers involved. Math > Faith.

> you're the man with some kind of [moo'ed] up faith. not faith that we will succeed, but faith that we will fail...  where is your crystal ball? with the insane rate technology has been increasing the last 50 odd years im amazed at your confidence that technology cant get far enough soon enough.... <

  When did I say we will fail? I didn't, I said your plan will fail, because of the numbers involved.
Now, just so we don't go around your circles, let us wrap this up:

  To what technology are you referring to?

"So, it's defeat for you, is it? Someday I must meet a similar fate..."

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 860

Re: Condom?

dont worry, swine flu is gonna wipe all of you out and me and my family are coming to europe to move on in!!

I dont smoke cigarettes because i like them.  I smoke because it hides the smell of marijuana thats seeping into the hallway atm.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

84 Reply by avogadro (edited by avogadro 09-Dec-2009 17:54:17)

  • Posts: 3,454

Re: Condom?

":confused: I never said that we were going to become extinct. At least not for that reason."

"One day you WILL be right, but by that time it won't happen as it will be irrelevant; something will have already broken, and I think it will be us."

in a thread about overpopulation, talking about the extinction of the race without mentioning the cause, implies that you suggest overpopulation as the cause. just like how despite me never saying specifically that you suggested the end of the world would be caused by overpopulation, it is implied....   please dont play the childish game where you pretend you dont know when you imply something... if by this time you dont know how to have a simple conversation in english, you should jsut quit the forums...

"And I didn't say it can't, I said that it would not be as effective as you believe given the numbers involved."

you said "One day you WILL be right, but by that time it won't happen as it will be irrelevant; something will have already broken, and I think it will be us."

"When did I say we will fail?"

when you said  "One day you WILL be right, but by that time it won't happen as it will be irrelevant; something will have already broken, and I think it will be us."

0 Dislike 0 Post Points