Saving Planet Earth

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Deist27, Mar 5, 2003.

  1. Bob Pelletier Registered Member

    ...but what office?
    Mother Earth will produce many more life forms, long after homosapien has disappeared from everything but the fossil record. And this will happen with or without any help from some imaginary deity.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Guyute Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    what am i talking about?

    Love your mother earth.....and do what the Raeliens do.......put prayers in a box and then release them....good idea, very good idea...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. cthulhus slave evil servant Registered Senior Member

    why dont we just build a nice big nuclear arsenle and put this poor unhappy earth outa its missery?

    and what makes diest think there was a natural disaster? so big woot. there was more dence life billions of yrs ago. then again billians of years ago it was all cramed onto one continent that was largly the same all around (dont start screaming about this. i nkow there were still difrent climates but im just saying that ya know there werent icxe caps and huge desserts and what not.). and btw the earth was HoTTER then. and of course there was a big solar flair and the earths magnet field broke and shit. you can find proof in minerals in the earths crust. but u also see that this happend every few billion years. no disaster. jus the way it goers man. and what makes u say that desserts and oceans and ice caps are barren? theres tons of life! and what about at the very very beigining when there was none? then there was a huge period of just lil microbes. then just a few worms and slugs. there wasnt much life then. but then it spewd into a load opf it! what make su think new life isnt evolving?
    and if you are so stout in your lil man-made-god and u belive that he made nature and this is all a natural problem than didnt he make the problem? what is this then, a test to see if were worthy and ready to save the earth? as far as im conserned your probably some 12w yr old on his moms comp fresh home from bible school. grow up and try using more than you rant-nurons. damn. whats wrong w/ ppl these days?

    i say we just end the earth now!!! come on! uethinize it if its gonna die anyway! i say this pathetic human race fucking deserves it for breeding fools like you. we are geneticialu un-worthy of life!
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Wasn't this story told in Genesis of the Bible?

    It seems I have read this story somewhere before?

    Perhaps in Genesis, something about man's sin, Adam and Eve getting kicked out of the Garden of Eden, and a great Flood?

    Could be?

    I'm glad earth isn't my final destination. (heaven)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  8. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Invalid assumptions in carbon decay dating. Sloppy science.

    Why were humans so sloppy as to make all sorts of invalid assumptions in things like carbon-decay dating? I think there are 3 false assumptions involved.

    I can't remember all the details on things like the fallacies of carbon-decay dating, but perhaps they talk of them at Creationist websites like Institution for Creation Research
  9. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    And why would "reducing human population" be the only answer? Ha!

    And how do you know that there isn't also plenty for everyone even if we do "overbreed?"

    To assume human population is "too big" is really to assume that God (or a false god?) is too small to meet our needs. So don't worship the earth (a false god), but God who can feed 12 billion people as easily as 6 billion.
  10. certified psycho Beware of the Shockie Monkey Registered Senior Member

    if so.. i say get smart build a ship that blast us to mars and start living there.
  11. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Well colonize other worlds then? Not practical yet? Earth still has plenty of room.

    Good idea.
  12. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    "To assume human population is "too big" is really to assume that God (or a false god?) is too small to meet our needs. So don't worship the earth (a false god), but God who can feed 12 billion people as easily as 6 billion."

    But how is god going to feed 12 billion? Is he doing it now? What has population got to do with God anyways? How do you know that the earth is a false god, doesnt it produce our food, with a little help from us?

    From that website:
    "A "Back to Genesis" way of thinking insists that the Flood of Noah's day would have removed a great deal of the world's carbon from the atmosphere and oceans, particularly as limestone (calcium carbonate) was precipitated. Once the Flood processes ceased, C-14 began a slow build-up to equilibrium with C-12—a build-up not yet complete. "

    So where is all the mass of 4,000 year old limestone then? Go on, if you can find great sheets of it, then you have your flood debris.
  13. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    More mouths to feed = more food production. Isn't that obvious?

    Obesity is a growing problem, even in China. Most people are getting fed. There is plenty of food to feed everybody, but the poor don't always have money enough to buy it, in times of famine when their crops fail.

    And I expect that if world population ever gets up to 12 billion, it will be just as easy to feed all the people, as the people will adapt. If enough people are out there buying food, plenty of people will want to make money selling it.

    If have heard that one way to protect an "endangered" species, is to eat it. Why would that work? Because people work for money. They aren't going to harvest the last of the crop with no thought for tomorrow. Is there any shortage of chickens or cattle in the world? Why not? Probably because people eat them.

    There is even a crazy new population theory floating around out there, that we have "too many" people because we have "too much" food. In animal populations, or so the theory claims, an overabundance of food, somehow causes more reproduction. Well humans aren't as stupid as animals. We don't breed just because we have food. But then why let good food go to waste if we could turn it into human bodies of far greater value? (just 1 more idea among all the great reasons to have children) But can the pessimists have it both ways? Or do they just love to hear themselves talk? Too much food, or too little? Which is it? :bugeye:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    There is evidence of a great flood for those looking for truth rather than excuses.

    I am no geologist. Why don't you ask that website? But aren't caves often carved out of limestone?

    The myth of the geological column, in which digging deeper through the layers, supposedly goes back in time, is exposed by petrified trees that stand through all the layers. So did that tree stand there for "millions of years" until it was finally buried? Not hardly. The layers were created by hydrological sorting, like what happened when water backed up behind soft mud at the Mount Saint Helens volcanic erruption, and then overflowed the mud and washed it out. The heavy stuff sank to the bottom, and lighter stuff made layers on top. Birds didn't come "later" in "evolution," but have hollow bones and can fly until they get tired or have nothing to eat, and so they are found near the top layers.

    And natural formations like the Grand Canyon, weren't formed slowly by erosion over "millions of years," but by a cataclysmic event, say like a flood.
  15. Idle Mind What the hell, man? Valued Senior Member

    Unfortunately, your scope is a bit limited, since this happens all the time in developing countries.

    This is the cycle of predator/prey populations until the population reaches an equilibrium. If there is plenty to eat, then more offspring can be supported, which helps raise the population and provides better opportunity for survival, both of the genes of the individual, and for the species. However, an increase in prey population will cause an increase in predator population for the same reason, more food available. Eventually, the prey eat all their food, and die out, causing the predators to die out as well.

    Humans are not too dumb for this. We may be better at providing food, but we are still reproducing at a high rate due to the plentiful food.

    There are different types of population growth can occur. There is the ever popular exponential, or J-shaped plot, and the sigmoidal S-shaped plot. Both are similar to begin with, and both have an exponential portion to them, but S-shaped plots even out, and become an equilibrium. Exponential, however, crash when the population reaches a height that cannot be supported by the ecosystem. It is unknown as of yet which curve the human population will follow, as we are still in the exponential phase of growth. I say we crash and burn, for the benefit of the planet. Yet, we will likely do much irreversible damage to the planet in the process.

    We are not of great value to anything but ourselves. We cause more damage to the planet that we look to for support than any other species, and we do more damage to the other species that share our planet than any other species does.
  16. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Yes, human populations should be encouraged to grow exponentially and "unchecked"!

    Then the people should be welcome to be born and to live, and all the effort go productively into accomodating population growth, and not hindering it, and welcoming people to accumulate wealth, so they can better plan ahead and have more options.

    Do animals farm? Do animals do much to plan for and accomodate population growth? Or do they just multiply without thinking? Do animals take censuses? I don't see why animal biology is all that relevant to human population. And since the human population is still expanding, doesn't that suggest that we haven't reached whatever "equilibrium," and that there should be yet more people, or that more people could at least be accomodated?

    And this is a problem? I see nothing wrong with turning surplus food into people. If we can produce more food, why shouldn't there be more mouths to eat it? Why let the food go to waste?

    Well of course people should multiply on an exponential curve. The main hindrance to having more children born into the world, is the lack of parents to raise them. Once the number of married couples rises, there are more homes that can welcome children, so of course a nation's total birthrate should be welcome to rise along with the growing numbers of women of childbearing age. Humans alter the ecosystem to better accomodate humans, so why should growing human populations have to crash, based on inadequate biological theories about the animal kingdom that have little relevance to human populations? A growing pet population can't support itself without more human masters to adopt all the pets. So of course people who don't plan to breed their pets should get them "fixed," as pets neither need any sex, nor offspring, since they have us for their "families." And the lack of the mating distraction, helps them be better pets. But humans should not be treated as animals. We can have self-control, and can marry and work to support our growing families. So "birth control" is quite unnecessary for humans, as humans benefit from growing more numerous. How else could billions of people have been born? The billions of people who have already had opportunity to live, could never have come into existence had families had just enough children to "replace" themselves when they die. The human population would forever remain perilously small. Rather successive generations are supposed to grow larger and larger than previous generations, as the previous generations help prepare the world to receive the increased numbers of people in the jobs they do, building roads, houses, schools, dams, or whatever else all the people might need. I don't support any arbitrary cap on world population, as who is to say which people should be allowed to be born, and which shouldn't?

    Huh? If people value themselves, shouldn't that alone be enough reason to welcome people to exist in large numbers? At least if humans claim to be able to make some population decision? If most people want to breed and have offspring, doesn't that suggest that maybe the billions of the people really do want the human population to grow larger? At least to accomodate their children? Or perhaps so many people are enjoying sex, that we have no choice but to grow in numbers? Humans don't have much any practical way to hinder their neighbors from having children. How arrogant we must be if we think that we can usurp control of that from God?

    But then God imputes value to us, so it isn't just the mere opinion of humans that we ourselves are valuable.

    And who's to say that human alternations are "damage," and not "improvements." Urbanization of the land is actually quite a positive change, as it becomes worth more, and benefits more people.

    I have sometime thought about what the birds might think, if they could even think of such things: that humans live in such huge houses, and have so much stuff. Sometimes we do hoard too much stuff. But humans are special and should have a lot, even if we shouldn't be so eager to get it that we run ourselves into the debt trap.
  17. buffys Registered Loser Registered Senior Member


    until we (humanity as a whole) actually distribute that "surplus" to the masses (people already born) i find it hard to argue for increased population growth. Most of the world is starving or malnourished at best! we may have enough food but since the majority of the planet cant access it what good does it do? i think its a bit early to consider ballooning our population further.

  18. Idle Mind What the hell, man? Valued Senior Member

    Pronatalist, it is the attitude you have that is so dangerous to our species, and to the planet.

    See buffys post.

    Can you not see that this is what happens in animal populations? There is more food, so reproduction is higher. The problem is, at one point or another, regardless of how sophisticated the means for finding food, the ecosystem can no longer provide sufficient energy, and the poplation crashes. In other words, if things aren't changed, and quickly, the planet will no longer be able to sustain our species, and there will be mass starvation. It may only occur in poorer countries, but all human life is worth the same, is it not?

    Of course it benefits humans. That's not my point. As it turns out, humans are the only species that it benefits, and that is not acceptable, IMO. Every other species, save the few that could adapt quickly enough, is negatively affected by our "progress" and development.

    And this is your justification for our development? To be frank, I'm quite disturbed by this. The happiness of our ridiculous species should not, under any circumstances, be used as the justification for the hindrance of nearly all other life on this planet.

    I won't even begin to touch on the religious aspects of your argument, but please, as this is the Earth Science section of sciforums, leave them out.
  19. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    If the human population wants to or is prone to balloon, let it freely balloon.

    But can the parents of this world really afford to wait until everything is hunky-dory to enjoy having their children? For Americans to have fewer children does nothing at all to help third world families put food on their plates. Rather, if the American population also "balloons" along with the rest of the growing world population, then assuming we pursue freedom and human dignity, rather than socialism and tax increases, we would be in a better position, being more numerous, to help feed the world and help the rest of the world develop.

    Most of the people are starving? Get real. Obesity is a growing problem, even in China. Most all people who at least have some money, have plenty of food. Many people have so much wealth now, they could easily afford large and "unplanned" families.

    Why shouldn't the human population "balloon?" While the numbers overall might seem rather large to a few self-appointed "expert" pessimists, isn't there some 6 billion+ reasons for the world population to be at least as large as it is? And if the world population manages to double again, as it has done some 32 times throughout history, then there will then be some 12 or 13 billion reasons for world population to be as large as it then would be. If all of us were once babies, and we bulged our mother's bellies and displaced her organs, then what would it hurt if the earth is "pregnant" with people? It's okay for the planet to be "showing" its "pregnancy." Pregnancy is something to celebrate.

    Doesn't the Utilitarian Principle of doing that which most benefits the most people, have the side effect of suggesting that human populations should actually be quite large, simply so more people can be around to benefit from whatever?

    Is the real fear that we won't be able to feed all the hungry mouths? Or that we will manage to feed them all, allowing the people to grow even more numerous? I would say that at past 6 billion people already, it is a little late for global "crowd control." Rather, I think the social graces are much more relevant to living comfortably in a populous world.

    I don't believe that human population growth in any conclusive way worsens our situation, but rather adding more people tends to accelerate technological growth. And technology provides all the more ways to help accomodate large human populations.
  20. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Human benefit isn't always only beneficial to humans.

    No, it is the idea that the sanctity of human life is no big deal, that is dangerous to human wellbeing. And leads to war, crime, and other devastation.

    I did.

    Or in the case of humans, our lifespan is getting longer, and nature's ability to resist our growing numbers, seems to be getting weaker, much like an inflating balloon gets easier to blow into, as the rubber stretches out further, and the balloon holds more and more air. Or maybe God designed the Earth as a home for multiplying people, after all.

    Human populations are the only kind to benefit? Why shouldn't that be enough? But that statement isn't even accurate. Aren't pet populations also multiplying, along with humans? Pets also benefit from human intelligence. Pets live a much better life than they could left in the wild to fend for themselves and to prey off of one another. Even farm livestock might receive better care or be in better health than wild animals. And the very idea that other animals are somehow unfairly "displaced" by growing human populations is ludicrous, when the large human population is magically considered to be taking up "more than its fair share" of the habitat at some arbitrary point, of which there is no sensible definition. For as soon as Adam and Eve had any children at all, didn't they already begin to "displace nature?" I don't even think nature cares, and that human population growth should still be considered "natural" as in "natural increase" or "issue" of children.

    And so what is the alternative viewpoint? That I should worry that an expansion onto my home to have more room for having many children, might displace a few birds or squirrels? That my children aren't more important than mere animals that might be on our dinner plates? Besides what is the lifespan of birds and squirrels? So short that even if they could notice, they wouldn't notice much difference during their lives? Maybe humans don't hinder such animals. Maybe they die of old age, or being eaten by some cat, and simply aren't replaced, as humans take over more habitat? "Animal rights" really only serve to say that humans should be treated no better than animals, an idea that I could never be comfortable with.

    And the popular gloom and doom Malthusianism isn't "religious?" There seems to be such a "religious" bent with "environmentalism" that insists that continued successes, can only lead to inevitable failure or disaster. But is that logical, scientific, or "religious?"

    There are numerous reasons to have many children, and while many of them tend to be "religious," many of them are not.
  21. buffys Registered Loser Registered Senior Member


    wow .... uh, wow.... i dont even know where to start.

    ive been here a few months now and this is without exception the most unbelievably myopic and short sighted viewpoint ive read since someone advocated wiping out humanity to save the planet.

    Wait a second, this is a joke right? surely your just pulling our legs. no one with even a modicum of common sense can possibly believe that what your suggesting will do, "that which most benefits the most people".

    i am in awe.

    if this is a joke, ok, ha, ha you got me.

  22. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    So the great value of human life, is now said to be some "joke?"

    But why would it be a joke?

    Future people would not want to have been eliminated. Wouldn't that be reason enough to leave the door to life open for them, and to encourage people to not use any form of anti-life "birth control," even if it eventually makes the world "crowded?"

    I have heard people suggest to those in favor of population control, "Well why don't you reduce the population by one and set the example?" (Which of course we won't follow.) Why does that idea come up again and again in population discussions? Because many people must think that advocates of population control are hypocrites. They want to live, but dismiss that other people might want to live too.

    Or as P. J. O'Rourke quips in his book, "All the Trouble in the World," as the title of the 2nd Chapter, "OVERPOPULATION Just Enough of Me, Way Too Much of You." If I don't think I am one of the "too many" people, then can I logically think other fellow humans much like me, could be either? If there is any population "problem" at all, why can't it merely be that the planet is "too small?" Since I wouldn't want to get rid of anybody without just cause.

    Well if the human population grows, isn't that all the more people around then who benefit from it being so large? I believe that is a very practical reason why we should welcome future generations to be larger and more populous than today's if at all possible. It isn't just a private advantage or benefit to enjoy having a large family. Society also benefits from large numbers of people, especially when the people have visions and dreams, and think like entreprenuers, and aren't just corporate slaves. Whether or not the crowded megacity is a good place for people to live, there is great positive value in the life of each human soul, even if there are so many people that people live close to one another. Because there is so much benefit to so many people to be alive, human population growth should only be accomodated, not limited.
  23. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    Hey! That was a perfectly reasonable suggestion

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I seriously wish every single human suddenly became infertile, in 100 years we would all be gone and we could spend those last 100 years having fun. No one and nothing suffers in this scenario. Humans become painlessly exctinct and the planet can recover.

    Pronatalist is proof the bible is the single most evil piece of litterature in history.

Share This Page