Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Care to explain how pollution and climate change are resources?
overpopulation?
- Thread starter Mouse88
- Start date
Care to explain how pollution and climate change are resources?
couple points here believe enmos said it about climate change.. climate change would happen weather humans were here or not this has been proven in the earths ancient history.
and as for the overpopulation, 1 majjjor problem is that the "mid to upperclass" when they have kids they have 1-2 because they know they can support them and raise them right this isnt really a problem. the problem comes in the lower class, class meaning income level. they are haveing 3 4 5 6+ ect u know what i mean. they cant take care of them, they use welfare having way to many kids and most of them wont be as educated as the 1-2 from the mid-upper class there for wee have overpopulation and as a race we are becomming less intelegent as a whole
and as for the overpopulation, 1 majjjor problem is that the "mid to upperclass" when they have kids they have 1-2 because they know they can support them and raise them right this isnt really a problem. the problem comes in the lower class, class meaning income level. they are haveing 3 4 5 6+ ect u know what i mean. they cant take care of them, they use welfare having way to many kids and most of them wont be as educated as the 1-2 from the mid-upper class there for wee have overpopulation and as a race we are becomming less intelegent as a whole
Pollution is obvious ....if the water that's needed is polluted, then animals nor humans can drink it.
Ditto for pollution of the air ......and breathability.
Climate change????????? Duh? Why would you even consider that as anything, much less as a resource? Huh? If the weather changes, we put on more clothes or take off clothes. If it becomes too unbearable, we move. But what's that got to do with ....resources?
Baron Max
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Yes, but not as rapid as the one humans are causing right now.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Sure, Max, you can call it 'resources'. Are you still denying that the human population has a global effect (pollution etc)?
couldnt agree more it would still happen just at a much slower rate
I call them that because that's what the fuck they are!!!
Where did you see that I ever said that????
Of course humans have an effect on the planet! If one human pisses into the ocean, as small as that might be, it is an effect ......is it not? If one single human starts a fire to heat water for his tea, as small as that might be, that smoke is released into the atmosphere.
Now what is it that you're really trying to say to me, Enmos? Why not just come right out and ask instead of all these silly little whittling comments and questions?
Baron Max
Can you show or prove or even state with certainty what the Earth ....WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE.... without humans? Enmos, things might well have remained exactly or almost exactly the same. You don't know.
Baron Max
I'm not specifically attacking American practices - it's the third world that's guilty of the greatest waste per capita. 3rd world agricultural practices have something like 15% efficiency, 85% is thrown away because they don't have proper tools. Lands go fallow and desertification ensues because there's simply such low education.
And yet you responded anyway. In one sentence, you lied. So, ...why should anyone believe anything that you say after that?
And I've always found that when people can't answer a question, they'll often attack the questioner's character in an attempt to deflect the attention from their inability to answer.
Baron Max
Oh, I know that. It was just a good opening for my own comments.
Yes, but if Americans (or most anyone) tries to help them, we're accused of trying to westernize them and eliminate their "wonderous" culture, etc. I think it was in the 60s or 70s that American corporations (Monsanto? Others?) went into India and gave them lots of help in farming methods, etc and literally saved millions from death by starvation. But it didn't do anything but prolong the agony ...Indians continued to reproduce and over-breed their ability to grow food. Fuck 'em, let 'em starve.
Baron Max
Scaramouche
Registered Member
Sadly true. There is no way to fix anything if people keep breeding like rabbits.
On the other hand, I'm actually hoping for some catastrophic changes which will wipe out most of humanity. It may spur some evolutionary advancement, get rid of a civilisation I find less than the best option, and solve a great many of our problems.
This is one of the things I find repugnant about environmentalism. Some number of them (at least two of them on this board) favor the genocide of humanity. That, to me, qualifies as evil on a scale that even exceeds that of Hitler or Stalin. Disgusting.
Scaramouche
Registered Member
Why should I care? Our species is determined to live stupid and to commit slow suicide anyway. I see trends in our civilisation, embraced by the majority, which are leading us straight down the toilet. Things need to be shaken up. Evolution likes a big change now and then. I'm going to die. You're going to die. We're all going to die. There's no getting around it. Thus I hope that since all that death is going to happen anyway, some big changes will happen which will spur our species on to new heights.
And no, I didn't say "Since we're all going to die anyway, it's ok to murder everyone".
Obviously you don't.
Since the majority doesn't agree with you, you wish for their death. Better the death of billions than you turn out to be wrong.
Wiping out the majority of the human species would not spur us to new heights. If would likely result in our extinction. And the fact that individuals die is no justification for your genocidal intentions. Hitler might have said the same thing. "We're all going to die anyway, why not toss the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and the disabled in the gas chamber or the oven? The human race needs some big changes to spur us to new heights"
Scaramouche
Registered Member
Hey, I care about the species. I hope we get a boost to evolution through catastrophic environmental changes. How is that not caring?
1. Are we all going to die? Yes.
2. Given 1, is it better if we all die and there are no positive changes, or we all die and there are positive changes? The latter.
3. Does 2 means I want to murder anyone? No. It's just recognizing the facts and hoping for the more beneficial outcome.
Exactly.
That is a sensible environmentalism that even I could subscribe to. But these nature worshiping human haters give it a bad name.
Scaramouche
Registered Member
Scaramouche
Registered Member
Eating meat is awesome. However, I do appreciate the attempt to splatter a silly brush across those you disagree with by posting random silliness you've seen here and there.