Principia Discordia

#1  Education is the key to economic growth

This is painfully obvious, yet mention it to a geostrategist or foreign policy adviser, and they will sigh in exasperation and say "try explaining that to the politicians. No, please."  Income growth is correlated directly with literarcy rates to the rank of a "middle-economy" like that of Mexico or Turkey - after that, quality of education tends to make the difference between a first-rate economy and a middling one, and often explains why certain high literacy countries (ie Brazil) perform worse than expected.

Yet first world nations are making education, especially tertiary education, a preserve of the elite and are actively attacking their own educational sectors.

#2  Only economic inefficiency can save us now

The Soviet Bloc and China produced a lot of pollution.  However, they produced a lot less pollution than they would have done if they were fully industrialised market economies, because their production inefficiency, price controls, central planning in general interferred in optimum production levels and thus overall growth and pollution output.

If global temperatures rise over 2 degrees celsius in the next 50 years, we are fucked.  This is certain to happen unless we reduce our carbon emissions, as a planet, to 80% of what they were in the 1990s, by 2050.  The 2000s oversaw the biggest growth in carbon emissions since the 1960s, and the biggest output of carbon ever.  It isn't going to happen.  The 2 celsius rise would still be pretty bad, but humanity as a whole would weather it.  Instead, we seem to be moving towards the option of "global climate change feedback loops".  I don't need to explain why that is bad, I hope.

#3  Protectionism is what makes a strong economy

You only move to a free market once you've built up enough economic strength that you are ahead of your competitors.  And you only do that in order to stop them from using your own mercantilist policies against you.  England, the poster-child for laissez-faire, didn't abolish most tarriffs until after 1850, and in the 17th century had some of the most excessive tarriff controls in the world.  America, under Hamilton's guidance, continued through until the 1950s, followed the same schema.  Interestingly, copyright protection does not seem to be a necessary protectionist measure, as both the Netherlands and Switzerland experienced sustained periods of growth in the modern era without them.  Indeed, China frequently abuses or completely ignores copyright law at this moment, and is flourishing (though individual patent holders probably are not.

#4  France, as things are, will be the last man standing as everything else collapses.

Nuclear power provides 80% of the country's fuel needs.  It retains a fully independent nuclear arsenal, a fully independent arms industry and has the highest birth rate in Western Europe, combined with some of the lowest incidences of population per square miles.  Even when it comes to its troublesome minorities, they integrate better into French culture than they do with other, nearby countries.  Germany, by contrast, is to be consigned to the dustbin of history.  Its population is shrinking, the east years for the iron fist of Communism once again (and no wonder - Est Germany made Communism work), it is in thrall to Russian energy and it is going through one of its periodic bouts of extreme illiberalism towards minority groups - immigrants who are necessary to prop up the German welfare state and economic growth the country benefits from.  The UK has stunted it's own military projection capabilites for a generation and is relying on a legacy energy system which cannot cope with increasing demand.  By 2030, the country will be suffering rolling blackouts, and so be in thrall to Russia as much as Germany currently is.

#5 "Peak Oil" doesn't happen when all the oil runs out

It happens when over half of the world's oil has been extracted.  Because then you're on declining resources to extract the rest.  La Wiki sez:

QuoteOptimistic estimations of peak production forecast the global decline will begin by 2020 or later, and assume major investments in alternatives will occur before a crisis, without requiring major changes in the lifestyle of heavily oil-consuming nations.

You see that happening yet?  Because I don't.  The thing is, the scary thing about Peak Oil, is that it will immediately follow an oil-rich, high production period, and hit hard and without mercy.  A price in which oil prices are rising exponentially, causing inflation in the value of key assets and causing severe market shocks.  Any of this sounding familiar?

And it's not like we just need oil for our factories and war machines, either.  Plastic seems pretty important, for example.  

More later

Pretty accurate but I have a few problems with #4, firstly you completely overlook France's archaic military, it's absolutely decrepit and barely functioning, much like with Russia you only see the best stuff despite major French aircraft manufacturers.  Secondly while it's true the UK has stunted its military capabilities it  still has one of the best militaries in the world, (although there isn't really much competition at the moment), and is the HQ for huge arms manufacturers.  The UK's problem really lies with its lack of production ability and reliance on the financial sector.  The UK nor Germany won't be in thrall to Russia due to the EU's long term plan to diversify sources, ie Russia, Middle east and importantly S.America.  If Europe really wanted to work there would be an alliance between the Franco-Germanic countries ie UK, France, Germany and Scandinavia, Germany's exports are the source of it enormous wealth and it has plenty of land for a relatively small population.

This is a nice analyzis, personally speaking #1 and #3 in relation to Mexico:

Here they just want to boost technician education (specialized slaves for our transnational overlords); for example, the UNAMs (universidad nacional autonoma de mexico) matriculate (# of spots available for students) hasnt grown in equal terms to population growth or hasnt kept up for about 30 years. High education? Go to a private school or fuck yourself seems to be the policy. So there goes our 1st world.

And the general retard discourse is to abolish worker protection and to open up the economy (here come rape and pillage us foreigners!) under the guidance of the IMF, and weve all seen how good following their advice turns out.

Quote from: lunar on July 16, 2011, 09:57:49 PM

Pretty accurate but I have a few problems with #4, firstly you completely overlook France's archaic military, it's absolutely decrepit and barely functioning, much like with Russia you only see the best stuff despite major French aircraft manufacturers.  Secondly while it's true the UK has stunted its military capabilities it  still has one of the best militaries in the world, (although there isn't really much competition at the moment), and is the HQ for huge arms manufacturers.  The UK's problem really lies with its lack of production ability and reliance on the financial sector.  The UK nor Germany won't be in thrall to Russia due to the EU's long term plan to diversify sources, ie Russia, Middle east and importantly S.America.  If Europe really wanted to work there would be an alliance between the Franco-Germanic countries ie UK, France, Germany and Scandinavia, Germany's exports are the source of it enormous wealth and it has plenty of land for a relatively small population.

Tell me, where did you get your degree in international relations?

Peak oil or not there are more important things to do with petroleum than burn it for energy.

I just hope if/when a collapse comes it is after I'm dead and not when I'm in such an advanced state of age I am a member of the expendable/useless portion of the population. 

Sucks that I'm going to live through all this, but if one has plans of immortality I guess it's a necessity. I do see, amid the coastal flooding and petrolium decline, a hasty and frightened switch to alternative fuel sources, and advanced recycling processes. Landfill mining, anyone? Coal will last much longer, so there may be a switch to diesel and electric vehicles. Ethanol will be ultimately abandoned because it's a complete shit fuel and the growing population will need food farming land. Nuclear will continue, with increased solar and wind production, especially wind. You should see the massive turbine areas in Indiana, basically farms as far as the eye can see, regular farms, with turbines sticking up like alabaster pillars. Fission is too far off to even be considered in the picture. I see mass transportation becoming much more frequent as well.

Quote from: lunar on July 16, 2011, 09:57:49 PM

Pretty accurate but I have a few problems with #4, firstly you completely overlook France's archaic military, it's absolutely decrepit and barely functioning, much like with Russia you only see the best stuff despite major French aircraft manufacturers.  Secondly while it's true the UK has stunted its military capabilities it  still has one of the best militaries in the world, (although there isn't really much competition at the moment), and is the HQ for huge arms manufacturers.  The UK's problem really lies with its lack of production ability and reliance on the financial sector.  The UK nor Germany won't be in thrall to Russia due to the EU's long term plan to diversify sources, ie Russia, Middle east and importantly S.America.  If Europe really wanted to work there would be an alliance between the Franco-Germanic countries ie UK, France, Germany and Scandinavia, Germany's exports are the source of it enormous wealth and it has plenty of land for a relatively small population.

France is ovehauling its military as part of its strategic five year plan.  Furthermore, its the capacity to rebuild it that counts.  Other countries may have newer toys...but they're entirely in thrall to Washington, London, Tel Aviv, Moscow, Beijing or Paris for them.  Finally, France isnt going to be fighting anything but wars of choice for the next 20+ years, so upgrading is optional for them.

The UK military have been consistently getting their arses handed to them for the past decade by orphans with shoes.  Their past record in Basra and Helmand tell us the UK military lack the ability to gather intelligence, to act upon intelligence, to deploy in any strategic fashion and to build on gains they may, somehow, actually make.  When it comes to modern counterinsurgent warfare, I would rank the US above the UK, and believe me that is not high praise.  Furthermore, without aircraft carriers, the UK has to rely on France for global deployment.

Also, Russia put forward military plans in 2009 for $700 billion worth of upgrades to their equipment, in addition to plans for an increased naval capacity (which would allow them to militarily claim Artic oil and gas reserves).  Russia has the human capital to compete with the US on this front - it produced the first 5th Gen fighter aircraft, the PAK-FA "Firefox" prototype, outside of the USA - and in the meantime, it has shown that, for instance, in the 2008 conflict, it can steamroll most nations in the "near abroad" with little in the way of planning or effort with the legacy equipment it currently has (against a US-backed proxy.  A proxy who is trained by the USA and has 70% of its military budget paid for by the USA and NATO, no less).

Europe can plan to diversify all it wants (just as it presumably plans to deal with the economic crisis at some vague future point).  Doesn't change the fact that the major sources of energy for Europe are Russian gas pipelines, and a pipeline from Kazakhstan (population 40% ethnic Russian) that has a terminal right next to Abkazhia (Russian-backed breakaway province in Georgia).  Oh, and then there is the supposed non-Russian alternative Nabucco pipeline, which involves the good graces of Iraq.  Iraq, who are currently a reluctant satrapy of Iran in everything but name.  Iran, who are supported by...Russian arms and Russian diplomatic cover.  In the meanwhile, the demand for energy keeps going up.

Who else can step in?  Nigeria?  Oh boy...they're two steps away from civil war at the best of times, start increasing European influence in the region and that will likely make things worse...not to mention their own, home-grown terrorist networks have a thing for targeting foreign oil workers, whether those groups are the secular MEND, or more religious outfits.  Venezuela and Colombia aren't exactly pictures of stability either, and their exports are more US orientated.  Brazil has oil off its coast, but god knows how long that will take to be fully developed, given their level of corruption and lack of requisite skilled workers in that field.  Algeria?  Can't compete on that level.  And with Germany junking its nuclear power plants entirely, they're going to need lots of energy.

As for Germany's inflated economic "miracle", most of that has come from cutting wages and pocketing the difference, and reconstruction in the east.  It isn't sustainable.  In the meantime, Germany's economic "success" pushes the value of the Euro up, threatening the financial stability of the PIIGS by making devaluation impossible.  Their central bankers and politicians are openly stigmatizing foreigners and Muslims, at a time when gastarbeiters are helping along the above scenario by being willing to take home a lower pay.  They're shooting themselves in the foot while standing near a cliff-edge.

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 17, 2011, 02:48:15 PM
Sucks that I'm going to live through all this, but if one has plans of immortality I guess it's a necessity. I do see, amid the coastal flooding and petrolium decline, a hasty and frightened switch to alternative fuel sources, and advanced recycling processes. Landfill mining, anyone? Coal will last much longer, so there may be a switch to diesel and electric vehicles. Ethanol will be ultimately abandoned because it's a complete shit fuel and the growing population will need food farming land. Nuclear will continue, with increased solar and wind production, especially wind. You should see the massive turbine areas in Indiana, basically farms as far as the eye can see, regular farms, with turbines sticking up like alabaster pillars. Fission is too far off to even be considered in the picture. I see mass transportation becoming much more frequent as well.

Unfortunately though, coal will exacerbate climate change.  Which I'd really, really rather not do.  A mix of renewable and nuclear, to make up the shortfall, seems the most sensible approach (assuming the nuclear industry doesn't continue its march to near investment banking levels of irresponsibility and regulatory deception) but that takes decades of planning and building.

And I don't think we have decades for that anymore.

Quote from: Cain on July 17, 2011, 03:50:56 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 17, 2011, 02:48:15 PM
Sucks that I'm going to live through all this, but if one has plans of immortality I guess it's a necessity. I do see, amid the coastal flooding and petrolium decline, a hasty and frightened switch to alternative fuel sources, and advanced recycling processes. Landfill mining, anyone? Coal will last much longer, so there may be a switch to diesel and electric vehicles. Ethanol will be ultimately abandoned because it's a complete shit fuel and the growing population will need food farming land. Nuclear will continue, with increased solar and wind production, especially wind. You should see the massive turbine areas in Indiana, basically farms as far as the eye can see, regular farms, with turbines sticking up like alabaster pillars. Fission is too far off to even be considered in the picture. I see mass transportation becoming much more frequent as well.

Unfortunately though, coal will exacerbate climate change.  Which I'd really, really rather not do.  A mix of renewable and nuclear, to make up the shortfall, seems the most sensible approach (assuming the nuclear industry doesn't continue its march to near investment banking levels of irresponsibility and regulatory deception) but that takes decades of planning and building.

And I don't think we have decades for that anymore.

We don't have decades, and the coastal flooding is inevitable, regardless of whatever hasty changes everyone chooses to make. And the denialists march on. Have they looked at Venus recently?

Yeah.  And it may only take 6 degrees to put us on that path.  That's when an ocean anoxic event should take place, killing everything in the ocean which relies on oxygen, building up hydrogen sulphide in the depths...which will of course eventually get into the atmosphere via rain.  That's it, then.  Assuming humanity survives what comes before, with Europe and North America turning into deserts reaching up to the arctic circle, and Holland, Bangladesh and parts of the Chinese coast being wiped off the map completely.

[always look on the bright side of life] Well at least it might solve the population explosion [/always look on the bright side of life]

Quote from: Cain on July 17, 2011, 10:21:59 PM
Yeah.  And it may only take 6 degrees to put us on that path.  That's when an ocean anoxic event should take place, killing everything in the ocean which relies on oxygen, building up hydrogen sulphide in the depths...which will of course eventually get into the atmosphere via rain.  That's it, then.  Assuming humanity survives what comes before, with Europe and North America turning into deserts reaching up to the arctic circle, and Holland, Bangladesh and parts of the Chinese coast being wiped off the map completely.

The worst that can happen is a cataclysm on the scale of the Permian extinction. 4 million years of worms and cockroaches, baby. But Earth will bounce back. Humans...ah well. Should get some interesting life forms out of it though.

This planet will thankfully never reach the level of Venus, one, because it's not close enough to the Sun, two, because there are organisms here which feed on just about anything that can be provided; any spike in levels will cause a spike in those, and gradually the levels will decrease. Again, the Permian was the worst extinction event the planet has ever seen, it's called the Great Dying for a reason. And it ended some of the most successful lineages in history (e.g. trilobites), 96% of all marine species and 3/4ths all terrestrial vertebrates. And if you read up on it, this is /exactly/ the same sort of path we are headed for right now. I don't see any primates surviving it.

You know, if I really sat down and thought about the above for a while, I think it would make me pants shitting terrified and suicidal.

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 17, 2011, 02:48:15 PM
Sucks that I'm going to live through all this, but if one has plans of immortality I guess it's a necessity. I do see, amid the coastal flooding and petrolium decline, a hasty and frightened switch to alternative fuel sources, and advanced recycling processes. Landfill mining, anyone? Coal will last much longer, so there may be a switch to diesel and electric vehicles. Ethanol will be ultimately abandoned because it's a complete shit fuel and the growing population will need food farming land. Nuclear will continue, with increased solar and wind production, especially wind. You should see the massive turbine areas in Indiana, basically farms as far as the eye can see, regular farms, with turbines sticking up like alabaster pillars. Fission is too far off to even be considered in the picture. I see mass transportation becoming much more frequent as well.

Corn ethanol has no future, that doesn't mean ethanol has none though,  you can make ethanol by fermenting a pretty wide range of stuff and a lot of that stuff is a byproduct of agriculture and currently being burned or sold off very cheap for what few applications there are for it. 

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 18, 2011, 12:02:44 AM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 17, 2011, 02:48:15 PM
Sucks that I'm going to live through all this, but if one has plans of immortality I guess it's a necessity. I do see, amid the coastal flooding and petrolium decline, a hasty and frightened switch to alternative fuel sources, and advanced recycling processes. Landfill mining, anyone? Coal will last much longer, so there may be a switch to diesel and electric vehicles. Ethanol will be ultimately abandoned because it's a complete shit fuel and the growing population will need food farming land. Nuclear will continue, with increased solar and wind production, especially wind. You should see the massive turbine areas in Indiana, basically farms as far as the eye can see, regular farms, with turbines sticking up like alabaster pillars. Fission is too far off to even be considered in the picture. I see mass transportation becoming much more frequent as well.

Corn ethanol has no future, that doesn't mean ethanol has none though,  you can make ethanol by fermenting a pretty wide range of stuff and a lot of that stuff is a byproduct of agriculture and currently being burned or sold off very cheap for what few applications there are for it. 

Not going to matter. I foresee the collapse of industrial civilization within 100 years.

Name one agricultural byproduct (i.e. something that is NOT in and of itself a food product) that can be used to make ethanol on a large enough scale for it to matter.

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 17, 2011, 11:12:41 PM

Quote from: Cain on July 17, 2011, 10:21:59 PM
Yeah.  And it may only take 6 degrees to put us on that path.  That's when an ocean anoxic event should take place, killing everything in the ocean which relies on oxygen, building up hydrogen sulphide in the depths...which will of course eventually get into the atmosphere via rain.  That's it, then.  Assuming humanity survives what comes before, with Europe and North America turning into deserts reaching up to the arctic circle, and Holland, Bangladesh and parts of the Chinese coast being wiped off the map completely.

The worst that can happen is a cataclysm on the scale of the Permian extinction. 4 million years of worms and cockroaches, baby. But Earth will bounce back. Humans...ah well. Should get some interesting life forms out of it though.

This planet will thankfully never reach the level of Venus, one, because it's not close enough to the Sun, two, because there are organisms here which feed on just about anything that can be provided; any spike in levels will cause a spike in those, and gradually the levels will decrease. Again, the Permian was the worst extinction event the planet has ever seen, it's called the Great Dying for a reason. And it ended some of the most successful lineages in history (e.g. trilobites), 96% of all marine species and 3/4ths all terrestrial vertebrates. And if you read up on it, this is /exactly/ the same sort of path we are headed for right now. I don't see any primates surviving it.

Yeah, I wouldn't see us going all the way, but it'll be close enough for us to make no difference.

Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2011, 12:29:59 AM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 17, 2011, 11:12:41 PM

Quote from: Cain on July 17, 2011, 10:21:59 PM
Yeah.  And it may only take 6 degrees to put us on that path.  That's when an ocean anoxic event should take place, killing everything in the ocean which relies on oxygen, building up hydrogen sulphide in the depths...which will of course eventually get into the atmosphere via rain.  That's it, then.  Assuming humanity survives what comes before, with Europe and North America turning into deserts reaching up to the arctic circle, and Holland, Bangladesh and parts of the Chinese coast being wiped off the map completely.

The worst that can happen is a cataclysm on the scale of the Permian extinction. 4 million years of worms and cockroaches, baby. But Earth will bounce back. Humans...ah well. Should get some interesting life forms out of it though.

This planet will thankfully never reach the level of Venus, one, because it's not close enough to the Sun, two, because there are organisms here which feed on just about anything that can be provided; any spike in levels will cause a spike in those, and gradually the levels will decrease. Again, the Permian was the worst extinction event the planet has ever seen, it's called the Great Dying for a reason. And it ended some of the most successful lineages in history (e.g. trilobites), 96% of all marine species and 3/4ths all terrestrial vertebrates. And if you read up on it, this is /exactly/ the same sort of path we are headed for right now. I don't see any primates surviving it.

Yeah, I wouldn't see us going all the way, but it'll be close enough for us to make no difference.

I'm not going to think about it any more today. It is making me cripplingly depressed.

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 18, 2011, 12:20:14 AM
Name one agricultural byproduct (i.e. something that is NOT in and of itself a food product) that can be used to make ethanol on a large enough scale for it to matter.

Cornstalks.

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 17, 2011, 11:26:34 PM
You know, if I really sat down and thought about the above for a while, I think it would make me pants shitting terrified and suicidal.

Yup :(

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 18, 2011, 12:20:14 AM
Name one agricultural byproduct (i.e. something that is NOT in and of itself a food product) that can be used to make ethanol on a large enough scale for it to matter.

Agricultural waste (including cornstalks, like BH suggested) and maybe algae, but the best species of algae for fuel are high fat producers, but even those usually produce some carbohydrates. Then again, all of these are/could be be used as feed for animals (silage), so, none really. Not personally a fan of ethanol for fuel except as an emergency substitute.

My current pet alternative fuel is silicon (http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000079095.pdf).

at what point would you prognosticate that these facts will become overwhelmingly obvious to the masses? (or at least to all the decision makers)

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 18, 2011, 01:10:16 AM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 18, 2011, 12:20:14 AM
Name one agricultural byproduct (i.e. something that is NOT in and of itself a food product) that can be used to make ethanol on a large enough scale for it to matter.

Cornstalks.

You understand that it takes more than a gallon of ethanol's worth of energy to get a gallon of ethanol from corn, right?

Nevermind what the phosphate-laden runoff from growing corn does to rivers and the Gulf.

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 18, 2011, 04:14:52 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 18, 2011, 01:10:16 AM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 18, 2011, 12:20:14 AM
Name one agricultural byproduct (i.e. something that is NOT in and of itself a food product) that can be used to make ethanol on a large enough scale for it to matter.

Cornstalks.

You understand that it takes more than a gallon of ethanol's worth of energy to get a gallon of ethanol from corn, right?

Nevermind what the phosphate-laden runoff from growing corn does to rivers and the Gulf.

AND the following two facts:

1.  Creating one gallon of ethanol creates 120+ gallons of high alkaline water, and

2.  You would have to use every single acre of arable land in the USA just to meet CURRENT energy requirements.

Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on July 18, 2011, 02:00:47 PM
My current pet alternative fuel is silicon (http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000079095.pdf).

Isn't silicon kind of getting rarer on earth though? Also, I've read something about dwindling mineral resources around the world that left me worried. I'll search for the link later.

Quote from: Iptuous on July 18, 2011, 03:01:28 PM
at what point would you prognosticate that these facts will become overwhelmingly obvious to the masses? (or at least to all the decision makers)

Probably not until two major catastrophes affecting millions of people in the most developed countries happen within a decade of each other, so some 30-40 years from now?

Two major catastrophes affecting millions of people just happened within months of each other, and a few months later it's business as usual and nobody gives a fuck.

I admire your optimism, though. :lulz:

Do never underestimate humanity's ability to bury their heads in the sand. the only way they'll ever accept the truth is if you removed all the sand. our race will be long extinct before the penny even begins to drop  :lulz:

Quote from: Sano on July 18, 2011, 04:21:48 PM

Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on July 18, 2011, 02:00:47 PM
My current pet alternative fuel is silicon (http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000079095.pdf).

Isn't silicon kind of getting rarer on earth though? Also, I've read something about dwindling mineral resources around the world that left me worried. I'll search for the link later.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/elabund.html

Sand is 1/3 silicon (by mole).

Also, Saudi Arabia is the Saudi Arabia of sand.

i guess i'm more interested in when the decision makers will come to a consensus that things aren't going to change in time to avert disaster.  i would expect a massive culling to be orchestrated.

Quote from: Sano on July 18, 2011, 04:21:48 PM
Isn't silicon kind of getting rarer on earth though?

Yeah, the desert out here in Arizona is now just bedrock.

:lulz:

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2011, 05:58:19 PM

Quote from: Sano on July 18, 2011, 04:21:48 PM
Isn't silicon kind of getting rarer on earth though?

Yeah, the desert out here in Arizona is now just bedrock.

:lulz:

I blame windows  :|

Quote from: Khara on July 18, 2011, 06:18:33 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2011, 05:58:19 PM

Quote from: Sano on July 18, 2011, 04:21:48 PM
Isn't silicon kind of getting rarer on earth though?

Yeah, the desert out here in Arizona is now just bedrock.

:lulz:

I blame windows  :|

Enjoy your rocky, bare beaches, America!

:lol:

Quote from: Iptuous on July 18, 2011, 03:01:28 PM
at what point would you prognosticate that these facts will become overwhelmingly obvious to the masses? (or at least to all the decision makers)

The worst drought in 60 years in the Horn of Africa has sparked a severe food crisis and high malnutrition rates, with parts of Kenya and Somalia experiencing pre-famine conditions, the United Nations said on Tuesday.

More than 10 million people are now affected in drought-stricken areas of Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia and Uganda and the situation is deteriorating, it said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/28/us-africa-drought-idUSTRE75R2JQ20110628

It is an annual tradition for Chinese to race dragon boats at the end of each spring, but this year, the tradition has run aground. Many streams and lakes along the Yangtze River have almost dried up.

The world's third-largest river -- stretching from the Himalayas thousands of miles to the east meeting the sea -- has been experiencing its worst drought in decades. The drought is withering farmers' wallets, threatening a Chinese species even rarer than the panda and raising questions about a clean energy source that China hopes to bank its energy future on.

"Because of the drought, what used to be a lake is now dry land," said Liu Jinghua, a woman living by China's second-largest freshwater lake -- Dongting -- which has lost two-thirds of its water over the past few months.
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/06/14/14climatewire-chinas-drought-threatens-farm-income-drinkin-63459.html?pagewanted=all

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 18, 2011, 04:14:52 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 18, 2011, 01:10:16 AM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 18, 2011, 12:20:14 AM
Name one agricultural byproduct (i.e. something that is NOT in and of itself a food product) that can be used to make ethanol on a large enough scale for it to matter.

Cornstalks.

You understand that it takes more than a gallon of ethanol's worth of energy to get a gallon of ethanol from corn, right?

Nevermind what the phosphate-laden runoff from growing corn does to rivers and the Gulf.

The corn is being grown anyways, for the kernels, might as well get some use from the stalks.  As far as the energy inputs most of that is heat, which can come from burning cornstalks.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 18, 2011, 08:30:42 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 18, 2011, 04:14:52 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 18, 2011, 01:10:16 AM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 18, 2011, 12:20:14 AM
Name one agricultural byproduct (i.e. something that is NOT in and of itself a food product) that can be used to make ethanol on a large enough scale for it to matter.

Cornstalks.

You understand that it takes more than a gallon of ethanol's worth of energy to get a gallon of ethanol from corn, right?

Nevermind what the phosphate-laden runoff from growing corn does to rivers and the Gulf.

The corn is being grown anyways, for the kernels, might as well get some use from the stalks.  As far as the energy inputs most of that is heat, which can come from burning cornstalks.

How many calories of energy are you going to get per stalk?

This is another one of those times that I love, when laypeople think they've come up with a perfectly obvious and reasonable solution that makes perfect sense.

GOSH, I WONDER WHY THEY DON'T JUST INVENT A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?

Quote from: Nigel on July 18, 2011, 08:46:06 PM
This is another one of those times that I love, when laypeople think they've come up with a perfectly obvious and reasonable solution that makes perfect sense.

GOSH, I WONDER WHY THEY DON'T JUST INVENT A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?

Also, now we're burning the stalks we were going to use to make ethanol.

HAVING CAKE AND EATING IT TOO, ITT!

So they're giving up on fuel cell technology alltogether as a viable energy source?

Quote from: Cain on July 17, 2011, 03:50:56 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 17, 2011, 02:48:15 PM
Sucks that I'm going to live through all this, but if one has plans of immortality I guess it's a necessity. I do see, amid the coastal flooding and petrolium decline, a hasty and frightened switch to alternative fuel sources, and advanced recycling processes. Landfill mining, anyone? Coal will last much longer, so there may be a switch to diesel and electric vehicles. Ethanol will be ultimately abandoned because it's a complete shit fuel and the growing population will need food farming land. Nuclear will continue, with increased solar and wind production, especially wind. You should see the massive turbine areas in Indiana, basically farms as far as the eye can see, regular farms, with turbines sticking up like alabaster pillars. Fission is too far off to even be considered in the picture. I see mass transportation becoming much more frequent as well.

Unfortunately though, coal will exacerbate climate change.  Which I'd really, really rather not do.  A mix of renewable and nuclear, to make up the shortfall, seems the most sensible approach (assuming the nuclear industry doesn't continue its march to near investment banking levels of irresponsibility and regulatory deception) but that takes decades of planning and building.

And I don't think we have decades for that anymore.

The creeping nightmare of the mining industry at present is Coal Seam Gas. Their PR passes it off as a clean, plentiful and relatively innocuous energy source, just lying fallow, asking to be exploited. Without risk of harm to ozone or ocean...yeah, right.

http://www.ccag.org.au/index.php/coal-seam-gas

And they like to keep it quiet when they fuck it up...which they do...often.
http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/story/2010/07/24/coal-seam-gas-and-ucg-are-different/

Quote from: Khara on July 18, 2011, 08:56:05 PM
So they're giving up on fuel cell technology alltogether as a viable energy source?

I didn't think energy cells were an energy source. More an energy storage medium.

Quote from: PopeTom on July 18, 2011, 10:15:11 PM

Quote from: Khara on July 18, 2011, 08:56:05 PM
So they're giving up on fuel cell technology alltogether as a viable energy source?

I didn't think energy cells were an energy source. More an energy storage medium.

If you can store energy efficiently, we have a limitless, cheap, clean source; the sun. But if you can't, you're SOL.

Efficient energy storage is the holy grail. It would solve all our energy problems.

Quote from: Nigel on July 18, 2011, 10:27:59 PM

Quote from: PopeTom on July 18, 2011, 10:15:11 PM

Quote from: Khara on July 18, 2011, 08:56:05 PM
So they're giving up on fuel cell technology alltogether as a viable energy source?

I didn't think energy cells were an energy source. More an energy storage medium.

If you can store energy efficiently, we have a limitless, cheap, clean source; the sun. But if you can't, you're SOL.

Efficient energy storage is the holy grail. It would solve all our energy problems.

I honestly sometimes think their idea is to use up every other option before trying anything new, just to make sure no one can go back to the way it was, because there is nothing left...

Does that make sense?

Quote from: Khara on July 18, 2011, 10:29:34 PM

Quote from: Nigel on July 18, 2011, 10:27:59 PM

Quote from: PopeTom on July 18, 2011, 10:15:11 PM

Quote from: Khara on July 18, 2011, 08:56:05 PM
So they're giving up on fuel cell technology alltogether as a viable energy source?

I didn't think energy cells were an energy source. More an energy storage medium.

If you can store energy efficiently, we have a limitless, cheap, clean source; the sun. But if you can't, you're SOL.

Efficient energy storage is the holy grail. It would solve all our energy problems.

I honestly sometimes think their idea is to use up every other option before trying anything new, just to make sure no one can go back to the way it was, because there is nothing left...

Does that make sense?

Follow the money...

Quote from: Khara on July 18, 2011, 10:29:34 PM

Quote from: Nigel on July 18, 2011, 10:27:59 PM

Quote from: PopeTom on July 18, 2011, 10:15:11 PM

Quote from: Khara on July 18, 2011, 08:56:05 PM
So they're giving up on fuel cell technology alltogether as a viable energy source?

I didn't think energy cells were an energy source. More an energy storage medium.

If you can store energy efficiently, we have a limitless, cheap, clean source; the sun. But if you can't, you're SOL.

Efficient energy storage is the holy grail. It would solve all our energy problems.

I honestly sometimes think their idea is to use up every other option before trying anything new, just to make sure no one can go back to the way it was, because there is nothing left...

Does that make sense?

It's human nature. Greed. Gimme everything, now and fuck the price.

Quote from: Khara on July 18, 2011, 10:29:34 PM

Quote from: Nigel on July 18, 2011, 10:27:59 PM

Quote from: PopeTom on July 18, 2011, 10:15:11 PM

Quote from: Khara on July 18, 2011, 08:56:05 PM
So they're giving up on fuel cell technology alltogether as a viable energy source?

I didn't think energy cells were an energy source. More an energy storage medium.

If you can store energy efficiently, we have a limitless, cheap, clean source; the sun. But if you can't, you're SOL.

Efficient energy storage is the holy grail. It would solve all our energy problems.

I honestly sometimes think their idea is to use up every other option before trying anything new, just to make sure no one can go back to the way it was, because there is nothing left...

Does that make sense?

I think the idea is to use the cheapest until

a) an even cheaper source is found.

or

b) the cheapest source of energy starts to be uncommon enough (or unable to meat demand) so as to have its price rise to compare with the next cheapest source.

Quote from: Khara on July 18, 2011, 08:56:05 PM
So they're giving up on fuel cell technology alltogether as a viable energy source?

Fuel cells require hydrogen to produce energy, and right now we don't have a way to make hydrogen that leaves it cost-competetive. The other problem is that while it could be immediately useful as a fixed-point power source if the cost of the hydrogen production processes could be brought down, the technology hasn't developed yet to the point where the power-to-size ration makes it really useful as an alternate means of powering vehicles. Yeah, you can use a hydrogen fuel cell to push a compact car down the road (with a relatively large battery compared to teh size of the car) but the fuel cell that would be needed to push a fully-loaded semi truck would be about half the size of a semi trailer. Then there's the catch-22 of "we can't build a hydrogen fueling infrastructure until there are enough fuel cell cars on the road to justify the cost but we can't market enough fuel cell cars until we have a reliable hydrogen fueling infrastructure".

Really, as far as I can tell, one of (if not THE) biggest impediments to a reliable alternative-energy economy is the costs of replacing the deeply-entrenched infrastructure of the hydrocarbon economy. That might change if something was introduced to the market that caused the true cost of carbon emissions to be factored into hydrocarbon energy costs, but for now that looks pretty unlikely.

Quote from: Nigel on July 18, 2011, 10:27:59 PM

If you can store energy efficiently, we have a limitless, cheap, clean source; the sun. But if you can't, you're SOL.

Was that pun intended?

Quote from: PopeTom on July 18, 2011, 10:15:11 PM

Quote from: Khara on July 18, 2011, 08:56:05 PM
So they're giving up on fuel cell technology alltogether as a viable energy source?

I didn't think energy cells were an energy source. More an energy storage medium.

Since Ethanol requires more caloric input than it has contained in it, it is also a storage medium.  Not an energy source.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 19, 2011, 03:34:37 AM

Quote from: PopeTom on July 18, 2011, 10:15:11 PM

Quote from: Khara on July 18, 2011, 08:56:05 PM
So they're giving up on fuel cell technology alltogether as a viable energy source?

I didn't think energy cells were an energy source. More an energy storage medium.

Since Ethanol requires more caloric input than it has contained in it, it is also a storage medium.  Not an energy source.

What???

Go play with your toys. The big kids are talking here.

If one really wanted to be pedantic about it, there's no such thing as an energy "source" unless you count the big bang, or whatever all this energy came from.

The sun is an energy storage medium. Atoms are energy storage mediums. Your mom is an energy storage medium. etc...

For "source" to have any meaning, you have to define a system with boundaries, and then energy coming into the system from outside the boundaries is a source.

Within the boundaries of an engine, the gas tank is an energy source. Within the boundaries of the earth, the sun is an energy source.

Or something like that.

Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on July 19, 2011, 06:23:42 AM
If one really wanted to be pedantic about it, there's no such thing as an energy "source" unless you count the big bang, or whatever all this energy came from.

The sun is an energy storage medium. Atoms are energy storage mediums. Your mom is an energy storage medium. etc...

For "source" to have any meaning, you have to define a system with boundaries, and then energy coming into the system from outside the boundaries is a source.

Within the boundaries of an engine, the gas tank is an energy source. Within the boundaries of the earth, the sun is an energy source.

Or something like that.

Holyshit.. you mean that in order to heave MEANING we have to have CONTEXT?    :fnord::1fap:

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 19, 2011, 12:22:04 AM

Quote from: Khara on July 18, 2011, 08:56:05 PM
So they're giving up on fuel cell technology alltogether as a viable energy source?

Fuel cells require hydrogen to produce energy, and right now we don't have a way to make hydrogen that leaves it cost-competetive. The other problem is that while it could be immediately useful as a fixed-point power source if the cost of the hydrogen production processes could be brought down, the technology hasn't developed yet to the point where the power-to-size ration makes it really useful as an alternate means of powering vehicles. Yeah, you can use a hydrogen fuel cell to push a compact car down the road (with a relatively large battery compared to teh size of the car) but the fuel cell that would be needed to push a fully-loaded semi truck would be about half the size of a semi trailer. Then there's the catch-22 of "we can't build a hydrogen fueling infrastructure until there are enough fuel cell cars on the road to justify the cost but we can't market enough fuel cell cars until we have a reliable hydrogen fueling infrastructure".

Really, as far as I can tell, one of (if not THE) biggest impediments to a reliable alternative-energy economy is the costs of replacing the deeply-entrenched infrastructure of the hydrocarbon economy. That might change if something was introduced to the market that caused the true cost of carbon emissions to be factored into hydrocarbon energy costs, but for now that looks pretty unlikely.

So we're pretty much screwed? 

Or we can run the planet into a wasteland at which point we will be completely screwed? 

Damn.  :|

Well, it's more like our grandkids are pretty much screwed. It's doubtful that we'll live long enough to see the climate change hit the "irreversible and totally catastrophic to human life" point.

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 19, 2011, 03:43:53 PM
Well, it's more like our grandkids are pretty much screwed. It's doubtful that we'll live long enough to see the climate change hit the "irreversible and totally catastrophic to human life" point.

I think we will see it.  The problem is not mere climate change in the "carbon = bad" sense.  It seems to me that recent volcanic activity has far outstripped our industrial activities in that kind of output.  I do not claim to know WHY the climate is changing, but it obviously is, and quickly.

The slow poison released by human industry will bring the human catastrophes.  We have produced compounds and even mutant atoms that nature would never have developed without humanity.  They are part of the systems on this planet now whether or not their introduction was accidental, planned, or incidental.  The impact of these substances is often subtle, but can be dramatic over time.  It is our poisons and the synergistic effect of natural and man made disasters that will bring us down, I think.  I also think some of will adapt in unexpected ways, but that's more of a faith statement.

Tentacalium is my favorite mutant atom.

All these "mutant atoms" exist in nature somewhere, just not for very long. They don't last very long in the lab either.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 19, 2011, 03:34:37 AM

Quote from: PopeTom on July 18, 2011, 10:15:11 PM

Quote from: Khara on July 18, 2011, 08:56:05 PM
So they're giving up on fuel cell technology alltogether as a viable energy source?

I didn't think energy cells were an energy source. More an energy storage medium.

Since Ethanol requires more caloric input than it has contained in it, it is also a storage medium.  Not an energy source.

If you want to get nit-picky then most forms of energy are just a storage medium for solar power. 

Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on July 19, 2011, 04:25:33 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 19, 2011, 03:43:53 PM
Well, it's more like our grandkids are pretty much screwed. It's doubtful that we'll live long enough to see the climate change hit the "irreversible and totally catastrophic to human life" point.

I think we will see it.  The problem is not mere climate change in the "carbon = bad" sense.  It seems to me that recent volcanic activity has far outstripped our industrial activities in that kind of output.  I do not claim to know WHY the climate is changing, but it obviously is, and quickly.

The slow poison released by human industry will bring the human catastrophes.  We have produced compounds and even mutant atoms that nature would never have developed without humanity.  They are part of the systems on this planet now whether or not their introduction was accidental, planned, or incidental.  The impact of these substances is often subtle, but can be dramatic over time.  It is our poisons and the synergistic effect of natural and man made disasters that will bring us down, I think.  I also think some of will adapt in unexpected ways, but that's more of a faith statement.

I hate it when people who know exactly fuck-all about the subject feel the need to throw their two cents in.

Your opinion has been noted and given all the consideration that it merits.

Now, if you want to deal in FACTS rather than your half-baked ill-informed opinions, it's pretty evident given the current data that if something pretty drastic doesn't change in the way our energy economy works, we (that's humans, not volcanoes) will cause atmospheric CO2 levels to rise above 600ppm sometime around the turn of the century. All current scientific models point to 600ppm as being the threshold after which climate change will become a self-sustaining feedback loop ultimately causing an anoxic event to occur in the world ocean and more than likely causing a mass extinction on the level of the Permian-Triassic extinction.

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 19, 2011, 07:52:17 PM

Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on July 19, 2011, 04:25:33 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 19, 2011, 03:43:53 PM
Well, it's more like our grandkids are pretty much screwed. It's doubtful that we'll live long enough to see the climate change hit the "irreversible and totally catastrophic to human life" point.

I think we will see it.  The problem is not mere climate change in the "carbon = bad" sense.  It seems to me that recent volcanic activity has far outstripped our industrial activities in that kind of output.  I do not claim to know WHY the climate is changing, but it obviously is, and quickly.

The slow poison released by human industry will bring the human catastrophes.  We have produced compounds and even mutant atoms that nature would never have developed without humanity.  They are part of the systems on this planet now whether or not their introduction was accidental, planned, or incidental.  The impact of these substances is often subtle, but can be dramatic over time.  It is our poisons and the synergistic effect of natural and man made disasters that will bring us down, I think.  I also think some of will adapt in unexpected ways, but that's more of a faith statement.

I hate it when people who know exactly fuck-all about the subject feel the need to throw their two cents in.

Your opinion has been noted and given all the consideration that it merits.

Now, if you want to deal in FACTS rather than your half-baked ill-informed opinions, it's pretty evident given the current data that if something pretty drastic doesn't change in the way our energy economy works, we (that's humans, not volcanoes) will cause atmospheric CO2 levels to rise above 600ppm sometime around the turn of the century. All current scientific models point to 600ppm as being the threshold after which climate change will become a self-sustaining feedback loop ultimately causing an anoxic event to occur in the world ocean and more than likely causing a mass extinction on the level of the Permian-Triassic extinction.

You're right, I'm not totally informed. 
I only seems to me that the changes we WILL face are made much worse by our other forms of waste. 
I think CO2 is a major factor, and I don't know much about this 600ppm feedback and anoxic event you're talking about. 
I'll look into it as well as I can before giving an opinion again. 
Does this data and model you mention indicate increasing weather severity and extraordinary pattern change before the threshold is reached?

IIRC (and I'm not 100% sure I remember this correctly off the top of my head) we'll start to see some pretty drastic changes at or around 450-500ppm. Hypercanes are a distinct likelihood, as is massive desertification of arable land.

I remember reading an article years ago about the whole "fuel-economy" thing and how that made it really hard to move to any alternative sources of energy even if they were viable. Something about globally being "addicted to oil" Maybe someone in the know could dig up something along those lines. Mainly cos I'd be interested in reacquainting myself with the setup but also cos I think it's relevant here.

Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on July 19, 2011, 08:36:37 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 19, 2011, 07:52:17 PM

Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on July 19, 2011, 04:25:33 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 19, 2011, 03:43:53 PM
Well, it's more like our grandkids are pretty much screwed. It's doubtful that we'll live long enough to see the climate change hit the "irreversible and totally catastrophic to human life" point.

I think we will see it.  The problem is not mere climate change in the "carbon = bad" sense.  It seems to me that recent volcanic activity has far outstripped our industrial activities in that kind of output.  I do not claim to know WHY the climate is changing, but it obviously is, and quickly.

The slow poison released by human industry will bring the human catastrophes.  We have produced compounds and even mutant atoms that nature would never have developed without humanity.  They are part of the systems on this planet now whether or not their introduction was accidental, planned, or incidental.  The impact of these substances is often subtle, but can be dramatic over time.  It is our poisons and the synergistic effect of natural and man made disasters that will bring us down, I think.  I also think some of will adapt in unexpected ways, but that's more of a faith statement.

I hate it when people who know exactly fuck-all about the subject feel the need to throw their two cents in.

Your opinion has been noted and given all the consideration that it merits.

Now, if you want to deal in FACTS rather than your half-baked ill-informed opinions, it's pretty evident given the current data that if something pretty drastic doesn't change in the way our energy economy works, we (that's humans, not volcanoes) will cause atmospheric CO2 levels to rise above 600ppm sometime around the turn of the century. All current scientific models point to 600ppm as being the threshold after which climate change will become a self-sustaining feedback loop ultimately causing an anoxic event to occur in the world ocean and more than likely causing a mass extinction on the level of the Permian-Triassic extinction.

You're right, I'm not totally informed. 
I only seems to me that the changes we WILL face are made much worse by our other forms of waste. 
I think CO2 is a major factor, and I don't know much about this 600ppm feedback and anoxic event you're talking about. 
I'll look into it as well as I can before giving an opinion again. 
Does this data and model you mention indicate increasing weather severity and extraordinary pattern change before the threshold is reached?

You THINK CO2 is a major factor. As in, it could be but I don't really have planetary evidence except maybe you know, VENUS.

Humans are freeing a fuckload of insulating gas into the atmosphere, carbon that has been sequestered for the past 300 million years in rock. This is significantly elevated CO2 levels we're talking about here, carbon that died, flattened beneath rock and would have fucking stayed there if humans hadn't dug it up and started burning it. Carbon dioxide becomes a weak acid, carbonic acid, when in contact with water; so higher levels of CO2 means more acidic water. Hm...I wonder why coral reefs are doing so badly? Oh RIGHT, they're made of fucking BASES. In addition, increased CO2 levels (and this has been shown experimentally) causes increased photosynthesis. Which isn't such a big problem on land, but in water you'll get huge algal blooms, often toxic. Which then seasonally die off, which is where the real problem comes in. Everything gets eaten, yes? Well, all that plant matter gets chowed on by oxygenic bacteria, until the oxygen is depleted (at which point the ocean is essentially dead), and then the anaerobic bacteria start in, with the waste product of sulfur rich gasses. Join that to increased sea level from melting of continental ice caps (mostly Greenland and Antarctica), and other possible suck in the form of shifting climatic patterns, and you've got a whole pile of oh my fucking god just kill me already.

And if you think about it enough, you'll become enlightened, by which I mean, committed.  :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

Okay, okay. I admit, I've been getting majorly depressed over this, and it's driving me more than a little nuts.

Worst case scenario: A second Great Dying. Ecosystem recovery doesn't start for 4 million years. Probably full recovery doesn't come until another 25-30, depending on how fast the CO2 levels decrease after industrial civilization falls apart. Previous increases were mostly vulcanogenic, so it's possible the levels will decrease faster.

So, four million years of shit, and possibly 25-30 more of recovery. Humans are generally ingenious about surviving in various climates, so I expect at least some to survive assuming it's not /worse/ than the P-T.

In my mind, theres a hell of a lot of information that needs to be saved and archived before this happens. Cultural and biological information. Assuming humans have 4 million years to prepare, that's plenty of time to perfect tissue/organismal cloning and biomanipulation. There will still be plenty of solar energy to gather, and wind, assuming the knowledge on building eletromagnets is not lost. Repositories such as archives, libraries, natural history museums, biobanks, these will become extremely important.

And all these thoughts are just to keep my brain from falling apart right now, because I do plan on living forever or to die trying. I do not look forward to 4 million years of desert.


Also, seed repositories. Very very important for continued human survival in various climates.

If anyone other than you told be they planned to live forever I'd laugh in their face but you are the ultimate pragmatist so I'll ask. What do you know that I don't? Cryonics or something?

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 19, 2011, 10:18:59 PM
If anyone other than you told be they planned to live forever I'd laugh in their face but you are the ultimate pragmatist so I'll ask. What do you know that I don't? Cryonics or something?

No. I just decided I was going to live forever in a sort of "do or do not" mentality. If the technology comes on, I'll take it. Until then I'll just live well. And it comes with a different mentality. No retirement if I'm going to live forever. No retirement homes, no resigning myself to an autoscooter. 65, 70, 100, I'll still be living as I was at 30 assuming I'm not dead, which is something I'm going to be avoiding.

Or more simply: How do I live forever?

1. Wake up tomorrow morning.

2. Repeat unto infinity.  :lulz:

As a biologist you must realise that that's going to take you to what, 150 at the extreme outside? For a whole bunch of reasons that you could prolly lecture me on. So if you're serious about this you must be looking to tech? Anything interesting on the horizon?

Goji berries, bro.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 19, 2011, 10:47:13 PM
As a biologist you must realise that that's going to take you to what, 150 at the extreme outside? For a whole bunch of reasons that you could prolly lecture me on. So if you're serious about this you must be looking to tech? Anything interesting on the horizon?

I'm not looking into any tech right now because I don't need any tech right now. I do know that there are a number of experiments in growing various organs and building artificial ones. At this point, if you don't die from a cancer or an accident, or a brain deterioration, cardiovascular failure is right there at the top. But like I said, I'm not really looking into it right now because I'm not forseeing I'll be needing a new heart in the next 40 years. Maybe when I'm 60, I'll start thinking about it. In the meantime, I don't really feel a need to drink or smoke, or rub myself in motor oil.

But this thread isn't about life extension, it's about the big fucking disasters looming on the horizon. Seriously.

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 19, 2011, 11:09:16 PM
But this thread isn't about life extension, it's about the big fucking disasters looming on the horizon. Seriously.

Yeah but it's the distant horizon. Try as I might I just can't get upset about it. Although that is coming from a position of someone who has 20-30 years left here, tops. I got much more immediate concerns.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 19, 2011, 11:23:15 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 19, 2011, 11:09:16 PM
But this thread isn't about life extension, it's about the big fucking disasters looming on the horizon. Seriously.

Yeah but it's the distant horizon. Try as I might I just can't get upset about it. Although that is coming from a position of someone who has 20-30 years left here, tops. I got much more immediate concerns.

Depends on what's ailing you. If its your heart, this (http://www.metro.co.uk/news/866619-doctors-test-beatless-artificial-heart-on-a-human-for-the-first-time) is pretty cool. Again, not thread relevant.

Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on July 19, 2011, 05:40:28 PM
Tentacalium is my favorite mutant atom.

What's that? I tried googling it, but got no hits.

Quote from: Triple Zero on July 20, 2011, 01:39:48 AM

Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on July 19, 2011, 05:40:28 PM
Tentacalium is my favorite mutant atom.

What's that? I tried googling it, but got no hits.

It's the one with tentacles.

well, then we're fucked. forever.

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 19, 2011, 09:20:12 PM

Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on July 19, 2011, 08:36:37 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 19, 2011, 07:52:17 PM

Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on July 19, 2011, 04:25:33 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 19, 2011, 03:43:53 PM
Well, it's more like our grandkids are pretty much screwed. It's doubtful that we'll live long enough to see the climate change hit the "irreversible and totally catastrophic to human life" point.

I think we will see it.  The problem is not mere climate change in the "carbon = bad" sense.  It seems to me that recent volcanic activity has far outstripped our industrial activities in that kind of output.  I do not claim to know WHY the climate is changing, but it obviously is, and quickly.

The slow poison released by human industry will bring the human catastrophes.  We have produced compounds and even mutant atoms that nature would never have developed without humanity.  They are part of the systems on this planet now whether or not their introduction was accidental, planned, or incidental.  The impact of these substances is often subtle, but can be dramatic over time.  It is our poisons and the synergistic effect of natural and man made disasters that will bring us down, I think.  I also think some of will adapt in unexpected ways, but that's more of a faith statement.

I hate it when people who know exactly fuck-all about the subject feel the need to throw their two cents in.

Your opinion has been noted and given all the consideration that it merits.

Now, if you want to deal in FACTS rather than your half-baked ill-informed opinions, it's pretty evident given the current data that if something pretty drastic doesn't change in the way our energy economy works, we (that's humans, not volcanoes) will cause atmospheric CO2 levels to rise above 600ppm sometime around the turn of the century. All current scientific models point to 600ppm as being the threshold after which climate change will become a self-sustaining feedback loop ultimately causing an anoxic event to occur in the world ocean and more than likely causing a mass extinction on the level of the Permian-Triassic extinction.

You're right, I'm not totally informed. 
I only seems to me that the changes we WILL face are made much worse by our other forms of waste. 
I think CO2 is a major factor, and I don't know much about this 600ppm feedback and anoxic event you're talking about. 
I'll look into it as well as I can before giving an opinion again. 
Does this data and model you mention indicate increasing weather severity and extraordinary pattern change before the threshold is reached?

You THINK CO2 is a major factor. As in, it could be but I don't really have planetary evidence except maybe you know, VENUS.

Humans are freeing a fuckload of insulating gas into the atmosphere, carbon that has been sequestered for the past 300 million years in rock. This is significantly elevated CO2 levels we're talking about here, carbon that died, flattened beneath rock and would have fucking stayed there if humans hadn't dug it up and started burning it. Carbon dioxide becomes a weak acid, carbonic acid, when in contact with water; so higher levels of CO2 means more acidic water. Hm...I wonder why coral reefs are doing so badly? Oh RIGHT, they're made of fucking BASES. In addition, increased CO2 levels (and this has been shown experimentally) causes increased photosynthesis. Which isn't such a big problem on land, but in water you'll get huge algal blooms, often toxic. Which then seasonally die off, which is where the real problem comes in. Everything gets eaten, yes? Well, all that plant matter gets chowed on by oxygenic bacteria, until the oxygen is depleted (at which point the ocean is essentially dead), and then the anaerobic bacteria start in, with the waste product of sulfur rich gasses. Join that to increased sea level from melting of continental ice caps (mostly Greenland and Antarctica), and other possible suck in the form of shifting climatic patterns, and you've got a whole pile of oh my fucking god just kill me already.

And if you think about it enough, you'll become enlightened, by which I mean, committed.  :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

Why is SCIENCE both depressing and illuminating? :argh!:

Quote from: COL Coyote on July 20, 2011, 03:35:02 AM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 19, 2011, 09:20:12 PM

Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on July 19, 2011, 08:36:37 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 19, 2011, 07:52:17 PM

Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on July 19, 2011, 04:25:33 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 19, 2011, 03:43:53 PM
Well, it's more like our grandkids are pretty much screwed. It's doubtful that we'll live long enough to see the climate change hit the "irreversible and totally catastrophic to human life" point.

I think we will see it.  The problem is not mere climate change in the "carbon = bad" sense.  It seems to me that recent volcanic activity has far outstripped our industrial activities in that kind of output.  I do not claim to know WHY the climate is changing, but it obviously is, and quickly.

The slow poison released by human industry will bring the human catastrophes.  We have produced compounds and even mutant atoms that nature would never have developed without humanity.  They are part of the systems on this planet now whether or not their introduction was accidental, planned, or incidental.  The impact of these substances is often subtle, but can be dramatic over time.  It is our poisons and the synergistic effect of natural and man made disasters that will bring us down, I think.  I also think some of will adapt in unexpected ways, but that's more of a faith statement.

I hate it when people who know exactly fuck-all about the subject feel the need to throw their two cents in.

Your opinion has been noted and given all the consideration that it merits.

Now, if you want to deal in FACTS rather than your half-baked ill-informed opinions, it's pretty evident given the current data that if something pretty drastic doesn't change in the way our energy economy works, we (that's humans, not volcanoes) will cause atmospheric CO2 levels to rise above 600ppm sometime around the turn of the century. All current scientific models point to 600ppm as being the threshold after which climate change will become a self-sustaining feedback loop ultimately causing an anoxic event to occur in the world ocean and more than likely causing a mass extinction on the level of the Permian-Triassic extinction.

You're right, I'm not totally informed. 
I only seems to me that the changes we WILL face are made much worse by our other forms of waste. 
I think CO2 is a major factor, and I don't know much about this 600ppm feedback and anoxic event you're talking about. 
I'll look into it as well as I can before giving an opinion again. 
Does this data and model you mention indicate increasing weather severity and extraordinary pattern change before the threshold is reached?

You THINK CO2 is a major factor. As in, it could be but I don't really have planetary evidence except maybe you know, VENUS.

Humans are freeing a fuckload of insulating gas into the atmosphere, carbon that has been sequestered for the past 300 million years in rock. This is significantly elevated CO2 levels we're talking about here, carbon that died, flattened beneath rock and would have fucking stayed there if humans hadn't dug it up and started burning it. Carbon dioxide becomes a weak acid, carbonic acid, when in contact with water; so higher levels of CO2 means more acidic water. Hm...I wonder why coral reefs are doing so badly? Oh RIGHT, they're made of fucking BASES. In addition, increased CO2 levels (and this has been shown experimentally) causes increased photosynthesis. Which isn't such a big problem on land, but in water you'll get huge algal blooms, often toxic. Which then seasonally die off, which is where the real problem comes in. Everything gets eaten, yes? Well, all that plant matter gets chowed on by oxygenic bacteria, until the oxygen is depleted (at which point the ocean is essentially dead), and then the anaerobic bacteria start in, with the waste product of sulfur rich gasses. Join that to increased sea level from melting of continental ice caps (mostly Greenland and Antarctica), and other possible suck in the form of shifting climatic patterns, and you've got a whole pile of oh my fucking god just kill me already.

And if you think about it enough, you'll become enlightened, by which I mean, committed.  :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

Why is SCIENCE both depressing and illuminating? :argh!:

Because it illuminates where you went wrong. Which is usually somewhere horrendous and depressing.

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 19, 2011, 09:50:09 PM
Okay, okay. I admit, I've been getting majorly depressed over this, and it's driving me more than a little nuts.

Worst case scenario: A second Great Dying. Ecosystem recovery doesn't start for 4 million years. Probably full recovery doesn't come until another 25-30, depending on how fast the CO2 levels decrease after industrial civilization falls apart. Previous increases were mostly vulcanogenic, so it's possible the levels will decrease faster.

So, four million years of shit, and possibly 25-30 more of recovery. Humans are generally ingenious about surviving in various climates, so I expect at least some to survive assuming it's not /worse/ than the P-T.

In my mind, theres a hell of a lot of information that needs to be saved and archived before this happens. Cultural and biological information. Assuming humans have 4 million years to prepare, that's plenty of time to perfect tissue/organismal cloning and biomanipulation. There will still be plenty of solar energy to gather, and wind, assuming the knowledge on building eletromagnets is not lost. Repositories such as archives, libraries, natural history museums, biobanks, these will become extremely important.

And all these thoughts are just to keep my brain from falling apart right now, because I do plan on living forever or to die trying. I do not look forward to 4 million years of desert.


Also, seed repositories. Very very important for continued human survival in various climates.

Deserts are beautiful, and fairly biodiverse.

The biggest issue, IMO, with seed banks is that seeds degrade, we need to actively grow as many things as we possibly can.  We'll want to create artificial environments as much as possible, to keep things alive.  And they'll need to be both compact and diverse.

A living desert is not the same thing as what desertification turns regular nature into.

Am I right, science people?  Or am I blowing it out my pie hole?

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 19, 2011, 08:49:06 PM
IIRC (and I'm not 100% sure I remember this correctly off the top of my head) we'll start to see some pretty drastic changes at or around 450-500ppm. Hypercanes are a distinct likelihood, as is massive desertification of arable land.

Thanks!  I'll do more research before I try to say something meaningfully relevant, but what I've found so far rules out the volcano crap.  Seems like the flight problems caused by some may have actually reduced the overall emission for a bit by grounding the planes.

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 19, 2011, 09:20:12 PM

Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on July 19, 2011, 08:36:37 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 19, 2011, 07:52:17 PM

Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on July 19, 2011, 04:25:33 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 19, 2011, 03:43:53 PM
Well, it's more like our grandkids are pretty much screwed. It's doubtful that we'll live long enough to see the climate change hit the "irreversible and totally catastrophic to human life" point.

I think we will see it.  The problem is not mere climate change in the "carbon = bad" sense.  It seems to me that recent volcanic activity has far outstripped our industrial activities in that kind of output.  I do not claim to know WHY the climate is changing, but it obviously is, and quickly.

The slow poison released by human industry will bring the human catastrophes.  We have produced compounds and even mutant atoms that nature would never have developed without humanity.  They are part of the systems on this planet now whether or not their introduction was accidental, planned, or incidental.  The impact of these substances is often subtle, but can be dramatic over time.  It is our poisons and the synergistic effect of natural and man made disasters that will bring us down, I think.  I also think some of will adapt in unexpected ways, but that's more of a faith statement.

I hate it when people who know exactly fuck-all about the subject feel the need to throw their two cents in.

Your opinion has been noted and given all the consideration that it merits.

Now, if you want to deal in FACTS rather than your half-baked ill-informed opinions, it's pretty evident given the current data that if something pretty drastic doesn't change in the way our energy economy works, we (that's humans, not volcanoes) will cause atmospheric CO2 levels to rise above 600ppm sometime around the turn of the century. All current scientific models point to 600ppm as being the threshold after which climate change will become a self-sustaining feedback loop ultimately causing an anoxic event to occur in the world ocean and more than likely causing a mass extinction on the level of the Permian-Triassic extinction.

You're right, I'm not totally informed. 
I only seems to me that the changes we WILL face are made much worse by our other forms of waste. 
I think CO2 is a major factor, and I don't know much about this 600ppm feedback and anoxic event you're talking about. 
I'll look into it as well as I can before giving an opinion again. 
Does this data and model you mention indicate increasing weather severity and extraordinary pattern change before the threshold is reached?

You THINK CO2 is a major factor. As in, it could be but I don't really have planetary evidence except maybe you know, VENUS.

Humans are freeing a fuckload of insulating gas into the atmosphere, carbon that has been sequestered for the past 300 million years in rock. This is significantly elevated CO2 levels we're talking about here, carbon that died, flattened beneath rock and would have fucking stayed there if humans hadn't dug it up and started burning it. Carbon dioxide becomes a weak acid, carbonic acid, when in contact with water; so higher levels of CO2 means more acidic water. Hm...I wonder why coral reefs are doing so badly? Oh RIGHT, they're made of fucking BASES. In addition, increased CO2 levels (and this has been shown experimentally) causes increased photosynthesis. Which isn't such a big problem on land, but in water you'll get huge algal blooms, often toxic. Which then seasonally die off, which is where the real problem comes in. Everything gets eaten, yes? Well, all that plant matter gets chowed on by oxygenic bacteria, until the oxygen is depleted (at which point the ocean is essentially dead), and then the anaerobic bacteria start in, with the waste product of sulfur rich gasses. Join that to increased sea level from melting of continental ice caps (mostly Greenland and Antarctica), and other possible suck in the form of shifting climatic patterns, and you've got a whole pile of oh my fucking god just kill me already.

And if you think about it enough, you'll become enlightened, by which I mean, committed.  :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

:lol:
The reasoning behind my uncertainty revolves around the money involved on both sides of the coin.  The status quo is worth a lot to the folks on it's current receiving end.  The potential cash and global financial influence available to the folks pushing for carbon taxes is on the other side.  I am quite sure the path we're on is ultimately destructive and the carbon and other emissions need to drop, but I'm skeptical of the motives behind the policies that may be  implemented. Power and money tend to make folks drop objectivity.  

The truth of the matter is something I don't know yet, but when I am convinced of a way forward that will not get us all dead unto the last monkey I'll be REALLY committed. Maybe. No promises.   :)

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 20, 2011, 05:14:36 AM
Deserts are beautiful, and fairly biodiverse.

Only because those species have adapted over millions of years to exist in them.  A new desert, appearing in 50 years or less, is going to be a desolate wasteland.

And are they biodiverse enough to support a population of 10 to 12 billion humans?  Maybe it's just me, but while I would mourn the destruction of the natural environment and so on, I'm rather more concerned with the continued survival of the human species first.

Quote from: Cain on July 20, 2011, 02:12:09 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 20, 2011, 05:14:36 AM
Deserts are beautiful, and fairly biodiverse.

Only because those species have adapted over millions of years to exist in them.  A new desert, appearing in 50 years or less, is going to be a desolate wasteland.

And are they biodiverse enough to support a population of 10 to 12 billion humans?  Maybe it's just me, but while I would mourn the destruction of the natural environment and so on, I'm rather more concerned with the continued survival of the human species first.

That first is spot on, what we'd have would be wastelands rather than proper deserts.

As to the second, not without a LOT of technological help.  We can see that just by looking at population densities in desert areas currently, those few that do have big cities in them are almost entirely dependent on shipping in food and water from more hospitable areas.

Quote from: Cain on July 20, 2011, 02:12:09 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 20, 2011, 05:14:36 AM
Deserts are beautiful, and fairly biodiverse.

Only because those species have adapted over millions of years to exist in them.  A new desert, appearing in 50 years or less, is going to be a desolate wasteland.

And are they biodiverse enough to support a population of 10 to 12 billion humans?  Maybe it's just me, but while I would mourn the destruction of the natural environment and so on, I'm rather more concerned with the continued survival of the human species first.

Nail on the head! You're not alone. I reckon it's fast approaching the stage where nature needs to take a real fucking low priority, compared to humanity. If we need to eat every last panda to feed the people then so be it. A lot of people seem to be obsessed with preserving some uninhabitable wet marshy shithole, just cos some dumb bird lives there. Fuck it. Take a DNA swab, stick it in a database an, if it's so fucking important, we can clone a couple after we fix IMPENDING DOOM!

I don't think the two are incompatible, in the long term especially.  And certain environmental protections certainly would have helped to moderate the crisis we are currently in.  But I think it has to be understood in a "means to an end" sense.  The problem is, a lot of people are, when confronted with the coming ecological crisis, shrug and say "what do I care about X species" without considering the wider implications.  Equally, preserving biodiversity without taking into account the 12 billion apes who need saving also is a sin some are guilty of (Bohdi comes to mind).  If there has to be a choice, obviously humans win, hands down, but I think it is a false dilemma, that there has to be a choice made.  But in terms of ordering priorities, it is a helpful way to think, I believe.

Think of climate change like you would of nuclear weapons.  I find that focuses the mind tremendously.

Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on July 19, 2011, 04:25:33 PM
We have produced compounds and even mutant atoms that nature would never have developed without humanity.

"Mutant atoms" (by which I'm assuming you mean the superheavy artificial elements) all have ridiculously short half-lives.  They aren't in our environment.

I don't see any way out beyond draconian control measures or a massive population decrease.
it is not difficult to imagine someone willing to enact that, but it would certainly be better for the psyche of mankind if nature would take care of the unpleasant necessities...

Quote from: Cain on July 20, 2011, 02:43:47 PM
I don't think the two are incompatible, in the long term especially.  And certain environmental protections certainly would have helped to moderate the crisis we are currently in.  But I think it has to be understood in a "means to an end" sense.  The problem is, a lot of people are, when confronted with the coming ecological crisis, shrug and say "what do I care about X species" without considering the wider implications.  Equally, preserving biodiversity without taking into account the 12 billion apes who need saving also is a sin some are guilty of (Bohdi comes to mind).  If there has to be a choice, obviously humans win, hands down, but I think it is a false dilemma, that there has to be a choice made.  But in terms of ordering priorities, it is a helpful way to think, I believe.

Think of climate change like you would of nuclear weapons.  I find that focuses the mind tremendously.

TITCM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 19, 2011, 08:49:06 PM
IIRC (and I'm not 100% sure I remember this correctly off the top of my head) we'll start to see some pretty drastic changes at or around 450-500ppm. Hypercanes are a distinct likelihood, as is massive desertification of arable land.

Yup. 

Here is the breakdown, based on global average temperature rises, in celsius:

1 degree rise:  desertification of the Great Plains.  Possible interruption of the Gulf Stream and the cooling of Europe by -2 degrees, creating a "Little Ice Age".  Increased rainfall in the Sahel and West Africa, followed by severe droughts.  Bleaching of coral reefs, stronger hurricanes which may possibly extend into the South Atlantic (problems for Brazil's future oil extraction there), atolls start sinking.

2 degree rise:  Floods in the South of China, drought in the North (though the Yangtze River Project may mitigate both of these).  Increased ocean acidity, depleting global food supplies.  Plankton ecosystems will fail, and as these absord CO2, that wont be good at all.  Mediterranean Europe will turn to a more North African climate.  Greenland's icecaps start melting.  Lakes in North America will start to vanish, as will permafrost.  The Arctic will eventually become ice-free in the summer, intensifying geopolitical competition in the North.  Drought in California.  US food production will hold steady, so long as it moves towards the Great Lakes and into the west, yields increase in Scandanavia and Russia, Europe treads water (though there will be country-level variation), but most of Africa outside of the central Congo region will decline massively.  A large number of species are expected to become extinct due to this, mostly insects.

3 degree rise:  The Sahara Desert moves south.  The Kalahari moves north.  Botswana is covered in dunes in its entirety, as is much of Zambia, Angola, Namibia, western Zimbabwe and northern South Africa.  East Africa gets more humid – increased rainfall in Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique etc, results in more flooding and malarial infestation.  The Australian interior and south become practically inhabitable.  General agricultural collapse is likely.  A permament El Nino effect may come into being, causing more floods and storms off the coast of Peru and California.  Drought increases in the Amazon region (which will almost certainly collapse once this temperature is reached, becoming desert), the US has milder winters, Europe has drier winters and Atlantic hurricanes become milder.  Central America will suffer further droughts, the Indian subcontinent's monsoons will become much more violent, the Indus River will dry up during the summer and collapse the Punjabi agricultural economy - probably causing Pakistan to instigate a nuclear war with India.  New York City will become more vulnerable to catastrophic flooding.  London and the Netherands at risk due to storm surges.  Rainfall shifts from PNW in the US to Canada and Alaska.  Between the previous stage and this one, a global food shortage is inevitable, causing massive global migrations which will have massive negative political effects. 

4 degree rise:  The West Antarctic Icesheet could become detatched from the mainland and become "uncorked" - resulting in much faster glacial outflow and adding 5m to global sea levels within decades.  If the East Antarctic icecap also melts, it will be closer to 50m.  Bangladesh, Holland and Egypt would be at risk, as would almost all coastal cities.  Agriculture would move to higher, marginal land, lowering yields.  Hundreds of millions would be displaced and the destruction of coastal cities would cause economic shocks that mean these refugees will have nothing provided for them.  China's food production collapses by 40% at this temperature, the Great Plains, the western US, the Pacific coast of S. America, southern Africa, the western Indian subcontinent and Australia all see major declines. Droughts will prevail in US south west, Central America, the Mediterranean, Southern Africa and Australia, South East Asia during the winter, and the Amazon, Siberia and West Africa during the summer.  Increased yields in Russia, Canada and Scandanavia will not close this gap.  At this point, global civilizational collapse becomes a very real possibility outside of the above named three areas.  Deserts will be present in Europe.  London and Zurich will see North African temperatures.  Flooding will devastate the South East of the UK, while the North West, in Scotland, will see milder weather.  If Scotland has not exited the Union already, expect it to once this starts.  Extremist and apocalyptic socio-political and religious movements will gain ground in this period, increasing the possibility of nuclear war, insurgency, terrorism and so on.  Melting ice will cause massive infrastructure damage in Russia, Canada and Alaska - diverting rivers and increasing flooding.  Mossy tundra will turn into bogs, increasing the release of methane - speeding up the process of global warming.

5 degree rise:  The Arctic is now permamently ice-free.  Two globe-girdling belts of perennial drought appear – encompassing the central Americas, southern half of Europe, the Sahel and Ethiopia, southern India, Indochina, Korea, Japan and the western Pacific in the north; southern Chile and Argentina, eastern Africa, Madagascar and Australia in the south.  More intense monsoons increase the flow of Indian and Chinese rivers.  Methane hydrate releases increase, compounding global warming and possibly causing tsunamis and similar effects in low-lying northern coastal regions.  The only habital regions will be the former polar strips, and refugees will overwhelm them if those nations let them - therefore expect fascist ideologies concerning lebensraum to be popular among the invading refugees, while a contra-fascist movement to keep the foreigners out to take hold among the remaining powers.  War is inevitable.  Global population loss can be counted in the billions.

6 degrees rise:  Deserts go as far north as the Arctic circle.  Killer "hypercanes" increase in frequency and ferocity.  Methane releases from collapsed methane hydrates will dissolve throughout the water column over time, each successive layer of water gradually reaching saturation point and priming the explosive. Assuming a trigger event, this drives a parcel methane-gas-saturated water, which releases a cascading stream of bubbles as the dissolved gas fizzzes out because of the falling hydrostatic pressure. This makes the parcel of water still more buoyant, accelerating its rise through the water column. As the water surge up, it drags the surrounding water up with it, spreading the process across the whole water body. At the sea surface, water is ejected hundreds of meters into the air as the released gas blasts into the atmosphere. This may generate a supersonic shockwave that ignites the exponentially growing methane blanket, pushing out an explosive front at speeds of 2km/second. This could release more energy than contained in the world's nuclear stockpiles by orders of magnitude, resulting in nuclear winter followed by renewed warming.  Global ocean convection shuts down, creating the aforementioned anoxic event.  This will build up hydrogen sulphide levels which be lethal to anything caught in it, while also helping to break down the ozone layer. 

where is that from?

Based on Mark Lynas' Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet.  I did some checking around - climatologists seem to agree with him, despite some non-climatologist reviewers calling the book "alarmist". 

I haven't been keeping up on this particular theory for a while because "the day after tomorrow"  did such an atrocious job of portraying it, but does the theory that global warming could lead to a new ice age still have much credence?  I remember it was not the majority position but was reasonably credible when I was taking climate courses in college.

I'll be honest here.  Global Warming is extremely confusing for the lay person.  You here one group saying there is going to be another ice age, another is talking about the "greenhouse effect" and yet others are all about the melting of the polar ice caps.

Then you bring in the "it's all a lie" group, and the "end of the world" doomsayers and you just add to the chaos of the whole thing.

It's difficult to know what to believe or if you can believe any of it because it all seems so contradictory.

Quote from: Out of Service on July 20, 2011, 03:59:05 PM
I'll be honest here.  Global Warming is extremely confusing for the lay person.  You here one group saying there is going to be another ice age, another is talking about the "greenhouse effect" and yet others are all about the melting of the polar ice caps.

Then you bring in the "it's all a lie" group, and the "end of the world" doomsayers and you just add to the chaos of the whole thing.

It's difficult to know what to believe or if you can believe any of it because it all seems so contradictory.

The ice age theory is based on the greenhouse effect.  The basic idea is that warming will cause a migration of moisture to the polar regions which will lead to a sudden increase in ice pack, which will change the reflective properties of the earth.  The result being increased cold to the north and south and a hot arid band around the middle.

Melting of the polar ice caps is also connected with the greenhouse effect.

Diversion of the warm stream of water that flows from the Carribean to Northern Europe by melting water coming down from the arctic would also cause a much much colder Europe.

One of the issues of Climate change is that we really don't understand what effects an increase in global temperature will have, which, for me, adds to the scariness of it all.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 20, 2011, 03:33:27 PM
I haven't been keeping up on this particular theory for a while because "the day after tomorrow"  did such an atrocious job of portraying it, but does the theory that global warming could lead to a new ice age still have much credence?  I remember it was not the majority position but was reasonably credible when I was taking climate courses in college.

I don't believe so.  While it could temporarily cause colder weather patterns (like the European "mini-Ice Age"), over the long term it is expected that ice caps and glaciers will melt until nothing is left.

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 19, 2011, 10:46:23 PM
Or more simply: How do I live forever?

1. Wake up tomorrow morning.

2. Repeat unto infinity.  :lulz:

:mittens:

There's no way to prevent this because human beings will not allow anything that might fix it. Imagine for a minute that you had a solution that involved quarrying all the mountains on earth, totally flat and using the aggregate to build up landmass in order to grow more food and trees and provide habitation for more people. This is hypothetical and plucked out my ass so I don't expect it's really plausible but for sake of argument imagine it was the answer to everything. What do you think would happen? I'll tell you - 99.9% of the population of earth would bitch and whine cause it'd spoil the view and the eagles and mountain goats would be wiped out. Fine, enjoy the view while your eyeballs are melting in your head!

Real world example: Windfarms the length and breadth of scotland are being met with resistance, every step of the way by whining fucks who'd rather their great grandchildren died in their teens than have to look outside and suffer the sight of a couple of windmills.

I've been hearing for years about terraforming the moon or mars or some asteroid and going and living there. To fuck with that. Maybe we ought to look at terraforming earth first. I'm pretty sure if we put our collective minds to it we could design and rebuild this planet to be more suitable for sustaining billions of people than something that happened over a couple of billion years of random accidents. I dunno how you'd do it, I'm not a scientist but I'm pretty sure someone does. Do they stand a chance in hell of getting it done? Hell no. You gotta preserve this stupid fucking environment. The same one that's threatening to kill us all in our sleep.

All the stuff Cain just mentioned is caused by the way the ecosystem reacts to us being here. It's because we rely on a bunch of fucking stupid trees and fucking stupid plankton to take care of the shit that we breathe out. Is that really the best way to do it? if one lousey dutch elm disease epidemic could gas us all to death then maybe it's time to look at upgrading the system. We're so short sighted that even the people trying to create a liveable biosphere are modelling it on nature. Trying to recreate the most fragile delicate life support system that ever happened by accident. That strikes me as fucking retarded.  :argh!:

The problem is, as a species, no matter how much we let out our pants, we will always grow to fill them, resulting in the inevitable muffin-top of doom.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 20, 2011, 06:06:07 PM
There's no way to prevent this because human beings will not allow anything that might fix it. Imagine for a minute that you had a solution that involved quarrying all the mountains on earth, totally flat and using the aggregate to build up landmass in order to grow more food and trees and provide habitation for more people. This is hypothetical and plucked out my ass so I don't expect it's really plausible but for sake of argument imagine it was the answer to everything. What do you think would happen? I'll tell you - 99.9% of the population of earth would bitch and whine cause it'd spoil the view and the eagles and mountain goats would be wiped out. Fine, enjoy the view while your eyeballs are melting in your head!

Real world example: Windfarms the length and breadth of scotland are being met with resistance, every step of the way by whining fucks who'd rather their great grandchildren died in their teens than have to look outside and suffer the sight of a couple of windmills.

I've been hearing for years about terraforming the moon or mars or some asteroid and going and living there. To fuck with that. Maybe we ought to look at terraforming earth first. I'm pretty sure if we put our collective minds to it we could design and rebuild this planet to be more suitable for sustaining billions of people than something that happened over a couple of billion years of random accidents. I dunno how you'd do it, I'm not a scientist but I'm pretty sure someone does. Do they stand a chance in hell of getting it done? Hell no. You gotta preserve this stupid fucking environment. The same one that's threatening to kill us all in our sleep.

All the stuff Cain just mentioned is caused by the way the ecosystem reacts to us being here. It's because we rely on a bunch of fucking stupid trees and fucking stupid plankton to take care of the shit that we breathe out. Is that really the best way to do it? if one lousey dutch elm disease epidemic could gas us all to death then maybe it's time to look at upgrading the system. We're so short sighted that even the people trying to create a liveable biosphere are modelling it on nature. Trying to recreate the most fragile delicate life support system that ever happened by accident. That strikes me as fucking retarded.  :argh!:

This sort of thinking is what has got us to where we are now.

Nature is generally way better at providing a system that we can live in than we are.

well, yeah. it is.
until it isn't.

Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on July 19, 2011, 05:40:28 PM
Tentacalium is my favorite mutant atom.

All these "mutant atoms" exist in nature somewhere, just not for very long. They don't last very long in the lab either.

Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 20, 2011, 02:58:11 PM

Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on July 19, 2011, 04:25:33 PM
We have produced compounds and even mutant atoms that nature would never have developed without humanity.

"Mutant atoms" (by which I'm assuming you mean the superheavy artificial elements) all have ridiculously short half-lives.  They aren't in our environment.

Actually talking about the uranium, plutonium, strontium, iodine, xenon, tritium, and other "daughter products" of nuclear fuel reactions.  Some of these DO have a short half life, but an atom does not become suddenly stable just because it's had a decay event happen.  It usually turns into another atom that is also unstable.

I'm not here to say I know a lot of Blah blah blah or not.

Here is IMHO a good homework reference if you want to know what's up in Japan and learn about nuclear fuel contamination.

http://www.fairewinds.com/ (http://www.fairewinds.com/)

There are, of course, many other sources. These folks seem most sincere and competent to me out of the many, many I've looked into since March.

Quote from: Iptuous on July 20, 2011, 06:31:32 PM
well, yeah. it is.
until it isn't.

well sure, but working with nature is way more efficient than trying to fight against it.  Nature has a zillion feedback systems in place that help to keep things in balance.  we've made a lot of these less effective than they used to be, but even the most barren parts of the world currently are still teeming with life in all sorts of interesting and useful ways. 

A little surprised no one has mentioned the jellyfish population problem yet but that shit scares me more than most of the rest of this stuff.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 20, 2011, 06:35:21 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on July 20, 2011, 06:31:32 PM
well, yeah. it is.
until it isn't.

well sure, but working with nature is way more efficient than trying to fight against it.  Nature has a zillion feedback systems in place that help to keep things in balance.  we've made a lot of these less effective than they used to be, but even the most barren parts of the world currently are still teeming with life in all sorts of interesting and useful ways. 

agreed.
But i can grok the sentiment that Pent presents that we should tailor the world we live in to accommodate us (trying our damnedest not to screw it up in the process), rather than viewing it as some museum piece that should be an untouchable item to be preserved in its current state for all time.  that doesn't even make sense, as it is a dynamic system that doesn't have a 'correct' state.  there's just states that will accommodate us, and states that won't.  we should proactively try to keep it one that will, even if that means doing something 'unnatural' to it.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 20, 2011, 06:35:21 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on July 20, 2011, 06:31:32 PM
well, yeah. it is.
until it isn't.

well sure, but working with nature is way more efficient than trying to fight against it.  Nature has a zillion feedback systems in place that help to keep things in balance.  we've made a lot of these less effective than they used to be, but even the most barren parts of the world currently are still teeming with life in all sorts of interesting and useful ways. 

You honestly expect me to believe that, after umpteen thousand years of scientific research we can't make a machine that will turn co2 into oxygen? One that takes even slightly less than a couple of hundred years to build a replacement? We're relying on fucking trees? If that's the case then we are so useless we deserve to die.

So we got this insect in scotland - the midge. maybe you already heard of it, if not let me paint a picture - it's basically a really fucking tiny mosquito-ish thing that bites you and it itches like fuck. nowhere near as sore as a mosquito bite but these bastards swarm in their millions so you end up covered in the little cunts. So some wiseguy comes up with a plan to release a bunch of neutered females into the wild and somehow this was going to wipe the bastards off the face of the planet. Don't ask me how, I'm not a scientists, but this dude was and apparently it was going to work until some stupid ecologist starts bitching on about how this would impact the bat and swallow populations cos they fed on them and then the things that fed on bats and swallows would suffer and all kinds of grievous shit would go down.

That's when I realised the ecosystem was a delicately balanced crock of complete shit. The problem is all the subsystems are interdependent. If one component fails the whole fucking shooting match comes crashing down. There's no failover, there's no way to isolate shit, there's no built in redundancy. Basically it's a crock of shit. even if we did manage to turn the tide of climate change or the greenhouse effect which, lets face it, aint going to happen, some spanky new kind of fish aids or grass cancer might pop up, entirely without our assistance and cause a catastrophic chain reaction that would wipe out humanity on it's own.

Sorry but nature is piss weak or, to be more accurate, natures ability to look after US is piss weak. For one thing it doesn't give a shit about us so it has no agenda to make sure we're okay. If we were entirely reliant on nature I'm pretty sure we'd already be extinct but fortunately we have technology. Things like agriculture and medicine and shit like that but we're still largely reliant on "harnessing" or "circumventing" nature. We need to get over that shit before it destroys us, like it did with the dinosaurs and all the other things that were consigned to natures scrapheap.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 20, 2011, 06:57:23 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 20, 2011, 06:35:21 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on July 20, 2011, 06:31:32 PM
well, yeah. it is.
until it isn't.

well sure, but working with nature is way more efficient than trying to fight against it.  Nature has a zillion feedback systems in place that help to keep things in balance.  we've made a lot of these less effective than they used to be, but even the most barren parts of the world currently are still teeming with life in all sorts of interesting and useful ways. 

You honestly expect me to believe that, after umpteen thousand years of scientific research we can't make a machine that will turn co2 into oxygen? One that takes even slightly less than a couple of hundred years to build a replacement? We're relying on fucking trees? If that's the case then we are so useless we deserve to die.

So we got this insect in scotland - the midge. maybe you already heard of it, if not let me paint a picture - it's basically a really fucking tiny mosquito-ish thing that bites you and it itches like fuck. nowhere near as sore as a mosquito bite but these bastards swarm in their millions so you end up covered in the little cunts. So some wiseguy comes up with a plan to release a bunch of neutered females into the wild and somehow this was going to wipe the bastards off the face of the planet. Don't ask me how, I'm not a scientists, but this dude was and apparently it was going to work until some stupid ecologist starts bitching on about how this would impact the bat and swallow populations cos they fed on them and then the things that fed on bats and swallows would suffer and all kinds of grievous shit would go down.

That's when I realised the ecosystem was a delicately balanced crock of complete shit. The problem is all the subsystems are interdependent. If one component fails the whole fucking shooting match comes crashing down. There's no failover, there's no way to isolate shit, there's no built in redundancy. Basically it's a crock of shit. even if we did manage to turn the tide of climate change or the greenhouse effect which, lets face it, aint going to happen, some spanky new kind of fish aids or grass cancer might pop up, entirely without our assistance and cause a catastrophic chain reaction that would wipe out humanity on it's own.

Sorry but nature is piss weak or, to be more accurate, natures ability to look after US is piss weak. For one thing it doesn't give a shit about us so it has no agenda to make sure we're okay. If we were entirely reliant on nature I'm pretty sure we'd already be extinct but fortunately we have technology. Things like agriculture and medicine and shit like that but we're still largely reliant on "harnessing" or "circumventing" nature. We need to get over that shit before it destroys us, like it did with the dinosaurs and all the other things that were consigned to natures scrapheap.

plants are an incredibly efficient way to turn CO2 into Oxygen.  They run on solar power and they grow really quickly if you use the right sort of plants.  The advantage of trees is that they produce useable lumber and sequester carbon in their trunks rather than re-releasing it upon decomposition.  If you need quicker air maintenance something fast growing is probably going to be a much better idea.

Yes, we should (and do) tailor the ecosystem to our own needs, however part of that is preserving those complex systems that you are bitching about because those provide for our needs far more efficiently than anything that we are capable of building.

We do have ways to convert CO₂ to Oxygen + other thangs, but they all take energy, a lot of energy,

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 20, 2011, 07:06:43 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 20, 2011, 06:57:23 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 20, 2011, 06:35:21 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on July 20, 2011, 06:31:32 PM
well, yeah. it is.
until it isn't.

well sure, but working with nature is way more efficient than trying to fight against it.  Nature has a zillion feedback systems in place that help to keep things in balance.  we've made a lot of these less effective than they used to be, but even the most barren parts of the world currently are still teeming with life in all sorts of interesting and useful ways. 

You honestly expect me to believe that, after umpteen thousand years of scientific research we can't make a machine that will turn co2 into oxygen? One that takes even slightly less than a couple of hundred years to build a replacement? We're relying on fucking trees? If that's the case then we are so useless we deserve to die.

So we got this insect in scotland - the midge. maybe you already heard of it, if not let me paint a picture - it's basically a really fucking tiny mosquito-ish thing that bites you and it itches like fuck. nowhere near as sore as a mosquito bite but these bastards swarm in their millions so you end up covered in the little cunts. So some wiseguy comes up with a plan to release a bunch of neutered females into the wild and somehow this was going to wipe the bastards off the face of the planet. Don't ask me how, I'm not a scientists, but this dude was and apparently it was going to work until some stupid ecologist starts bitching on about how this would impact the bat and swallow populations cos they fed on them and then the things that fed on bats and swallows would suffer and all kinds of grievous shit would go down.

That's when I realised the ecosystem was a delicately balanced crock of complete shit. The problem is all the subsystems are interdependent. If one component fails the whole fucking shooting match comes crashing down. There's no failover, there's no way to isolate shit, there's no built in redundancy. Basically it's a crock of shit. even if we did manage to turn the tide of climate change or the greenhouse effect which, lets face it, aint going to happen, some spanky new kind of fish aids or grass cancer might pop up, entirely without our assistance and cause a catastrophic chain reaction that would wipe out humanity on it's own.

Sorry but nature is piss weak or, to be more accurate, natures ability to look after US is piss weak. For one thing it doesn't give a shit about us so it has no agenda to make sure we're okay. If we were entirely reliant on nature I'm pretty sure we'd already be extinct but fortunately we have technology. Things like agriculture and medicine and shit like that but we're still largely reliant on "harnessing" or "circumventing" nature. We need to get over that shit before it destroys us, like it did with the dinosaurs and all the other things that were consigned to natures scrapheap.

plants are an incredibly efficient way to turn CO2 into Oxygen.  They run on solar power and they grow really quickly if you use the right sort of plants.  The advantage of trees is that they produce useable lumber and sequester carbon in their trunks rather than re-releasing it upon decomposition.  If you need quicker air maintenance something fast growing is probably going to be a much better idea.

Yes, we should (and do) tailor the ecosystem to our own needs, however part of that is preserving those complex systems that you are bitching about because those provide for our needs far more efficiently than anything that we are capable of building.

Trees rot when they die, bro.

Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on July 20, 2011, 07:09:29 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 20, 2011, 07:06:43 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 20, 2011, 06:57:23 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 20, 2011, 06:35:21 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on July 20, 2011, 06:31:32 PM
well, yeah. it is.
until it isn't.

well sure, but working with nature is way more efficient than trying to fight against it.  Nature has a zillion feedback systems in place that help to keep things in balance.  we've made a lot of these less effective than they used to be, but even the most barren parts of the world currently are still teeming with life in all sorts of interesting and useful ways. 

You honestly expect me to believe that, after umpteen thousand years of scientific research we can't make a machine that will turn co2 into oxygen? One that takes even slightly less than a couple of hundred years to build a replacement? We're relying on fucking trees? If that's the case then we are so useless we deserve to die.

So we got this insect in scotland - the midge. maybe you already heard of it, if not let me paint a picture - it's basically a really fucking tiny mosquito-ish thing that bites you and it itches like fuck. nowhere near as sore as a mosquito bite but these bastards swarm in their millions so you end up covered in the little cunts. So some wiseguy comes up with a plan to release a bunch of neutered females into the wild and somehow this was going to wipe the bastards off the face of the planet. Don't ask me how, I'm not a scientists, but this dude was and apparently it was going to work until some stupid ecologist starts bitching on about how this would impact the bat and swallow populations cos they fed on them and then the things that fed on bats and swallows would suffer and all kinds of grievous shit would go down.

That's when I realised the ecosystem was a delicately balanced crock of complete shit. The problem is all the subsystems are interdependent. If one component fails the whole fucking shooting match comes crashing down. There's no failover, there's no way to isolate shit, there's no built in redundancy. Basically it's a crock of shit. even if we did manage to turn the tide of climate change or the greenhouse effect which, lets face it, aint going to happen, some spanky new kind of fish aids or grass cancer might pop up, entirely without our assistance and cause a catastrophic chain reaction that would wipe out humanity on it's own.

Sorry but nature is piss weak or, to be more accurate, natures ability to look after US is piss weak. For one thing it doesn't give a shit about us so it has no agenda to make sure we're okay. If we were entirely reliant on nature I'm pretty sure we'd already be extinct but fortunately we have technology. Things like agriculture and medicine and shit like that but we're still largely reliant on "harnessing" or "circumventing" nature. We need to get over that shit before it destroys us, like it did with the dinosaurs and all the other things that were consigned to natures scrapheap.

plants are an incredibly efficient way to turn CO2 into Oxygen.  They run on solar power and they grow really quickly if you use the right sort of plants.  The advantage of trees is that they produce useable lumber and sequester carbon in their trunks rather than re-releasing it upon decomposition.  If you need quicker air maintenance something fast growing is probably going to be a much better idea.

Yes, we should (and do) tailor the ecosystem to our own needs, however part of that is preserving those complex systems that you are bitching about because those provide for our needs far more efficiently than anything that we are capable of building.

Trees rot when they die, bro.

Yep, but they also live for hundreds of years and get used to build houses and such.  That carbon stays locked up much longer than it does in plants that grow quickly.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 20, 2011, 06:57:23 PMSorry but nature is piss weak or, to be more accurate, natures ability to look after US is piss weak. For one thing it doesn't give a shit about us so it has no agenda to make sure we're okay. If we were entirely reliant on nature I'm pretty sure we'd already be extinct but fortunately we have technology. Things like agriculture and medicine and shit like that but we're still largely reliant on "harnessing" or "circumventing" nature. We need to get over that shit before it destroys us, like it did with the dinosaurs and all the other things that were consigned to natures scrapheap.

Funny you mention agriculture and medicine as those are two of the best examples of science which depend on nature. You can't grow food if you're hell bent on destroying ecosystems because they don't react well to our own actions. Many important vaccines and other shit like that are also being developed from those annoying mosquitoes you mentioned.

The thing is, techonolgy and nature aren't mutually exclusive at all. Technology depends on nature for the most part of it; we can't simply think we'll build a human technological utopia out of thin air.

Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on July 20, 2011, 07:07:46 PM
We do have ways to convert CO₂ to Oxygen + other thangs, but they all take energy, a lot of energy,

Which of course takes a lot of oil ATM, which of course liberates even more CO2... Plants are simply the most efficient way we have now. And they are fucking efficient btw, we aren't doomed if we start taking better care of things, but it'd have to start NOW.

A forest that is growing (rate of decay < rate of new growth) sequesters Carbon. If it in equilibrium (rate of decay = rate of new growth) then it is carbon neutral. One that is shrinking (rate of decay > rate of new growth) then it is contributing to greenhouse gasses.

Actually, a forest in equilibrium may still be contributing to greenhouse gasses since it is releasing methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO₂.

What I don't understand is why so many people would rather there be MORE PEOPLE than a sustainable population. What, exactly, are the benefits of having more people? Why is it treated like a tsunami, uncontrollable and unaddressable, rather than as something fundamentally easier to solve than the problems of disease, shortage, and famine?

WTF does the word "natural" mean, anyway.

Are humans natural?

How is a skyscraper less natural than an anthill?

Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 07:23:40 PM
What I don't understand is why so many people would rather there be MORE PEOPLE than a sustainable population. What, exactly, are the benefits of having more people? Why is it treated like a tsunami, uncontrollable and unaddressable, rather than as something fundamentally easier to solve than the problems of disease, shortage, and famine?

I like the idea of less people, I'm just not sure how we could do that ethically.

Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 07:23:40 PM
What I don't understand is why so many people would rather there be MORE PEOPLE than a sustainable population. What, exactly, are the benefits of having more people? Why is it treated like a tsunami, uncontrollable and unaddressable, rather than as something fundamentally easier to solve than the problems of disease, shortage, and famine?

I'm totally down with that. Kill two birds with one stone - hand out breeding licenses to people who seem like they're capable of bringing up a child responsibly and keep the numbers down but apparently being able to breed like fucking cockroaches is a basic human right or some shit.

Quote from: Sano on July 20, 2011, 07:17:38 PM

Funny you mention agriculture and medicine as those are two of the best examples of science which depend on nature. You can't grow food if you're hell bent on destroying ecosystems because they don't react well to our own actions. Many important vaccines and other shit like that are also being developed from those annoying mosquitoes you mentioned.

The thing is, techonolgy and nature aren't mutually exclusive at all. Technology depends on nature for the most part of it; we can't simply think we'll build a human technological utopia out of thin air.

Yeah, good point, I stand corrected

Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on July 20, 2011, 07:27:33 PM

Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 07:23:40 PM
What I don't understand is why so many people would rather there be MORE PEOPLE than a sustainable population. What, exactly, are the benefits of having more people? Why is it treated like a tsunami, uncontrollable and unaddressable, rather than as something fundamentally easier to solve than the problems of disease, shortage, and famine?

I like the idea of less people, I'm just not sure how we could do that ethically.

The most effective way of limiting populations is also the most ethical; with education and relief from hardship.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 20, 2011, 07:28:24 PM

Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 07:23:40 PM
What I don't understand is why so many people would rather there be MORE PEOPLE than a sustainable population. What, exactly, are the benefits of having more people? Why is it treated like a tsunami, uncontrollable and unaddressable, rather than as something fundamentally easier to solve than the problems of disease, shortage, and famine?

I'm totally down with that. Kill two birds with one stone - hand out breeding licenses to people who seem like they're capable of bringing up a child responsibly and keep the numbers down but apparently being able to breed like fucking cockroaches is a basic human right or some shit.

Quote from: Sano on July 20, 2011, 07:17:38 PM

Funny you mention agriculture and medicine as those are two of the best examples of science which depend on nature. You can't grow food if you're hell bent on destroying ecosystems because they don't react well to our own actions. Many important vaccines and other shit like that are also being developed from those annoying mosquitoes you mentioned.

The thing is, techonolgy and nature aren't mutually exclusive at all. Technology depends on nature for the most part of it; we can't simply think we'll build a human technological utopia out of thin air.

Yeah, good point, I stand corrected

Fuck that.  Who the fuck decides THAT?

How do you enforce it?

Just what we need, a state body telling us one more thing we can't do without their permission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

By how much would the population have to shrink for our current rate of AWESOME doesn't kill us? If we were to do what we've been doing, would shrinking the population (through SCIENCE, for arguments sake) help at all?

Quote from: Alty on July 20, 2011, 07:41:04 PM
By how much would the population have to shrink for our current rate of AWESOME doesn't kill us? If we were to do what we've been doing, would shrinking the population (through SCIENCE, for arguments sake) help at all?

Even if there were only like 200 million people on earth do you really think they'd come to a point where they simply said "fuck progress, I don't want to buy more and nicer things than I buy now"? Eventually they'd be consuming as much as our present population. Sure, that'd take some more centuries. But it would happen someday.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 07:34:28 PM

Fuck that.  Who the fuck decides THAT?

How do you enforce it?

There's two options.

A) Pass legislation that you can't have a kid without obtaining a license. Enforce it by whatever means necessary.

B) Every man woman and child on the face of planet earth is wiped out in a horrendous decades-long holocaust

Those are your choices. (B is the default)

interesting aside i just saw...
it's the Guardian, but;

UN security council to consider climate change peacekeeping (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/20/un-climate-change-peacekeeping)
Special meeting to discuss 'green helmets' force to intervene in conflicts caused by rising seas levels and shrinking resources

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 20, 2011, 08:16:39 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 07:34:28 PM

Fuck that.  Who the fuck decides THAT?

How do you enforce it?

There's two options.

A) Pass legislation that you can't have a kid without obtaining a license. Enforce it by whatever means necessary with state sanctioned euthanasia for violators and their unsanctioned offspring. EDIT by Pickle

B) Every man woman and child on the face of planet earth is wiped out in a horrendous decades-long holocaust

Those are your choices. (B is the default)

If you're going to say it, just fucking say it P3nt.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 08:22:39 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 20, 2011, 08:16:39 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 07:34:28 PM

Fuck that.  Who the fuck decides THAT?

How do you enforce it?

There's two options.

A) Pass legislation that you can't have a kid without obtaining a license. Enforce it by whatever means necessary with state sanctioned euthanasia for violators and their unsanctioned offspring. EDIT by Pickle

B) Every man woman and child on the face of planet earth is wiped out in a horrendous decades-long holocaust

Those are your choices. (B is the default)

If you're going to say it, just fucking say it P3nt.

I wouldn't go so far as to say euthenasia, but I would say sterilization. 

Then again, I am all for legal euthenasia if you get enough signatures on a petition.  Kind of like having to put a dog down because it has bitten one too many people.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 08:22:39 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 20, 2011, 08:16:39 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 07:34:28 PM

Fuck that.  Who the fuck decides THAT?

How do you enforce it?

There's two options.

A) Pass legislation that you can't have a kid without obtaining a license. Enforce it by whatever means necessary with state sanctioned euthanasia for violators and their unsanctioned offspring. EDIT by Pickle

B) Every man woman and child on the face of planet earth is wiped out in a horrendous decades-long holocaust

Those are your choices. (B is the default)

If you're going to say it, just fucking say it P3nt.

Yeah, you're right, a few murders would be truly horrific. Fuck it, I've changed my mind, total genocide is much more humane.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 08:22:39 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 20, 2011, 08:16:39 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 07:34:28 PM

Fuck that.  Who the fuck decides THAT?

How do you enforce it?

There's two options.

A) Pass legislation that you can't have a kid without obtaining a license. Enforce it by whatever means necessary with state sanctioned euthanasia for violators and their unsanctioned offspring. EDIT by Pickle

B) Every man woman and child on the face of planet earth is wiped out in a horrendous decades-long holocaust

Those are your choices. (B is the default)

If you're going to say it, just fucking say it P3nt.

the one-child policy in China has some success with only fines, doesn't it?

Sure they do.  They're running out of girls, though.  Funny, that.

However, their forests have never been more fertilized!

Quickly, off the top of my head: The US ends the child (dependent) tax break if you have more than one kid.  If you want to have eight kids, fine.  But it would be economically painful to do so.

Maybe some kind of reversible sterilisation or mandatory contraception would be the way to go. You apply for a breeding license and it's run like a lottery, applicants are pulled out a hat until the current quota is met.

I should point out that the notion freaks me out and is subject to a fuckton of abuse (especially regarding the selection criteria vis-a-vis eugenics) but I genuinely find the alternative, doing nothing and the end result of that, much more scary.

Quote from: Jenkem and SPACE/TIME on July 20, 2011, 08:32:50 PM
Sure they do.  They're running out of girls, though.  Funny, that.

However, their forests have never been more fertilized!

That is a foreseeable consequence, and is tragic, however, it isn't the govt that is perpetrating the killing, which is what concerned Pickle.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (deceased) on July 20, 2011, 08:33:41 PM
Quickly, off the top of my head: The US ends the child (dependent) tax break if you have more than one kid.  If you want to have eight kids, fine.  But it would be economically painful to do so.

seems a prudent and simple measure...

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (deceased) on July 20, 2011, 08:33:41 PM
Quickly, off the top of my head: The US ends the child (dependent) tax break if you have more than one kid.  If you want to have eight kids, fine.  But it would be economically painful to do so.

Stop any type of finacial positive for having more than one child, health insurance, medicaid, food stamps, free lunch, financial assistance, school choice, all of it.

You'd have to enforce this worldwide or people would just run to other countries like the Chines do now.

Quote from: Out of Service on July 20, 2011, 08:42:34 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (deceased) on July 20, 2011, 08:33:41 PM
Quickly, off the top of my head: The US ends the child (dependent) tax break if you have more than one kid.  If you want to have eight kids, fine.  But it would be economically painful to do so.

Stop any type of finacial positive for having more than one child, health insurance, medicaid, food stamps, free lunch, financial assistance, school choice, all of it.

You'd have to enforce this worldwide or people would just run to other countries like the Chines do now.

that seems like it would be self reinforcing.  if you've got all these immigrants from other countries flooding into yours in order to breed, you are more likely to pass the same type of policy, no?

Quote from: Iptuous on July 20, 2011, 08:46:03 PM

Quote from: Out of Service on July 20, 2011, 08:42:34 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (deceased) on July 20, 2011, 08:33:41 PM
Quickly, off the top of my head: The US ends the child (dependent) tax break if you have more than one kid.  If you want to have eight kids, fine.  But it would be economically painful to do so.

Stop any type of finacial positive for having more than one child, health insurance, medicaid, food stamps, free lunch, financial assistance, school choice, all of it.

You'd have to enforce this worldwide or people would just run to other countries like the Chines do now.

that seems like it would be self reinforcing.  if you've got all these immigrants from other countries flooding into yours in order to breed, you are more likely to pass the same type of policy, no?

You would think so but.....  we haven't done it yet.

Quote from: Iptuous on July 20, 2011, 08:28:13 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 08:22:39 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 20, 2011, 08:16:39 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 07:34:28 PM

Fuck that.  Who the fuck decides THAT?

How do you enforce it?

There's two options.

A) Pass legislation that you can't have a kid without obtaining a license. Enforce it by whatever means necessary with state sanctioned euthanasia for violators and their unsanctioned offspring. EDIT by Pickle

B) Every man woman and child on the face of planet earth is wiped out in a horrendous decades-long holocaust

Those are your choices. (B is the default)

If you're going to say it, just fucking say it P3nt.

the one-child policy in China has some success with only fines, doesn't it?

Yeah, and the rich who can pay the fine just have more kids and pay it.  Those with political connections don't even have to do that.

I was trying to formulate a coherent response P3nt and couldn't get past the brain full of fuck and rage I have for anyone actually advocating state sanctioned sterilizations and or euthanasia.

You can keep that fucking shit.  And the cameras in your home, mandatory doctor examinations and military in the streets it will inevitably require in order to maintain order and compliance so there's no unauthorized "breeders".

Wasn't there a government in recent history that also forcibly sterilized part of it's population?  

Pickle, do you think the choice that Pent puts forward is a false dichotomy?
what would you suggest?
because tick tock tick tock

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 08:48:20 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on July 20, 2011, 08:28:13 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 08:22:39 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 20, 2011, 08:16:39 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 07:34:28 PM

Fuck that.  Who the fuck decides THAT?

How do you enforce it?

There's two options.

A) Pass legislation that you can't have a kid without obtaining a license. Enforce it by whatever means necessary with state sanctioned euthanasia for violators and their unsanctioned offspring. EDIT by Pickle

B) Every man woman and child on the face of planet earth is wiped out in a horrendous decades-long holocaust

Those are your choices. (B is the default)

If you're going to say it, just fucking say it P3nt.

the one-child policy in China has some success with only fines, doesn't it?

Yeah, and the rich who can pay the fine just have more kids and pay it.  Those with political connections don't even have to do that.

I was trying to formulate a coherent response P3nt and couldn't get past the brain full of fuck and rage I have for anyone actually advocating state sanctioned sterilizations and or euthanasia.

You can keep that fucking shit.  And the cameras in your home, mandatory doctor examinations and military in the streets it will inevitably require in order to maintain order and compliance so there's no unauthorized "breeders".

Wasn't there a government in recent history that also forcibly sterilized part of it's population?  

My point illustrated fucking beautifully: You'd rather we all die screaming in agony. Well congrats - because of your stupid fucking shortsighted attitude and the billions like you, you're going to get your wish - we're all going to die. Way to stick up for your principles Einstein  :kingmeh:

Quote from: Iptuous on July 20, 2011, 08:54:35 PM
Pickle, do you think the choice that Pent puts forward is a false dichotomy?
what would you suggest?
because tick tock tick tock

I do think it is a false choice.  I can't remember the exact term for the type of argument you're making P3nt but LMNO probably knows it.  You're saying there's only 2 options and putting forth yours as the only reasonable solution when there are others. 

Look, I get it, there's a severe problem maintaining a survivable ecosystem for a dominant species with no natural predators and I have said before somewhere else here that a population of people that doesn't choose to control it's own expansion and breeding leaves the door open for the state to eventually step in and do it for them.

I'm not sure what the solution is.  I'll give it some thought and come back tomorrow, it's quitting time.

Well the question really comes down to this.  At what point does the survival of humanity as a whole outweigh the survival of individuals?

In order to ensure the survival of humanity, are any steps necessary acceptable?  How is euthenasia or sterilization any worse when if things like that are not at some point enforced everyone is going to die anyway?

I am no advocating either sterilization or euthenasia.  I do think however that a child limit is going to have to be put in effect or we all (well our descendents) are never going to have a chance!

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 09:01:03 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on July 20, 2011, 08:54:35 PM
Pickle, do you think the choice that Pent puts forward is a false dichotomy?
what would you suggest?
because tick tock tick tock

I do think it is a false choice.  I can't remember the exact term for the type of argument you're making P3nt but LMNO probably knows it. 

(it's most likely some variation on a false dilemma... but only if you can provide a well-founded third scenario)

Quote from: Out of Service on July 20, 2011, 09:03:17 PM
Well the question really comes down to this. At what point does the survival of humanity as a whole outweigh the survival of individuals?

In order to ensure the survival of humanity, are any steps necessary acceptable?  How is euthenasia or sterilization any worse when if things like that are not at some point enforced everyone is going to die anyway?

I am no advocating either sterilization or euthenasia.  I do think however that a child limit is going to have to be put in effect or we all (well our descendents) are never going to have a chance!

The crux of the matter and why I'm convinced that humanity is pretty much fucked. The answer to your question is never or, to be more accurate, so rarely as to be practically nil. Most people only think of themselves as part of the human race until it becomes mildly inconvenient for them to do so. That's why they insist on driving the 2 minute walk to the shop, despite the fact that they've been told it kills the ozone layer. Short of the whole world being overtaken by a benevolent dictator (yeah right) this will not change. The human capacity for burying it's head in the sand is truly limitless and they will always choose a minutes luxury now in exchange for a thousand years of torment and hell starting a couple of years from now.

I mean for fuck sake, we're talking about how to limit population growth and the best we can come up with is clubbing babies to death or mass castration. It should be as simple as making an announcement - "hey guise, we need to stop breeding or we're all going to fucking die" if that simple step isn't enough to solve the problem instantly then your race is too fucking retarded to survive. Mass extinction is better than they deserve

Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 07:23:40 PM
What I don't understand is why so many people would rather there be MORE PEOPLE than a sustainable population. What, exactly, are the benefits of having more people? Why is it treated like a tsunami, uncontrollable and unaddressable, rather than as something fundamentally easier to solve than the problems of disease, shortage, and famine?

:mittens: This really is the crux right here. But whenever I bring up mandatory birth control, everyone looks at me funny.

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 20, 2011, 09:58:31 PM

Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 07:23:40 PM
What I don't understand is why so many people would rather there be MORE PEOPLE than a sustainable population. What, exactly, are the benefits of having more people? Why is it treated like a tsunami, uncontrollable and unaddressable, rather than as something fundamentally easier to solve than the problems of disease, shortage, and famine?

:mittens: This really is the crux right here. But whenever I bring up mandatory birth control, everyone looks at me funny.

What the intelligent, sentient minority tend to overlook is that we're dealing with the strongest urge on the face of the planet. Crystal meth? Heroin? Nicoteen? Food? mere trifling casual interests when compared to the reproductive imperative. So it stands to what loosely passes for reason on this ball of shit that the enabling of this crazed fucking urge will be held as more sacrosanct than the survival of our very species as a whole. Remember - every baby is a bona-fide miracle^tm No, not a bog standard chemical reaction like the intelligent observer may be mistaken for thinking but rather an honest to fuck MIRACLE and sacred and mystical and given to us by GOD.

Any attempt to interfere with this holy miracle happening, over and over, until we're all being crushed under the sheer weight of this multicellular epiphany, is quite obviously the work of the devil, or fascists, or terrorists or some such equally dumb superstition.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (deceased) on July 20, 2011, 09:04:55 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 09:01:03 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on July 20, 2011, 08:54:35 PM
Pickle, do you think the choice that Pent puts forward is a false dichotomy?
what would you suggest?
because tick tock tick tock

I do think it is a false choice.  I can't remember the exact term for the type of argument you're making P3nt but LMNO probably knows it.  

(it's most likely some variation on a false dilemma... but only if you can provide a well-founded third scenario)

That sounds like it.  I seem to recall either you or Dok using the latin form somewhere else but it's not important.

Honestly, my own ideas on what to do sound pretty brutal or "inhumane" when I say them but it's nothing different than what happens all over the planet with every other species.   The biggest problem as I see it is that we've tried to take as much of nature out of the life cycle of humans as possible.   We're trying to extend it, we're trying to eradicate viruses that would naturally keep our population in check, etc. etc.  In doing so we're even helping open ourselves up to mutations that could be even more deadly and threatening.  We're trying to remove the natural checks that exist in some vain hope that we'll what, eventually live forever?  Someone else here said once that overpopulation was a self correcting problem and I agree with that except we're trying to "fix" things with science that evolution took care of before us.


So let's look at some of the things we'd likely be forced to accept if we DID have state sanctioned breeding only.  

 1. Likely only the educated will be allowed to breed.  That also means only the ones who can afford to be educated can breed.  It should  
     soon follow that only those with wealth will be able to breed.  

 2. Have a family history of conginital health defects? Heart disease? Alcoholism? ANYTHING at all that might cause you to die early or breed  
     someone else who has these problems?  Well you're right out as a breeder.  You see, in our tightly controlled system of births we can't  
     have diseases and defects appearing in the select breeding population or we're likely to breed ourselves out of existence.   You might
     even say that what we really need is a "master race" or "races" of humans able to carry the rest of you into our sustainable future.  

 3. We're going to have to adopt the Chinese model of internet filtering, only it has to be world wide and god help you if you're caught going
     around the "Global Firewall."  It's really for your own protection.  Since it will take the better part of 100 years (at an estimate) to bring
     rogue breeding populations to heel (using whatever means necessary.  Remember, we're the enlightened ones trying to preserve our world
     for the future) we can't have anyone spreading images and information about these rebel breeders, infecting the civilized people with their
     lies about "freedom" and "family"



That's just a few that popped into my head but I've got a few more bouncing around that I haven't quite pinned down into words yet.

But really, if we're going to be fair about it, (totalitarian systems are only ever fair and NEVER abused by the ones running the show)
let's just take the entire premise of Logan's Run and make it our reality.

21 years is all you get.  Hope you enjoy it.  

Really, your sacrifice it's for the good of all.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 10:37:45 PM

But really, if we're going to be fair about it, (totalitarian systems are only ever fair and NEVER abused by the ones running the show)
let's just take the entire text of Logan's Run and make it our reality.

It's what humans deserve.

Quote from: Doktor Chump on July 20, 2011, 10:41:05 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 10:37:45 PM

But really, if we're going to be fair about it, (totalitarian systems are only ever fair and NEVER abused by the ones running the show)
let's just take the entire text of Logan's Run and make it our reality.

It's what humans deserve.

(FTR I edited to change text to premise)

Really, it's the only fair solution.  Breed all you want because you're now the human equivalent of the mayfly, enforced by law.  

You're Your children better grow up FAST.  

[f'xd]

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 10:48:35 PM

Quote from: Doktor Chump on July 20, 2011, 10:41:05 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 10:37:45 PM

But really, if we're going to be fair about it, (totalitarian systems are only ever fair and NEVER abused by the ones running the show)
let's just take the entire text of Logan's Run and make it our reality.

It's what humans deserve.

(FTR I edited to change text to premise)

Really, it's the only fair solution.  Breed all you want because you're now the human equivalent of the mayfly, enforced by law. 

You're children better grow up FAST. 

Oh, DP, you disappoint me so.

Grammatical butchery aside, I'm not too worried about my kids. 

Quote from: Doktor Chump on July 20, 2011, 10:49:58 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 10:48:35 PM

Quote from: Doktor Chump on July 20, 2011, 10:41:05 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 10:37:45 PM

But really, if we're going to be fair about it, (totalitarian systems are only ever fair and NEVER abused by the ones running the show)
let's just take the entire text of Logan's Run and make it our reality.

It's what humans deserve.

(FTR I edited to change text to premise)

Really, it's the only fair solution.  Breed all you want because you're now the human equivalent of the mayfly, enforced by law. 

You're children better grow up FAST. 

Oh, DP, you disappoint me so.

Grammatical butchery aside, I'm not too worried about my kids. 

Yeah sorry, I do that when I type fast and don't really re-read it.  I know better.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 10:51:36 PM

Quote from: Doktor Chump on July 20, 2011, 10:49:58 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 10:48:35 PM

Quote from: Doktor Chump on July 20, 2011, 10:41:05 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 10:37:45 PM

But really, if we're going to be fair about it, (totalitarian systems are only ever fair and NEVER abused by the ones running the show)
let's just take the entire text of Logan's Run and make it our reality.

It's what humans deserve.

(FTR I edited to change text to premise)

Really, it's the only fair solution.  Breed all you want because you're now the human equivalent of the mayfly, enforced by law. 

You're children better grow up FAST. 

Oh, DP, you disappoint me so.

Grammatical butchery aside, I'm not too worried about my kids. 

Yeah sorry, I do that when I type fast and don't really re-read it.  I know better.

Heh.  As an aside, the epitaph for our species should be "We Knew Better".

Seriously, I have precisely no further interest in the welfare of the human species.  99% of them are too stupid to breathe, and the other 1% are uniformly bastards. 

H.L. Mencken was a pollyanna little punk.

Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 07:23:40 PM
What I don't understand is why so many people would rather there be MORE PEOPLE than a sustainable population. What, exactly, are the benefits of having more people? Why is it treated like a tsunami, uncontrollable and unaddressable, rather than as something fundamentally easier to solve than the problems of disease, shortage, and famine?

Population growth tends to add to economic growth, which adds to military potential, which makes your dick bigger.

Also certain welfare and social programs to which we have become accustomed fail if the population starts to shrink.

Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 07:32:36 PM

Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on July 20, 2011, 07:27:33 PM

Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 07:23:40 PM
What I don't understand is why so many people would rather there be MORE PEOPLE than a sustainable population. What, exactly, are the benefits of having more people? Why is it treated like a tsunami, uncontrollable and unaddressable, rather than as something fundamentally easier to solve than the problems of disease, shortage, and famine?

I like the idea of less people, I'm just not sure how we could do that ethically.

The most effective way of limiting populations is also the most ethical; with education and relief from hardship.

Yup.  When literacy and earnings reach certain points, birthrate drops off drastically.

Unfortunatey, in this post Lehman Brothers world, those two programs are first in line for "austerity cuts".  Foreign aid, which usually goes towards those two goals in foreign countries, coming in third.

Quote from: Doktor Chump on July 20, 2011, 10:53:54 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 10:51:36 PM

Quote from: Doktor Chump on July 20, 2011, 10:49:58 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 10:48:35 PM

Quote from: Doktor Chump on July 20, 2011, 10:41:05 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 10:37:45 PM

But really, if we're going to be fair about it, (totalitarian systems are only ever fair and NEVER abused by the ones running the show)
let's just take the entire text of Logan's Run and make it our reality.

It's what humans deserve.

(FTR I edited to change text to premise)

Really, it's the only fair solution.  Breed all you want because you're now the human equivalent of the mayfly, enforced by law. 

You're children better grow up FAST. 

Oh, DP, you disappoint me so.

Grammatical butchery aside, I'm not too worried about my kids. 

Yeah sorry, I do that when I type fast and don't really re-read it.  I know better.

Heh.  As an aside, the epitaph for our species should be "We Knew Better".

Seriously, I have precisely no further interest in the welfare of the human species.  99% of them are too stupid to breathe, and the other 1% are uniformly bastards. 

H.L. Mencken was a pollyanna little punk.

Funny thing is right after I typed that, I had a similar thought, that we know better.  I mean don't we?

Then I laughed at that bit of absurdity and didn't bother sharing it.

We need a tombstone WOMP for humanity now though.

I'M SO GLAD YOU ALL SAW FIT TO IGNORE SCIENCE, MOTHERFUCKERS.

Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 07:32:36 PM
The most effective way of limiting populations is also the most ethical; with education and relief from hardship.

I actually didn't mean to ignore you I just got caught up in the talk with P3nt.

I did mean to ask what you meant by relief from hardship and how that helps in limiting populations.  I hadn't heard that part before.

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 20, 2011, 09:58:31 PM

Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 07:23:40 PM
What I don't understand is why so many people would rather there be MORE PEOPLE than a sustainable population. What, exactly, are the benefits of having more people? Why is it treated like a tsunami, uncontrollable and unaddressable, rather than as something fundamentally easier to solve than the problems of disease, shortage, and famine?

:mittens: This really is the crux right here. But whenever I bring up mandatory birth control, everyone looks at me funny.

It doesn't have to be mandatory. It only has to be free and readily available, along with food and education. But that's socialism, and therefore immoral.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 20, 2011, 11:07:37 PM
I actually didn't mean to ignore you I just got caught up in the talk with P3nt.

I did mean to ask what you meant by relief from hardship and how that helps in limiting populations.  I hadn't heard that part before.

Hungry and desperate people breed more than well-fed and comfortable ones.

Educated people breed even less, even if they're relatively poor.

I think the basic reason is that if people (in this case, actually, just women) can see and feel evidence that there is a better life available than being a baby machine, they will choose it. In a heartbeat, in fact. Statistically, education (of women) ALONE reduces the birth rate. Dramatically. More than any other single factor. Even if they have to become celibate social pariahs. Add female emancipation, relief from hunger/homelessness, and free, readily-available, female-controlled birth control, and the existing evidence shows that the population would go into a sharp decline.

The problem?

Every economy is based on growth. It will never happen, and there is a lot of money and power behind it never happening even if there were not a million factors weighing against it.

Some women actually want to be worn-out baby pumps. Most would choose other lives if they were available. The lack of ability for women to choose or not choose pregnancy is one of Nature's great cruelties.

Quote from: Cain on July 20, 2011, 11:03:05 PM

Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 07:32:36 PM

Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on July 20, 2011, 07:27:33 PM

Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 07:23:40 PM
What I don't understand is why so many people would rather there be MORE PEOPLE than a sustainable population. What, exactly, are the benefits of having more people? Why is it treated like a tsunami, uncontrollable and unaddressable, rather than as something fundamentally easier to solve than the problems of disease, shortage, and famine?

I like the idea of less people, I'm just not sure how we could do that ethically.

The most effective way of limiting populations is also the most ethical; with education and relief from hardship.

Yup.  When literacy and earnings reach certain points, birthrate drops off drastically.

Unfortunatey, in this post Lehman Brothers world, those two programs are first in line for "austerity cuts".  Foreign aid, which usually goes towards those two goals in foreign countries, coming in third.

OH CAIN, YOU DIDN'T MISS IT!

OK, I feel better now. :)

Quote from: Cain on July 20, 2011, 11:00:53 PM

Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 07:23:40 PM
What I don't understand is why so many people would rather there be MORE PEOPLE than a sustainable population. What, exactly, are the benefits of having more people? Why is it treated like a tsunami, uncontrollable and unaddressable, rather than as something fundamentally easier to solve than the problems of disease, shortage, and famine?

Population growth tends to add to economic growth, which adds to military potential, which makes your dick bigger.

Also certain welfare and social programs to which we have become accustomed fail if the population starts to shrink.

Yeah, actually that's the biggest catch-22. The only system by which we could create a totally free mandatory global education system and readily available free birth control is through socialism, which is dependent on economic surplus, which is dependent on an economic system based on population growth...

Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 11:10:57 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 20, 2011, 09:58:31 PM

Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 07:23:40 PM
What I don't understand is why so many people would rather there be MORE PEOPLE than a sustainable population. What, exactly, are the benefits of having more people? Why is it treated like a tsunami, uncontrollable and unaddressable, rather than as something fundamentally easier to solve than the problems of disease, shortage, and famine?

:mittens: This really is the crux right here. But whenever I bring up mandatory birth control, everyone looks at me funny.

It doesn't have to be mandatory. It only has to be free and readily available, along with food and education. But that's socialism, and therefore immoral.

Most of the good ideas are. Right now we have enough food for everyone on the planet but starvation is on the rise. Go figure. Everyone is thinking "me me me" and the irony is that the best thing that could possibly happen for "me me me" is if everyone suddenly switched focus to "us us us"

There's only one black swan I can think of that would give us a chance of making this quantum leap in collaboration - alien invasion. We (as a race) need a top level predator to distract us from killing each other and give us a reason to work together. Problem is the aliens would have to be real fucking stupid to stand a chance of losing when all they have to do assure victory is sit back and wait patiently while we take care of it for them. So there you have it. That's what I'm pinning the tattered shreds of my hope on - invasion by extraterrestrial retards  :cry:

We could switch to a different kind of economy, but that's unlikely as we are essentially the same as squirrels. Stupid, wasteful hoarders.

so, then, it's settled.

for Cram's ambitious quest to make a positive change in the world we should conspire to hoax an invasion of retarded aliens that threaten to nuke the planet, thereby prompting us to work collectively as a species.
and if the people fail in this, then the retarded aliens must actually nuke a good number of them.

it's for the children.

Quote from: Sano on July 20, 2011, 07:55:25 PM

Quote from: Alty on July 20, 2011, 07:41:04 PM
By how much would the population have to shrink for our current rate of AWESOME doesn't kill us? If we were to do what we've been doing, would shrinking the population (through SCIENCE, for arguments sake) help at all?

Even if there were only like 200 million people on earth do you really think they'd come to a point where they simply said "fuck progress, I don't want to buy more and nicer things than I buy now"? Eventually they'd be consuming as much as our present population. Sure, that'd take some more centuries. But it would happen someday.

Thank you for that completely obvious observation that in no way answered my question or was in any way pertinent to my motivations for asking it.

Quote from: Jenkem and SPACE/TIME on July 20, 2011, 08:32:50 PM
Sure they do.  They're running out of girls, though.  Funny, that.

However, their forests have never been more fertilized!

That can also help keep the population down.  women are essentially the limit on reproductive capacity, it's why societies that are obsessed with fertility, like the early Mormons or Ancient Jews, condoned Polygyny but not Polyandry.

I also think that gender selecting for males would be far less likely in a society with more gender equality like the US.

Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 11:23:52 PM

Quote from: Cain on July 20, 2011, 11:00:53 PM

Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 07:23:40 PM
What I don't understand is why so many people would rather there be MORE PEOPLE than a sustainable population. What, exactly, are the benefits of having more people? Why is it treated like a tsunami, uncontrollable and unaddressable, rather than as something fundamentally easier to solve than the problems of disease, shortage, and famine?

Population growth tends to add to economic growth, which adds to military potential, which makes your dick bigger.

Also certain welfare and social programs to which we have become accustomed fail if the population starts to shrink.

Yeah, actually that's the biggest catch-22. The only system by which we could create a totally free mandatory global education system and readily available free birth control is through socialism, which is dependent on economic surplus, which is dependent on an economic system based on population growth...

Although, reliable and responsible use of tertiary education could also substitute for a lack of a growing population (in certain European countries - for example, Germany - reproduction levels are below the 2.1 "steady population" level.  Germany has experienced economic growth...but as I suggested back on page one, this is more due to cutting wages and pocketing the difference, currency manipulation and financial fraud than strong, sustainable growth.  Still, this may be the only suitable option).

Which of course brings us back to point one on page one, plus the above noted problems: we're cutting education funding, forcing a bunch of ideological nonsense on kids, and cutting foreign aid which usually goes towards basic education programs.

Just or future reference approx how many steps ahead of us are you :argh!:

:lulz:

Quote from: Cain on July 21, 2011, 07:38:41 AM

Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 11:23:52 PM

Quote from: Cain on July 20, 2011, 11:00:53 PM

Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 07:23:40 PM
What I don't understand is why so many people would rather there be MORE PEOPLE than a sustainable population. What, exactly, are the benefits of having more people? Why is it treated like a tsunami, uncontrollable and unaddressable, rather than as something fundamentally easier to solve than the problems of disease, shortage, and famine?

Population growth tends to add to economic growth, which adds to military potential, which makes your dick bigger.

Also certain welfare and social programs to which we have become accustomed fail if the population starts to shrink.

Yeah, actually that's the biggest catch-22. The only system by which we could create a totally free mandatory global education system and readily available free birth control is through socialism, which is dependent on economic surplus, which is dependent on an economic system based on population growth...

Although, reliable and responsible use of tertiary education could also substitute for a lack of a growing population (in certain European countries - for example, Germany - reproduction levels are below the 2.1 "steady population" level.  Germany has experienced economic growth...but as I suggested back on page one, this is more due to cutting wages and pocketing the difference, currency manipulation and financial fraud than strong, sustainable growth.  Still, this may be the only suitable option).

Which of course brings us back to point one on page one, plus the above noted problems: we're cutting education funding, forcing a bunch of ideological nonsense on kids, and cutting foreign aid which usually goes towards basic education programs.

Yes; regardless of whether we could brainstorm a system that would work, the barriers to implementing it are heavily rooted in basic human idiocy.

Quote from: Iptuous on July 21, 2011, 03:09:09 AM
for Cram's ambitious quest to make a positive change in the world we should conspire to hoax an invasion of retarded aliens that threaten to nuke the planet, thereby prompting us to work collectively as a species.
and if the people fail in this, then the retarded aliens must actually nuke a good number of them.

Ok, we're going to need a genetically modified lynx, someone with a giant blue cock and a secret base in Antarctica.

Also, we need a stupid story about emo-pirates (they're a METAPHOR, get it), it won't work without a parallel story about tormented emo-pirates.

Then, we'll just teleport a giant caterpillar in New York.

Quote from: Triple Zero on July 22, 2011, 02:50:11 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on July 21, 2011, 03:09:09 AM
for Cram's ambitious quest to make a positive change in the world we should conspire to hoax an invasion of retarded aliens that threaten to nuke the planet, thereby prompting us to work collectively as a species.
and if the people fail in this, then the retarded aliens must actually nuke a good number of them.

Ok, we're going to need a genetically modified lynx, someone with a giant blue cock and a secret base in Antarctica.

Also, we need a stupid story about emo-pirates (they're a METAPHOR, get it), it won't work without a parallel story about tormented emo-pirates.

Then, we'll just teleport a giant caterpillar in New York.

Bullshit! If we do it as a movie instead of a graphic novel we can ditch the emo-pirates  :D

Yeah but that way we don't get pitched against a stillborn giant caterpillar, but an hyperintelligent omnipotent dude with a GIANT BLUE COCK.

(http://blog.visitlondon.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/blue_cock_2013.jpg)

So that's what a genetically modified lynx looks like.

Quote from: Cain on July 21, 2011, 07:38:41 AM

Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 11:23:52 PM

Quote from: Cain on July 20, 2011, 11:00:53 PM

Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 07:23:40 PM
What I don't understand is why so many people would rather there be MORE PEOPLE than a sustainable population. What, exactly, are the benefits of having more people? Why is it treated like a tsunami, uncontrollable and unaddressable, rather than as something fundamentally easier to solve than the problems of disease, shortage, and famine?

Population growth tends to add to economic growth, which adds to military potential, which makes your dick bigger.

Also certain welfare and social programs to which we have become accustomed fail if the population starts to shrink.

Yeah, actually that's the biggest catch-22. The only system by which we could create a totally free mandatory global education system and readily available free birth control is through socialism, which is dependent on economic surplus, which is dependent on an economic system based on population growth...

Although, reliable and responsible use of tertiary education could also substitute for a lack of a growing population (in certain European countries - for example, Germany - reproduction levels are below the 2.1 "steady population" level.  Germany has experienced economic growth...but as I suggested back on page one, this is more due to cutting wages and pocketing the difference, currency manipulation and financial fraud than strong, sustainable growth.  Still, this may be the only suitable option).

Which of course brings us back to point one on page one, plus the above noted problems: we're cutting education funding, forcing a bunch of ideological nonsense on kids, and cutting foreign aid which usually goes towards basic education programs.

Note: through heavy investment in education and technology, Chile has managed a 5% economic growth rate since the 1970s (barring the copper price collapse).  This includes when Allende was in government, when Pinochet was in government and when the post-Pinochet centre-left leaders were in government.

Quote from: Khara on July 20, 2011, 08:42:34 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (deceased) on July 20, 2011, 08:33:41 PM
Quickly, off the top of my head: The US ends the child (dependent) tax break if you have more than one kid.  If you want to have eight kids, fine.  But it would be economically painful to do so.

Stop any type of finacial positive for having more than one child, health insurance, medicaid, food stamps, free lunch, financial assistance, school choice, all of it.

You'd have to enforce this worldwide or people would just run to other countries like the Chines do now.

great, create more widespread poverty. the inability to pay for one's crotchfruit doesnt seem to deter people from forming babbies.

how about
financial rewards
for people who do not reproduce?

i'd love to be paid to not have children.

Quote from: Lady Crying Soul on August 07, 2011, 07:29:50 AM

Quote from: Khara on July 20, 2011, 08:42:34 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (deceased) on July 20, 2011, 08:33:41 PM
Quickly, off the top of my head: The US ends the child (dependent) tax break if you have more than one kid.  If you want to have eight kids, fine.  But it would be economically painful to do so.

Stop any type of finacial positive for having more than one child, health insurance, medicaid, food stamps, free lunch, financial assistance, school choice, all of it.

You'd have to enforce this worldwide or people would just run to other countries like the Chines do now.

great, create more widespread poverty. the inability to pay for one's crotchfruit doesnt seem to deter people from forming babbies.

how about
financial rewards
for people who do not reproduce?

i'd love to be paid to not have children.

Higher levels of education is one thing that does, statistically speaking, deter people from having babies.

So, statistically speaking, money spent on education is a better investment than money spent in any other area, except that the economy is still based on growth, and therefore economically speaking, reducing population growth is not directly advantageous.

I think the incentives at the moment are better for population growth than education (as it augments military and market power in addition to tax base), but as Chile seems to prove, you can definitely rely on the latter and prosper.  In fact, Chile's population growth is only 1%, on a general decline since the 1980s.

Quote from: Nigel
Higher levels of education is one thing that does, statistically speaking, deter people from having babies.

NERDS DON'T GET LAID!

Quote from: rong on August 07, 2011, 04:34:20 PM

Quote from: Nigel
Higher levels of education is one thing that does, statistically speaking, deter people from having babies.

NERDS DON'T GET LAID!

Or Nerds know how to put the condom on so that it's less likely to break.

Or nerds are totally into ANAL.

Quote from: PopeTom on August 07, 2011, 05:47:58 PM

Quote from: rong on August 07, 2011, 04:34:20 PM

Quote from: Nigel
Higher levels of education is one thing that does, statistically speaking, deter people from having babies.

NERDS DON'T GET LAID!

Or Nerds know how to put the condom on so that it's less likely to break.

Or, educated women can see many different options available to them and are able to make the informed decision to delay having children until they are certain that is the choice they want to make, and they are unlikely to have more than one or two.

Oh Snap.

Quote from: Nigel on August 07, 2011, 05:53:25 PM

Quote from: PopeTom on August 07, 2011, 05:47:58 PM

Quote from: rong on August 07, 2011, 04:34:20 PM

Quote from: Nigel
Higher levels of education is one thing that does, statistically speaking, deter people from having babies.

NERDS DON'T GET LAID!

Or Nerds know how to put the condom on so that it's less likely to break.

Or, educated women can see many different options available to them and are able to make the informed decision to delay having children until they are certain that is the choice they want to make, and they are unlikely to have more than one or two.

Or, educated women have greater access to health care, including contraceptives (Planned Parenthood doesn't have a solid presence everywhere, you know).

Or, educated women have access to biological textbooks and know how to use a coat-hanger properly.

Or, mahdjiqual knowledge-fairies steal women's egg cells like how normal fairies steal infants and replace them with changelings.

Quote from: Telarus on August 07, 2011, 06:11:00 PM
Oh Snap.

:lulz:

Quote from: Hover Cat on August 07, 2011, 06:43:19 PM

Quote from: Nigel on August 07, 2011, 05:53:25 PM

Quote from: PopeTom on August 07, 2011, 05:47:58 PM

Quote from: rong on August 07, 2011, 04:34:20 PM

Quote from: Nigel
Higher levels of education is one thing that does, statistically speaking, deter people from having babies.

NERDS DON'T GET LAID!

Or Nerds know how to put the condom on so that it's less likely to break.

Or, educated women can see many different options available to them and are able to make the informed decision to delay having children until they are certain that is the choice they want to make, and they are unlikely to have more than one or two.

Or, educated women have greater access to health care, including contraceptives (Planned Parenthood doesn't have a solid presence everywhere, you know).

Condoms are available at Wal-Mart and access to health care is heavily dependent on knowing where to seek it, which would be called "education". But sure, we could just make up reasons instead of recognizing the ones made available to us through research. Why not? It's the American Way™.

www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/mvsr/supp/mv45_10s.pdf

Or educated women just give a better BJ.

Sorry to derail thread and I promise i'll quit after this but

MAYBE READING IS FOR FAGGOTZ!!

Quote from: Nigel on August 07, 2011, 08:09:04 PM

Quote from: Hover Cat on August 07, 2011, 06:43:19 PM

Quote from: Nigel on August 07, 2011, 05:53:25 PM

Quote from: PopeTom on August 07, 2011, 05:47:58 PM

Quote from: rong on August 07, 2011, 04:34:20 PM

Quote from: Nigel
Higher levels of education is one thing that does, statistically speaking, deter people from having babies.

NERDS DON'T GET LAID!

Or Nerds know how to put the condom on so that it's less likely to break.

Or, educated women can see many different options available to them and are able to make the informed decision to delay having children until they are certain that is the choice they want to make, and they are unlikely to have more than one or two.

Or, educated women have greater access to health care, including contraceptives (Planned Parenthood doesn't have a solid presence everywhere, you know).

Condoms are available at Wal-Mart and access to health care is heavily dependent on knowing where to seek it, which would be called "education". But sure, we could just make up reasons instead of recognizing the ones made available to us through research. Why not? It's the American Way™.

www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/mvsr/supp/mv45_10s.pdf

Ah, I wasn't. But, ok.

Quote from: rong on August 07, 2011, 09:43:29 PM
Sorry to derail thread and I promise i'll quit after this but

MAYBE READING IS FOR FAGGOTZ!!

:mittens:

IT CUZ ALL THEM COLLEGE EJUKAYTED WIMMIN TURN INTO LESBIANS!
\
:mullet:

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on August 07, 2011, 10:59:08 PM
IT CUZ ALL THEM COLLEGE EJUKAYTED WIMMIN TURN INTO LESBIANS!
\
:mullet:

:lulz:

I first read EJUKAYTED as ejaculated.

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 07, 2011, 11:00:12 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on August 07, 2011, 10:59:08 PM
IT CUZ ALL THEM COLLEGE EJUKAYTED WIMMIN TURN INTO LESBIANS!
\
:mullet:

:lulz:

I first read EJUKAYTED as ejaculated.

EJAKULAYTED

Quote from: PopeTom on August 07, 2011, 08:31:56 PM
Or educated women just give a better BJ.

There's a pun in there about head but I can't quite tease it out.

Her motto is "It's what's inside a head that counts."

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on August 07, 2011, 10:59:08 PM
IT CUZ ALL THEM COLLEGE EJUKAYTED WIMMIN TURN INTO LESBIANS!
\
:mullet:

:lulz: :lulz:

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on August 07, 2011, 10:59:08 PM
IT CUZ ALL THEM COLLEGE EJUKAYTED WIMMIN TURN INTO LESBIANS!
\
:mullet:

And why not? Chicks are hot.  :fap:

Quote from: Jenkem and SPACE/TIME on August 08, 2011, 04:41:01 AM
Her motto is "It's what's inside a head that counts."

:spittake:

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on August 07, 2011, 05:49:07 PM
Or nerds are totally into ANAL.

I totalllly love nerds.

I'll just let that leap of logic make itself. :lulz:

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on August 08, 2011, 05:47:24 PM
I'll just let that leap of logic make itself. :lulz:

Of course.

Bumping for posterity.

Do points #1 and #2 together mean that funding education is actually a bad idea? Or am I reading this wrong?

No, because most modern economies rely on financialisation and the extension of the tertiary sector for economic growth, not industralisation.

Quote from: President Television on November 29, 2014, 11:58:16 PM
Do points #1 and #2 together mean that funding education is actually a bad idea? Or am I reading this wrong?

What makes you think education increases efficiency? Efficiency comes from obedience, obedience comes from trust, trust comes from ignorance.

Quote from: Reginald Ret (07/05/1983 - 06/11/2014) on November 30, 2014, 10:11:23 AM

Quote from: President Television on November 29, 2014, 11:58:16 PM
Do points #1 and #2 together mean that funding education is actually a bad idea? Or am I reading this wrong?

What makes you think education increases efficiency? Efficiency comes from obedience, obedience comes from trust, trust comes from ignorance.

(http://www.troll.me/images2/grumpy-cat/no-just-no.jpg)

Quote from: Cain on November 30, 2014, 10:27:15 AM

Quote from: Reginald Ret (07/05/1983 - 06/11/2014) on November 30, 2014, 10:11:23 AM

Quote from: President Television on November 29, 2014, 11:58:16 PM
Do points #1 and #2 together mean that funding education is actually a bad idea? Or am I reading this wrong?

What makes you think education increases efficiency? Efficiency comes from obedience, obedience comes from trust, trust comes from ignorance.

(http://www.troll.me/images2/grumpy-cat/no-just-no.jpg)

Awww i was kinda having fun with that line of reasoning. :(

Add on to all of this, soil degradation (http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/land_deg/land_deg.html), climate change caused reduction in crop yields (http://www.nber.org/papers/w13799), god knows what negative impact peak oil will have on agriculture and food distribution and the fact that we are running out of water. (http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nclimate2425?utm_campaign=readcube_access&utm_source=nature.com&utm_medium=purchase_option&utm_content=thumb_version&show_checkout=1&tracking_action=preview_click)

This is shaping up to be a fun century.

Quote from: Reginald Ret (07/05/1983 - 06/11/2014) on November 30, 2014, 02:11:44 PM

Quote from: Cain on November 30, 2014, 10:27:15 AM

Quote from: Reginald Ret (07/05/1983 - 06/11/2014) on November 30, 2014, 10:11:23 AM

Quote from: President Television on November 29, 2014, 11:58:16 PM
Do points #1 and #2 together mean that funding education is actually a bad idea? Or am I reading this wrong?

What makes you think education increases efficiency? Efficiency comes from obedience, obedience comes from trust, trust comes from ignorance.

(http://www.troll.me/images2/grumpy-cat/no-just-no.jpg)

Awww i was kinda having fun with that line of reasoning. :(

Another (weak) argument: Students tend to be rebellious. Without universities there are no students.

You do not need a formal system of higher learning to be a 'student'. It certainly helps, but it is not necessary.

Quote from: Demolition Squid on December 01, 2014, 06:25:01 AM
You do not need a formal system of higher learning to be a 'student'. It certainly helps, but it is not necessary.

:argh!: Fuck you and your 'logic'!