POLL: Biggest Problem In the World

[BigBallinStalin]

lol, Woodruff's looking for a fight but doesn't know which way to turn.

[Lootifer]

He doesnt like RL punch ups so comes here for a bit o thee ruff n tumble (no Saxi, not that kind of ruff n tumble).

[Woodruff]

how do you think my view of what reason is differs from yours or niet's?

It's interesting that you want to argue with me about this, but weren't interested in arguing with nietscke when it was his original premise. I wonder why that is.

niet and i weren't arguing about the definition of reason. you're the one who brought that up. my question remains.

Really? Because this sure looks like he thought you weren't on the same page as far as that goes:

You might be thinking of the idea of romantic love, as seen in Cheaters.

And reason, what the f*ck is reason? Well, for once, it's a golden flower put in a pedestal, not even understood by most.

For one, "the use of logic" would be more acceptable in your sentence. Reason, seems to me, it's different to anyone, a crazy man can start playing in his head with ideas and come up with reasoning. So can Stephen Hawkins, and decide the we will be torn apart soon because the world is expanding so it's no use to stop hunger in third world countries.

Everyone claims to have good reasoning skills, and yet they come with different answers, the thing is, they are leaving some factors out of the equation. But if in every equation we include love and genuine care for others, acceptance, empathy, the result would always be positive for everyone.

So john, what's the real reason? Yours?, Obama's?, King Jong-il?, the Pope's? Hawkins'? Justin Bieber's? Pick one and go ahead and convince the rest of the world of it. Let's see if that fixes the problems.

[john9blue]

Really? Because this sure looks like he thought you weren't on the same page as far as that goes:

You might be thinking of the idea of romantic love, as seen in Cheaters.

And reason, what the f*ck is reason? Well, for once, it's a golden flower put in a pedestal, not even understood by most.

For one, "the use of logic" would be more acceptable in your sentence. Reason, seems to me, it's different to anyone, a crazy man can start playing in his head with ideas and come up with reasoning. So can Stephen Hawkins, and decide the we will be torn apart soon because the world is expanding so it's no use to stop hunger in third world countries.

Everyone claims to have good reasoning skills, and yet they come with different answers, the thing is, they are leaving some factors out of the equation. But if in every equation we include love and genuine care for others, acceptance, empathy, the result would always be positive for everyone.

So john, what's the real reason? Yours?, Obama's?, King Jong-il?, the Pope's? Hawkins'? Justin Bieber's? Pick one and go ahead and convince the rest of the world of it. Let's see if that fixes the problems.

yeah, i don't think he has a different definition than me, or if he does then he hasn't explained his version yet. he just assumed that reason couldn't work because some people (crazy men, hawking, etc.) have unusual definitions of what it means.

[Woodruff]

Really? Because this sure looks like he thought you weren't on the same page as far as that goes:

You might be thinking of the idea of romantic love, as seen in Cheaters.

And reason, what the f*ck is reason? Well, for once, it's a golden flower put in a pedestal, not even understood by most.

For one, "the use of logic" would be more acceptable in your sentence. Reason, seems to me, it's different to anyone, a crazy man can start playing in his head with ideas and come up with reasoning. So can Stephen Hawkins, and decide the we will be torn apart soon because the world is expanding so it's no use to stop hunger in third world countries.

Everyone claims to have good reasoning skills, and yet they come with different answers, the thing is, they are leaving some factors out of the equation. But if in every equation we include love and genuine care for others, acceptance, empathy, the result would always be positive for everyone.

So john, what's the real reason? Yours?, Obama's?, King Jong-il?, the Pope's? Hawkins'? Justin Bieber's? Pick one and go ahead and convince the rest of the world of it. Let's see if that fixes the problems.

yeah, i don't think he has a different definition than me, or if he does then he hasn't explained his version yet. he just assumed that reason couldn't work because some people (crazy men, hawking, etc.) have unusual definitions of what it means.

Which goes back to my point.

[Phatscotty]

[Woodruff]

One of my favorite quotes to beat over the heads of my cadets. <smile>

[rockfist]

Government is the root of all evil.

[Gillipig]

Some of these things overlap with each other but I'll try to ignore that. Instead of just choosing one I'm gonna list them. Ranking them first after how big of a negative they have right now, and then another time after how big of a negative impact they can have in the future.


Biggest current threats:
1. The Economy
2. Religion
3. Diseases
4. Armed Conflict
5. Greedy Corporations
6. Morality
7. The Jews
8. Government Cover-ups
9. Resource Depletion
10. Global Warming
11. Governments
12. Biodiversity
13. Human Trafficking
14. Piracy
15. Privacy
16. Genocide
17. People Deadbeating CC games
18. Kittens


Biggest possible threats:
1. Global Warming
2. Resource Depletion
3. Diseases
4. Religion
5. Armed Conflict
6. Biodiversity
7. The Economy
8. Governments
9. Greedy Corporations
10. Government Cover-ups
11. Genocide
12. The Jews
13. Morality
14. Human Trafficking
15. Privacy
16. Piracy
17. Kittens
18. People Deadbeating CC games

[DoomYoshi]

I find it curious that the Jews are right now a bigger threat than they can possibly be.

They have a possible threat level of 12, but they are threat level 7... shouldn't that imply that their possible threat level is also 7?

Is this an error in translation?

[john9blue]

I find it curious that the Jews are right now a bigger threat than they can possibly be.

They have a possible threat level of 12, but they are threat level 7... shouldn't that imply that their possible threat level is also 7?

Is this an error in translation?

the numbers are relative. other threats have higher potential in the future, and therefore surpass jews on the list

[Gillipig]

I find it curious that the Jews are right now a bigger threat than they can possibly be.

They have a possible threat level of 12, but they are threat level 7... shouldn't that imply that their possible threat level is also 7?

Is this an error in translation?

That's not how it works. This is not a video game where you level up and it's only possible to reach a certain level with a weapon or something.

[PLAYER57832]

Fix overpopulation and all other problems fix themselves.

If we had a reasonable population density of 5 people per square mile, we could all drive around in Sherman tanks and shit and piss and drop our garbage anywhere and the environment would just laugh at us and keep on going about its business. It is only because there are so damn many of us that we poison the environment. Its capacity for absorbing and recycling poisons is enormous; we just need to drop to a population density where we do not tax that capacity.

This is not true. Even a few people can very much create enough damage to destroy the Earth, if they were so inclined, with today's chemicals and today's technology.

To contrast, a lot of people who care and think about the consequences of their actions, think long term would not cause dangerous levels of damage.

[PLAYER57832]

I find it curious that the Jews are right now a bigger threat than they can possibly be.

They have a possible threat level of 12, but they are threat level 7... shouldn't that imply that their possible threat level is also 7?

Is this an error in translation?

That's not how it works. This is not a video game where you level up and it's only possible to reach a certain level with a weapon or something.

That you would label "the Jews" a specific threat is quite disturbing.. and I believe you have enough history to tell you why.

You might say "Israel", but to just say "Jews".. and to put it as a different category from "religion" is disturbing.

[Dukasaur]

Fix overpopulation and all other problems fix themselves.

If we had a reasonable population density of 5 people per square mile, we could all drive around in Sherman tanks and shit and piss and drop our garbage anywhere and the environment would just laugh at us and keep on going about its business. It is only because there are so damn many of us that we poison the environment. Its capacity for absorbing and recycling poisons is enormous; we just need to drop to a population density where we do not tax that capacity.

This is not true. Even a few people can very much create enough damage to destroy the Earth, if they were so inclined, with today's chemicals and today's technology.

To contrast, a lot of people who care and think about the consequences of their actions, think long term would not cause dangerous levels of damage.

If we all become very responsible and re-use everything and cut our waste and consumption in half, and the world's population doubles, are we any further ahead? Nope, back where we started.

Cut your waste and consumption in half again while the world's population doubles again, and once again, back where you started.

Eventually you will run out of efficiencies. You cannot reduce your waste below certain basic minimums, but there is no limit to people's ability to spawn. Eventually some plague or war will restore the balance. I just hope it happens before every last square inch of wilderness has been paved over.

[PLAYER57832]

Fix overpopulation and all other problems fix themselves.

If we had a reasonable population density of 5 people per square mile, we could all drive around in Sherman tanks and shit and piss and drop our garbage anywhere and the environment would just laugh at us and keep on going about its business. It is only because there are so damn many of us that we poison the environment. Its capacity for absorbing and recycling poisons is enormous; we just need to drop to a population density where we do not tax that capacity.

This is not true. Even a few people can very much create enough damage to destroy the Earth, if they were so inclined, with today's chemicals and today's technology.

To contrast, a lot of people who care and think about the consequences of their actions, think long term would not cause dangerous levels of damage.

If we all become very responsible and re-use everything and cut our waste and consumption in half, and the world's population doubles, are we any further ahead? Nope, back where we started.

LOL.. half, no. I never said anything about "half".

We need to do far more than that. I said "think about consequences, think long term".

Cut your waste and consumption in half again while the world's population doubles again, and once again, back where you started.

Eventually you will run out of efficiencies. You cannot reduce your waste below certain basic minimums, but there is no limit to people's ability to spawn. Eventually some plague or war will restore the balance. I just hope it happens before every last square inch of wilderness has been paved over.

This is about far FAR more than just limiting waste. That has no bearing on what I said, except that eliminating waste would be a small part of it.

HOWEVER, by "eliminating", I don't mean we stop defecating or eating or living. I mean that we make sure those t hings are part of the natural system.. a system that is largely already in existence, already created. The real "fixes" are far less about new innovations and far more about just observing and studying what already exists.

We actually DO have many of the solutions we need, though some are still "out there", but they are not "cost effective" because we live in a world in which business profit is substituted for any real sense of morality and is quickly usurping real morality. That is sad, because its not business that is evil, any more than fire is evil. Still, not controlled, not used correct and fire will cause a LOT of damage. The damage that can come from fire is minimal compared to the damage that comes from business operated with the idea that profit will control its morality will somehow automatically steer it into a direction that is good for humanity.

[Woodruff]

We actually DO have many of the solutions we need, though some are still "out there", but they are not "cost effective" because we live in a world in which business profit is substituted for any real sense of morality and is quickly usurping real morality.

Here is where I disagree with you. The problem you describe does NOT lie with businesses or business profits. The problem you describe lies with ordinary people like you and I. Why do I say that? Because it is ordinary people like you and I are not willing to pay the price necessary to make those "not yet cost effective" products viable to a business. If enough ordinary people like you and I were willing to do so, I promise you that a business would be all over it knowing that they could make a profit in doing so. We have seen the enemy, and they are us cheap bastards.

[Gillipig]

I find it curious that the Jews are right now a bigger threat than they can possibly be.

They have a possible threat level of 12, but they are threat level 7... shouldn't that imply that their possible threat level is also 7?

Is this an error in translation?

That's not how it works. This is not a video game where you level up and it's only possible to reach a certain level with a weapon or something.

That you would label "the Jews" a specific threat is quite disturbing.. and I believe you have enough history to tell you why.

You might say "Israel", but to just say "Jews".. and to put it as a different category from "religion" is disturbing.

Hold your horses humanitarian, and spare me your despise, because I'm not a neo nazi. It just so happens that our host mentioned Jews in one of his alternatives, had he written arabs, I would've named the group "arabs". "Some cultural group" was not specific enough for me so I gave it the name he suggested.

[DoomYoshi]

Don't blame me - it was the arabs.

[Gillipig]

Don't blame me - it was the arabs.

I push the blame on you, you push the blame on the arabs, and the arabs, will push the blame on the Jews, so we end up where we started, meaning this really is the Jews fault!

[smegal69]

Humans, this world would be a lot better without Humans

[warmonger1981]

Start with yourself then. Or is it every human but you?

[BigBallinStalin]

Fix overpopulation and all other problems fix themselves.

If we had a reasonable population density of 5 people per square mile, we could all drive around in Sherman tanks and shit and piss and drop our garbage anywhere and the environment would just laugh at us and keep on going about its business. It is only because there are so damn many of us that we poison the environment. Its capacity for absorbing and recycling poisons is enormous; we just need to drop to a population density where we do not tax that capacity.

This is not true. Even a few people can very much create enough damage to destroy the Earth, if they were so inclined, with today's chemicals and today's technology.

To contrast, a lot of people who care and think about the consequences of their actions, think long term would not cause dangerous levels of damage.

If we all become very responsible and re-use everything and cut our waste and consumption in half, and the world's population doubles, are we any further ahead? Nope, back where we started.

Cut your waste and consumption in half again while the world's population doubles again, and once again, back where you started.

Eventually you will run out of efficiencies. You cannot reduce your waste below certain basic minimums, but there is no limit to people's ability to spawn. Eventually some plague or war will restore the balance. I just hope it happens before every last square inch of wilderness has been paved over.

Recommended reading:


Julian Simon. The Ultimate Resource 2
http://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Resource ... 0691003815

[Gillipig]

Fix overpopulation and all other problems fix themselves.

If we had a reasonable population density of 5 people per square mile, we could all drive around in Sherman tanks and shit and piss and drop our garbage anywhere and the environment would just laugh at us and keep on going about its business. It is only because there are so damn many of us that we poison the environment. Its capacity for absorbing and recycling poisons is enormous; we just need to drop to a population density where we do not tax that capacity.

This is not true. Even a few people can very much create enough damage to destroy the Earth, if they were so inclined, with today's chemicals and today's technology.

To contrast, a lot of people who care and think about the consequences of their actions, think long term would not cause dangerous levels of damage.

If we all become very responsible and re-use everything and cut our waste and consumption in half, and the world's population doubles, are we any further ahead? Nope, back where we started.

Cut your waste and consumption in half again while the world's population doubles again, and once again, back where you started.

Eventually you will run out of efficiencies. You cannot reduce your waste below certain basic minimums, but there is no limit to people's ability to spawn. Eventually some plague or war will restore the balance. I just hope it happens before every last square inch of wilderness has been paved over.

The thing is though, people hate being told how many kids they can have. It goes against what we consider our "rights", but if we don't incorporate some level of population control we will never be in control of our survival. The tricky thing is to convince people to vote for a law that so drastically limits their rights. You need a very intelligent general public to ever get the majority to vote for a suggestion like that.

[DoomYoshi]

I figure I might as well point out that overpopulation is the solution, not the problem. Until we actually get way more people than the world can sustain, we can't end the species and therefore the overpopulation.

Example A: