The question was never whether natural cycles of climate change occur. The question is, rather, whether human activity will push a naturally occurring climate trend a couple of ticks past a tipping point which would result in a global disaster for the unnaturally huge current human population.
As things stand with Man, however, a significant human die-off could be considered quite desirable.
So, as they say out in pork country, Happy Thanksgiving, m**therf***ers.
As things stand with Man, however, a significant human die-off could be considered quite desirable.
So, as they say out in pork country, Happy Thanksgiving, m**therf***ers.
X
45 comments:
Leave it to you to piss all over everyone's Thanksgiving buffet table (LOL).
I go away for a few weeks and I see that now, like Bill Barker, you choose to leave nothing to the imagination with the blog portrait. Sadly, I always envisioned you as looking like Donald Sutherland in "Animal House."
Although, I'm not as disappointed with your picture as I was finding out that, after listening to him on the radio as a kid in the 70s, Larry King didn't look like Ben Gazzara when I saw him on CNN in the 80s, but more like a syphilitic editor at Al Goldstein's Screw Magazine.
As for me, I'll continue to remain faceless in these parts. Better for the imagination (and eyes) ...
---MS
My blog portrait, being a line drawing a couple of decades old, leaves plenty to the imagination.
As it has become my intention to post a variety of my doodles, sketches, and renderings, along with various writings, also going back decades, there may be more self-portraits to come.
"As things stand with Man, however, a significant human die-off could be considered quite desirable."
Rob. You're free to kill your wife and daughters and then yourself.
Com'on, dude... WALK THE WALK!
At least abide by your convictions by killing yourself.
Rob. Every exhale of yours is another nail in the Earth's coffin. How could you be so damned selfish to continue breathing when with one bullet to the head you could "do your part" to slow global warming?
You don't like guns? So... OD on pills. Better yet, do a Thelma and Louise and take one of those evil pollution spewing automobiles WITH you on your way out.
Rob. I'll miss you... but your killing yourself WOULD be for the best.
BILL
* Hey... just riffing off YOUR desire for "human die-off."
** Hey, Mad! HAPPY (POST) THANKSGIVING!
You're the one who wants the die-off, Guillermo. I'm on the side that intends to prevent it.
I'm only suggesting that I expect your side to win, as it seems to have the numbers and the momentum.
You can ride the sugar teat of Mother Sarah all the way to the Apocalypse, Big Fella! Mucho gusto!
"You're the one who wants the die-off, Guillermo."
ONCE AGAIN, ROB...
QUOTING RODAK...
"As things stand with Man, however, a significant human die-off could be considered quite desirable."
Rob. You put it in WRITING. You put it ON YOUR BLOG.
(*SHRUG*)
Now stop wasting time, old pal...
KILL YOURSELF!
WALK THE WALK!
TO THINE OWN SELF BE TRUE...!!!
(*GRIN*)
Quoting Rodak again --
"I'm only suggesting that I expect your side to win..."
NO... once again... YOU came right out and WROTE:
(QUOTING)
"...a significant human die-off could be considered quite desirable."
(*SHRUG*)
Rob. Why back away from your principles...???
(Oh... I forgot... it's... umm... "what you do.")
(*SMIRK*)
Oh, well... for purely selfish reasons I'm actually GLAD that you're a phony hypocrite; if you actually DID "walk the walk" by... er... walking off the pier... I'd miss you!
Merry Pre-Christmas, Rob!
Ho! Ho! Ho!
BILL
Ah, but Bill...don't you realize that those of us in the Global Warming Conspiracy are taking precautions (hoarding seed, water purification kits, can goods, etc.) to allow us to survive the disaster. The "significant die-off" will include you and Ed and all the other scoffers--the grasshoppers, not the resourceful and well-prepared ants.
Greetings, Mr. Barker!
As I said on That Other Blog, Global Warming, real or unreal, is hardly the most pressing problem facing this adminsitration.
Being a more economically, and cynically so, oriented guy, I'm laughing my ass off at all the people who think we're back to the Calvin Coolidge Roaring 20s or Clinton Roaring 90s; that happy consumer-debt-is-freedom days are here again!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR4OFXExOdc&feature=player_embedded
Can you believe idiots in this economy still trying to "flip houses"? As Satan said in the movie "Devil's Advocate"
"Vanity, always my favorite sin!"
I would have thought that house flipping tomes would be stacked in the corner of bookstores and libraries next to Y2K survival manuals, "DOS for Dummies" and copies of "Dow 20,000."
As for the portraits, Mon Frere, speaking as a formally trained graphic artist I would say your sketch style has a very 1980s punk-industrial sensibility of line drawing. I'd expect a guy from your generation to have more of a Peter Max-Milton Glaser feel to his work (LOL).
I'm curious to see more.
---MS
I was never into the pop-art thang, MS. Peter Max was sick-making garbage.
That said, there's more up and more to come. I've been, as I said, cleaning my closet.
Aahh... blessed be the Mad Scribe of Madscribism!
(*WINK*)
Yep. It's insane, MS!
The Second Great Crash and Stagflation 2010 soon coming to a theatre near... er... everyone.
BILL
Whatever occurs in nature is natural.
That's deep. Do you mind if I use it?
All snark aside, the chemical fertilizers, pesticides, hybrid crops, etc., that have allowed food production to keep pace fairly well with population growth (even as infant mortality rates drop due to medical advances) do not occur in nature. World population is unnaturally large.
Happy Thanksgiving, first off. I hope you all had a great holiday with your families.
I'm skeptical when people say the world's population is "unnaturally" large or unsustainable.
However, the problem (if there is one) won't be one of food but potable water.
Think about it. Our government pays some farmers to NOT grow crops (they apparently know better what should be grown than the market, but that's another discussion). Or in the case of ethanol, grow crops that won't be used for food but bio-fuel. I can't recall food being rationed in this country during my lifetime (feel free to correct me here if I am wrong)....but at least once a summer (this year being the exception) water is rationed or they put limits on how much you can use/what you can use it for.
And overpopulation isn't a problem as far as space goes. I don't think even 10% of PA is developed. We just all like to live in the same area.
The food shortages are not going to happen in this country, with our millions of acres of arable land, and our high technology.
I'm sure that you have been aware, however, of populations facing starvation in various parts of the undeveloped world. In such regions, all it takes is one growing season of draught to put the lives of both people and livestock in immediate jeopardy.
You are correct about the water.
***The food shortages are not going to happen in this country, with our millions of acres of arable land, and our high technology.
I'm sure that you have been aware, however, of populations facing starvation in various parts of the undeveloped world. In such regions, all it takes is one growing season of draught to put the lives of both people and livestock in immediate jeopardy.***
I think for most of these undeveloped parts of the world that you speak of, the problem isn't arable land. A place like Hong Kong is quite short on arable land and I haven't heard of mass starvation or food rationing there, ala "Soylent Green."
Am I to suspect that you believe humanity should have a "significant die-off" because people in undeveloped countries don't use their arable land properly or efficiently?
And how is the human population unnaturally huge? Most of the people being born are not of the "Jon and Kate plus 8" variety. Should we stop making advances in medicine so that people don't live as long or the infant mortality rates increase? That would be "natural" but would that be humane? Saying that a "die-off" of epic proportions is a good thing is disturbing, to say the least, especially coming from a Christian. I'm not trying to start a fight here but am honestly trying to get where you're coming from.
***You are correct about the water.***
It happens from time to time. I assure you I won't let it go to my head.
Actually, Moose, the Bible promises a huge die-off, and you know not the hour when it comes--so the concept isn't really incompatible with Christianty, per se.
That said, however, my remark hovers somewhere in the area between cynicism and sarcasm, and is based on my current level of disgust with human behavior in general.
What I'm talking about, Moose is the "green revolution":
Green Revolution
"All snark aside, the chemical fertilizers, pesticides, hybrid crops, etc., that have allowed food production to keep pace fairly well with population growth (even as infant mortality rates drop due to medical advances) do not occur in nature."
Well gee, where are they occurring? Schmature? THEY MOST CERTAINLY ARE OCCURRING IN NATURE.
So you're saying that anything that exists, because it exists, is natural? Howard Cosell's hair, then, was "natural?" A wax apple is a "natural" apple? Okay. Run with that definition of natural, dude. You'll go far.
"So you're saying that anything that exists, because it exists, is natural? Howard Cosell's hair, then, was "natural?" A wax apple is a "natural" apple? Okay. Run with that definition of natural, dude. You'll go far."
Farther than copping out and claiming things are unnatural when doing so is really code for "I don't like this or that."
I don't like smegma, the obesity epidemic, Coors Light, cancer, Bill Belichek, famine, bad breath
or the very likely extinction of the human species and the death of the planet but dammit, they are not unnatural.
Okay. I see that we're going too fast for you, Sparky. Let's take it one tiny step at a time.
We were talking, for instance, fertilizer. There are natural fertilizers. Manure is probably the best known. Then there are fertilizers that are whipped up by agricultural scientists in laboratories--some type of nitrogen-rich synthetic compound. These compounds do not occur naturally, i.e. in nature. Get it? Although they are comprised of chemicals that do occur in nature, those chemicals do not come together naturally.
Now, once the nice scientists have made their wonderful, nitrogen-rich, synthetic fertilizers, these can be used to produced more crops, more quickly, than can manure. Thus, we are able to feed more people on the same amount of arable land. Are you still with me?
Because we can feed more people, using unnatural fertilizers, the populations around the world can become larger than they would if all this extra food were not being unnaturally produced.
Hybrid crops, that grow with less water, or in hotter temperatures, or a resistent to insects that naturally destroy them, have a similar effect. These hybrid crops also do not occur naturally, i.e. in nature, but are invented (and patented) by scientists who are good friends with the ones inventing the fertilizers.
Smegma, which as you well know, occurs all by itself, with no help from scientists, or laboratories, is not analogous to either a synthetic fertilizers, or a hybrid strain of corn, or wheat.
I hope that you now have a clue, Sparkster.
Chemotherapy is also "unnatural" but because of it, someone I care very deeply about is still with me in this life.
Whether or not we use ideas hatched in a labratory or some ancient "natural" way, helping someone survive cancer or allowing for the production of food, economically and safely, are GOOD things. We should be thankful for them and appreciate what we do have.
***Actually, Moose, the Bible promises a huge die-off, and you know not the hour when it comes--so the concept isn't really incompatible with Christianty, per se.***
Yeah but that's at the end. You were promoting some weening of the flock between now and then...kinda f'd up.
***That said, however, my remark hovers somewhere in the area between cynicism and sarcasm, and is based on my current level of disgust with human behavior in general.***
I figured it was said somewhat tongue-in-cheek but felt compelled to take you to task for it and at least read (for my sake) that you meant it in such a way.
I mean, I know you're a cynic and all but that's stretching it, even for you.
The bottom line though is that if we can produce enough food, and there is plenty of land (and there is plenty) in which to live, we don't have an overpopulation problem....and require no huge "die-off" for the human race to continue to exist.
Yeah but that's at the end
Oh. So you know both when the end will occur, and how it will occur. Please share that with us, won't you?
Here's a thought: chemotherapy--unnatural, but good; overpopulation--unnatural, and bad.
"Producing enough food" isn't quite as easy as you make it sound. If it were, nobody would be going hungry. Nobody would be starving to death. But they are.
***Oh. So you know both when the end will occur, and how it will occur. Please share that with us, won't you?***
My good man, I was saying that the huge "die-off" is at the end. Nowhere did I insinuate I knew the actual hour. And besides, if I did, I would probably be sworn to secrecy. And I don't tattle secrets that people ask me to keep, especially if they're in a position to end the world (I want to stay on their good side and keeping secret the year/month/day/hour/minute of their destined "end of man" might be a good way of achieving this goal).
***Here's a thought: chemotherapy--unnatural, but good; overpopulation--unnatural, and bad.***
That's a catchy slogan, although it doesn't roll off the tongue as easy as you think it would.
***"Producing enough food" isn't quite as easy as you make it sound. If it were, nobody would be going hungry. Nobody would be starving to death. But they are.***
I still contend that the earth is nowhere near overpopulation. You're under the assumption that people are starving because there are too many of them. That's a dangerous mindset, my friend.
I think starvation stems mostly from poverty, not population. Most regions that experience starvation tend to have terrible economic development. As I said, Hong Kong is one of the most congested places on earth. Yet, there is no mass-starvation there. If someone is hungry due to a lack of resources, eliminating their neighbor (or allowing them to be eliminated) is not an acceptable solution, especially long-term.
I think starvation stems mostly from poverty, not population.
And yet you made your excellent comment about the coming water shortage earlier. That will affect even the U.S. in the near future. Too much population in dry places like Arizona is a problem. As I said earlier, one year of draught in low resource areas spells disaster. Your attitude--that there is no problem--results in nothing being done. You'd better hope that you're right.
Somebody just sent me this. It's frightening, but really cool.
***And yet you made your excellent comment about the coming water shortage earlier. That will affect even the U.S. in the near future. Too much population in dry places like Arizona is a problem.***
It could be a problem, true. But I don't think the world is running out of water. It just might make it quite expensive to make it potable. But that is a concern.
***As I said earlier, one year of draught in low resource areas spells disaster. Your attitude--that there is no problem--results in nothing being done. You'd better hope that you're right.***
Now there. My attitude is not that nothing should be done or that there is no problem. I addressed what the problem is, which is poverty. I just disagreed with you that the problem is overpopulation.
We can't really discuss a solution when we don't see eye-to-eye on what the problem is.
***Somebody just sent me this. It's frightening, but really cool.***
I agree on both counts.
It's poverty, not overpopulation? How is it better for a poor man to have five kids, rather than two kids, to feed? How is that better across a whole society in the Third World, where 90% of the people are living in poverty, or near it? Why do you imagine that the Chinese have gone to such great lengths to limit the size of their population, and what do you imagine to have been the effect of that on their meteorically rising standard of living--at least in the cities.
Do you see no connection between population size and the mass immigration of Mexicans to this country. Certainly, there is plenty of land in Mexico.
How much do you imagine folks in Kansas will have to pay for desalizinized water trucked in from the Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico, or the Atlantic?
***It's poverty, not overpopulation? How is it better for a poor man to have five kids, rather than two kids, to feed? How is that better across a whole society in the Third World, where 90% of the people are living in poverty, or near it?***
You've made my point. If they weren't in poverty, having 5 kids instead of 2 would not be a problem. The problem lies not in the number of children but in the fact that they don't have the means to feed them. Having them die off like lemmings or forcing sterilization doesn't solve their problem, which is POVERTY. Their problem can be better solved with economic development and opportunity, not limiting their numbers through some huge "die-off."
Yes, but don't you realize that population puts a strain on economy? You are assuming that the economic growth will always keep pace with, or even surpass, population growth, and that poverty can potentially be eliminated. Where is that written? Why has it never even come close to happening?
***Yes, but don't you realize that population puts a strain on economy?***
Well, if you're having trouble feeding yourself, adding a few kids makes it even more difficult.
If you live in an area with a good economic foundation, population growth is not a bad thing. It actually is good.
My contention still remains valid that the problem is not overpopulation but poverty. If you're trying to solve the population problem but not the poverty problem, you still have a problem. If you eliminate the problem of poverty, you eliminate the population problem.
There's no need for this huge die-off that you propose in your initial post.
Right. But poverty is hard to eliminate in direct proportion to how large your population is. What's true for families on the micro- level is equally true for societies on the macro- level.
Plus, I ask again--why has what you suggest never been done? Can the constantly growing world population have been a factor in that?
***Right. But poverty is hard to eliminate in direct proportion to how large your population is. What's true for families on the micro- level is equally true for societies on the macro- level.***
But if a family decides that it wants to curtail its growth that's a personal decision. If a government tells you to, that's a dangerous territory.
***Plus, I ask again--why has what you suggest never been done?***
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Yunus#Grameen_Bank
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3507051.html
It has been done on a small scale with success. It is better to give people freedom and the opportunity to lift them out of poverty than to do what you suggest. The problem with people who are considered "overpopulated" are that they live in countries with tyrants. Having them "die-off" is a shitty solution to their problem.
***Can the constantly growing world population have been a factor in that?***
No.
Ok, assuming that your "die-off" solution is snark, what do you propose?
But when we are talking global overpopulation, we are not talking "small scale." Anything can be done on a small scale. And, if those small scale operations were done everywhere, there'd be no money in it. It would be like having a high school diploma in America. That used to get you a job. Now, that and a token will get you on the bus.
I note that you probably have no problem with the government telling you what can't do with regard to reproduction--such as have an abortion. Most Catholics would even outlaw birth control again, if they could.
***But when we are talking global overpopulation, we are not talking "small scale."***
But I'm saying there is no "global overpopulation" so WE are not talking about it. YOU are. I'm citing these references as a way to help people get out of poverty, not fight overpopulation.
***I note that you probably have no problem with the government telling you what can't do with regard to reproduction--such as have an abortion. Most Catholics would even outlaw birth control again, if they could.***
Apples and oranges, plus you're getting off topic. I have a problem with the government telling people whether or not they are allowed to reproduce (which you apparently are in the "pro" column). My argument with abortion has to do with the taking of a life, not with any form of population control. And definitely not in the sense that I want the government dictating what people do in their bedrooms. But again, you are veering from the topic and this does nothing to support your argument that there is a global overpopulation epidemic.
And, again, what is your solution? From reading what you've been typing, you seem to be leaning in the direction of the die-off/sterilize/forced abortion camp. If this is not true, what do you propose?
Look, I will concede the fact that more affluent, better educated societies self-limit their populations. Look at Western Europe, or Japan, or upper-middle class Americans.
But the onus is on you to propose how you're going to help make the billions--with a "b"--of people on this globe who go hungry and have no resources with which to better themselves economically. Shit, we can't even do it with Mexico, much less places like Haiti, in our own hemisphere. Never mind Africa, or large swatches of Asia. Trickle-down capitalism only helps the poor in areas where some can get rich. In areas where the best possible improvement can only bring people up just past subsistence-level to a kind of low-level comfort, even that doesn't happen, because the rich capitalists don't go there. You can see that this is true all over the globe.
Those people end up migrating to cities, where they swell the ranks of urban poverty and live even worse lives in most ways than they had out in the sticks. There just isn't work for all of them. They aren't needed. Anywhere. There are too many of them.
The only way people would be able to become more economically developed is if the become more free. Most of the people who are starving or in abject poverty seem to be under the rule of tyrant-like heads of state...especially in Africa. And no, I'm not proposing we go and nation-build all over the world.
But these things don't have to have a central agency doing this globally. The examples I listed are done on a small scale where people of means helped out others in their area of the world in mutually-beneficial dealings. The last thing I want is some kind of UN-like structure that tries to deal with every situation the same way.
I don't have details on how to make people more economically free but I'm willing to listen to other ideas.
Speaking of which, do you have any ideas (other than the die-off/forced abortions/sterilizations of third world populations)? Or is the onus only on me to speak on my thoughts? You're the one who began the whole discussion with how "desirable" a nice "die-off" would be for the world and then backed off.
I honestly am intereste in hearing what you have to say on the subject.
Thanks.
Well, again, the whole die-off thing was a sarcasm based on my belief that a die-off is what people opposed to doing anything about climate change are secretly willing to see happen.
The well-to-do, probably accurately, think that they will survive anything that might happen, but that many of those people whom they feel that their productivity is carrying, will die off and cease being a burden.
I was being deliberately provocative, because I don't think that the conservative side of this argument is addressing things realistically, or in some cases honestly.
Socialism actually works pretty well, where it isn't being actively opposed and forced to spend resources on self-defense. Western Europe is no hell. It's not on the verge of collapse (any more than we are). It's not lacking in personal freedoms, free speech, or any of the other liberties that we enjoy. Yet people don't need to worry about the price of things like health care and education in the same way that Americans do. They pay high taxes. It may be more difficult to become one of the mega-rich. But people are quite comfortable in terms of their creature comforts, and less stressed in times of catastrophe.
So, my solution would be based on a very simple principle: sharing.
You rightly say that nobody in the world needs to be starving. But they are. We keep the grain we grow locked up in huge silos because they can't afford to buy it: that's capitalism for you.
Moose, you might want to invest in some of this. Or else sue them. Whichever is more appropriate.
Rob,
First, I can honestly say this has been enjoyable for me. Seriously. I like the back-and-forth with you as it makes me think about my position and forces me to justify it...or adapt/change it.
As much as I can respect your postition with regards to Western European-style socialism, that makes me nervous. I am a bit nervous with giving a ton of money and power to the government and hope that when the pendulum swings to whichever side of the political spectrum (and it most definitely will), that side won't take just a bit more of certain freedoms/money from the populace for whatever reason they deem necessary, which I may not agree with. They will try to get Federal money for their constituents, but I may see something in my district that needs my funds more. But I may have a congressman who either doesn't have the pull to get the proper funds for this or he/she doesn't see that as a problem. Either way, I would prefer to give directly. I would prefer to put my money towards organizations that I think would put it to better use. They are more answerable than a government clerk, and usually have more invested in the organization's purposes.
Anyway, I definitely appreciate you giving me your input on all this....funny how this started with the whole snarky "die-off" comment. Good food for thought.
Have a good night and look reading more. From your jottings, I see you're a fellow packrat. It's great going through that stuff later years later.
***Moose, you might want to invest in some of this. Or else sue them. Whichever is more appropriate.***
Too funny...I think I'll stick with Old Spice after a good shower.
Moose--
Agreed. It's been a good discussion. Thanks for hanging around to have it.
As a closing, I might just add that most of what you fear is happening already; some of it Big Time. Like foreign wars for which we are put in hock in order to protect the oil barons.
As for charity: as I've said many times, it's not sufficient to the task. Hunger has been wiped out in Europe by socialism. It never was wiped out by Christian charity alone. That's just a fact. Charity lets the individual off the hook, in terms of his own conscience; but it doesn't get the job done. And never will. So, is it me, or is it you, who condones the starve-off?
From your jottings, I see you're a fellow packrat. It's great going through that stuff later years later.
Yep. If I had it all do over, I might have just had a whole blog dedicated to the packrat material "A Packrat's Postings"--maybe you should do that? Might be way cool.
But I may have a congressman who either doesn't have the pull to get the proper funds for this or he/she doesn't see that as a problem.
That's why we have elections.
Post a Comment