Do hippies want an holocaust?

[Narz]

In other words, you have no rights if they conflict with your particular idea of "protecting the planet" from overpopulation.

No. Everyone should have basic human rights. However births per couple should be limited for the sake of quality of life (including in the West).

Screw that. Rights that only exist until a paranoid minority demand they be abolished don't exist at all.

I'm not following.

Lives are at stake, and you aren't helping anyone.

How can I help you?

On the contrary, if people like you were in charge, a lot more lives would be lost for nothing.

I would do my best to prevent unecessary loss of life at all cost and make sure every child born had the best possible chance at a fruitful life. Imagine how much worse off China would be without their one-child policy.

You and John are despicable.

I can see why you might believe that thru misunderstanding of what I'm saying. Take a deep breathe and consider what I'm saying more carefully. This is the real world we're talking about not some fantasy-land with unlimited resources where everyone can live kings. The best way to help people is to severely limit the decadence of the West (including that of Caucasians like me & most of you) while helping poor nations become more self-reliant. I'm not sure how this makes me some kind of monster.

And "Negro strawmen"? What the heck is wrong with you?

Did you not read Fifty's ridiculous accusations of racism because I support policies to help Africa revitalize itself and ideally not depend on handouts from the West?

Happy New Year.

 

[philippe]

I would do my best to prevent unecessary loss of life at all cost and make sure every child born had the best possible chance at a fruitful life. Imagine how much worse off China would be without their one-child policy.
.

They have started to import women from other countries or regions as China who are handled like slaves.

Quality of life Narz.

 

[Narz]

They have started to import women from other countries or regions as China who are handled like slaves.

Quality of life Narz.

That is a matter of human rights & not the fault of the one child policy. Mistreatment of women has been an issue in China for centuries. Murder of female babies should not be tolerated.

I'm going to drop this thread from my subscribed list. I probably shouldn't let let myself be baited into it (thru defamation of my character, which in the end matters little, as those who have read my posts on issues like these in the past know who I am and where I stand) in the first place.

If anyone wants to discuss this further with me do it via PM's (and in a respectful tone). Peace.

 

[jessiecat]

They have started to import women from other countries or regions as China who are handled like slaves.

Quality of life Narz.

Considering the directions that this thread has gone,
some sensible and some deranged, I don't think your question
has been answered.
Maybe it's because your question made no sense.
Why hippies and which holocaust anyway?.

 

[BasketCase]

So will the hippies pull the trigger?

You know, this actually isn't as far-fetched as it sounds?

Fairly recently, in an OT thread about nuclear war, one of our resident CFC posters said that if a nuclear war did occur, he would prefer total destruction of the entire human race over the survival of one side.

The person who said this will remain nameless. Not out of any desire of mine to protect him--personally I would out the loser if I could, it's just that I don't remember who posted it. But that's what he actually said. He found the idea of nuclear war so terrible that he could not countenance any solution that saved only some people from nuclear war. The options he found acceptable were either no nuclear war, or total annihilation.


There are a lot of screwed-up people in the world who have this "my way or the highway" mindset. For womens' activists, it's "one rape is too many". Advocates for the poor/homeless/hungry? Either solve the problem completely or you are a greedy selfish jerk.

So I find it entirely possible--some hippies out there probably do think destruction of the planet is preferable to a miserable existence in which the whole world is run by greedy capitalists, suits and ties are required at most jobs, and pot is illegal.


Boo friggin' hoo.

Edit: oh, and by the way--This is one of my favorite South Park episodes.

 

[Dubai Vol]

People like you hang on to small factoids like that fish stuff (that may or may not be true, and doesn't look like it)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html

C&P:

"From giant blue marlin to mighty bluefin tuna, and from tropical groupers to Antarctic cod, industrial fishing has scoured the global ocean. There is no blue frontier left," said lead author Ransom Myers, a fisheries biologist based at Dalhousie University in Canada. "Since 1950, with the onset of industrialized fisheries, we have rapidly reduced the resource base to less than 10 percent—not just in some areas, not just for some stocks, but for entire communities of these large fish species from the tropics to the poles."

I don't make stuff up, and I don't get my data from questionable sources.

And for the poster who has confused us, I'm the one with the farm and the firepower, tho it's only a potential farm as it's currently covered in mature oaks and maples, and will stay that way unless something stupid happens and I have to grow my own food. But I don't expect that. Lots of people are waiting for the "stuff" to hit the fan, but I expect merely a gradual decline in the living standard, and the real hardship to be among the poorest countries, as usual. Those of us with internet access will be affected, but mainly in the wallet, not the cookpot.

 

[jessiecat]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html

C&P:


I don't make stuff up, and I don't get my data from questionable sources.

And for the poster who has confused us, I'm the one with the farm and the firepower, tho it's only a potential farm as it's currently covered in mature oaks and maples, and will stay that way unless something stupid happens and I have to grow my own food. But I don't expect that. Lots of people are waiting for the "stuff" to hit the fan, but I expect merely a gradual decline in the living standard, and the real hardship to be among the poorest countries, as usual. Those of us with internet access will be affected, but mainly in the wallet, not the cookpot.

Ya, I got you mixed up with the other guy. Sorry 'bout that. And I agree
with your 'defend your farm" idea if it really does go belly up.
Hope it doesn't have to come to that in the end, though.
But there's little point of our pointing out things like fish stocks to him.
He doesn't care! Any more than he cares about cutting down forests
in his own country, as he admits. He doesn't even accept that global warming
is happening! Maybe he works for an oil company or something?

BTW Just read that article. Says it all really
You have oaks and maples in Dubai? Just kidding.

 

[luiz]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html

C&P:


I don't make stuff up, and I don't get my data from questionable sources.

The text is rather ambigous. It says that the reduction was not in some areas, but in entire communities? Does this mean that of all big fish in the world, only 10% is left? Not clear.

Anyway, my point was not that we still have plenty of big fish out there. My point was that you can't take one problem and make a global conclusion out of it. As I mentioned if you look close enough you will find all sorts of problems in all sorts of places - but if you look from a distance you will see that there is absolutely no evidence of food production declining globally. It is actually increasing.

This year food prices rose worldwide, but that was not caused by declining production but rather by increased protein intake of masses of chinese and indians who lived in poverty until very recently. As production rises to meet said demand, prices will stabilize.

Finally, when it comes to food, most of the concern I read from the world's leading economists is related to inflation, not actuall shortage. If indeed a global collapse was on it's way as some people in this thread have suggested, I'd expect the world's brightest minds to be paying some attention to said phenomena. But they aren't. Only random folks at the internet.

@jessiecat: you are beyond salvation. You should at least try to understand what I'm writing before making such claims. BTW I don't work for an oil company, but I gladly would if the money was good.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Apparantly, according to hippies, things are running dry. Even with the technological and economical advances it seems it not is enough to live sustainable. Also, almost no-one got an score under 1 earth. We are apparantly overpopulated, overusing and overspreading.

It's also said that we still have 15 years till Global warming is irreversable.

So the proper solution for some is just wipe off the face of earth of humans.

Apparantly humanity is standing against the wall.

So will the hippies pull the trigger?

Predicting something and warning against it does not mean you wish it to happen.

 

[jessiecat]

The text is rather ambigous. It says that the reduction was not in some areas, but in entire communities? Does this mean that of all big fish in the world, only 10% is left? Not clear.

Anyway, my point was not that we still have plenty of big fish out there. My point was that you can't take one problem and make a global conclusion out of it. As I mentioned if you look close enough you will find all sorts of problems in all sorts of places - but if you look from a distance you will see that there is absolutely no evidence of food production declining globally. It is actually increasing.

This year food prices rose worldwide, but that was not caused by declining production but rather by increased protein intake of masses of chinese and indians who lived in poverty until very recently. As production rises to meet said demand, prices will stabilize.

Finally, when it comes to food, most of the concern I read from the world's leading economists is related to inflation, not actuall shortage. If indeed a global collapse was on it's way as some people in this thread have suggested, I'd expect the world's brightest minds to be paying some attention to said phenomena. But they aren't. Only random folks at the internet.

@jessiecat: you are beyond salvation. You should at least try to understand what I'm writing before making such claims. BTW I don't work for an oil company, but I gladly would if the money was good.

Thankfully, I'm not looking for salvation, from you or anyone else. And
what you refer to as my "claims" are in fact your own words. You said you
doubted evidence that the decline of marine food resources was serious.
You said you didn't care about cutting down forests because other people
in Europe and America had done it first. And you doubted evidence that
pointed to the dangers of global warming. It's just your own words that
are coming back to haunt you. That's your problem.
As far as suggesting that you might work for an oil company, that was just
my little joke. But I do think you come across as someone paid to spout
some public relations line in defence of your own particular industry.

 

[luiz]

Thankfully, I'm not looking for salvation, from you or anyone else.

I meant intellectuall salvation, as in starting to make sense. But surely you don't value making sense that much.

And what you refer to as my "claims" are in fact your own words.

Actually, you have misinterpreted what I said grotesquely, and at some points in this thread even made out things about me. Like me owning a farm in a rainforest and other such nonsense. You may have confused me with someone else, which just goes to show that you have not been reading my posts with much attention and shouldn't draw that many conclusions.

You said you doubted evidence that the decline of marine food resources was serious.

No I didn't. I said I could not know if such claims were true or false, and they did not appear to be true given their bombastic nature. And more importantly, I said that some problem related to the decrease of some fish communities cannot be used to make a point about the global state of food production. Now certainly that's not too hard to understand.

You said you didn't care about cutting down forests because other people
in Europe and America had done it first.

Again, read before posting. I said that whatever consequences chopping down our forests have on other countries should not be taken into consideration as said other countries never took such impacts in consideration. I never said that I consider chopping down the rainforest a wise path of action.

And you doubted evidence that
pointed to the dangers of global warming.

No I didn't. I do have little patience with people who know nothing about climate making spectacularly false claims about GW, though. I don't recall this on this particular thread, though.

It's just your own words that
are coming back to haunt you. That's your problem.

More like your complete lack of interpretation skills coming back to haunt me.

As far as suggesting that you might work for an oil company, that was just
my little joke. But I do think you come across as someone paid to spout
some public relations line in defence of your own particular industry.

I won't even post what I think you come accross.

 

[jessiecat]

I meant intellectuall salvation, as in starting to make sense. But surely you don't value making sense that much.


Actually, you have misinterpreted what I said grotesquely, and at some points in this thread even made out things about me. Like me owning a farm in a rainforest and other such nonsense. You may have confused me with someone else, which just goes to show that you have not been reading my posts with much attention and shouldn't draw that many conclusions.


No I didn't. I said I could not know if such claims were true or false, and they did not appear to be true given their bombastic nature. And more importantly, I said that some problem related to the decrease of some fish communities cannot be used to make a point about the global state of food production. Now certainly that's not too hard to understand.


Again, read before posting. I said that whatever consequences chopping down our forests have on other countries should not be taken into consideration as said other countries never took such impacts in consideration. I never said that I consider chopping down the rainforest a wise path of action.


No I didn't. I do have little patience with people who know nothing about climate making spectacularly false claims about GW, though. I don't recall this on this particular thread, though.


More like your complete lack of interpretation skills coming back to haunt me.


I won't even post what I think you come accross.

I won't bother to comment on specific instances in which you have now
backtracked on the original language of your statements except to observe
that you may now regret the intolerance of your original words. It does
help sometimes to go back and reflect on what you've written, doesn't it?
As far as my mixing you up with another poster in one key respect, I believe
I have already apologised for this, if not to you personally. I am happy now
to apologise to you for doing this. Does this satisfy you?
I see no purpose in responding to your intemperate language or your personal
insults, but you may be interested to know that i entered into this thread
originally because I agreed with you in your main argument. Like you, I do
not believe there is a worldwide shortage of food production, nor do I
subscribe to Malthusian scaremongering over population growth. Where I
might disagree with you is in the means to distribute this food surplus to
where it is most needed. The problem in my view is political and is hampered
by our dependence on Western capitalist market strategies in inhibiting
maximum food distribution, thus making poverty endemic around the world.

 

[luiz]

I won't bother to comment on specific instances in which you have now
backtracked on the original language of your statements except to observe
that you may now regret the intolerance of your original words. It does
help sometimes to go back and reflect on what you've written, doesn't it?
As far as my mixing you up with another poster in one key respect, I believe
I have already apologised for this, if not to you personally. I am happy now
to apologise to you for doing this. Does this satisfy you?
I see no purpose in responding to your intemperate language or your personal
insults, but you may be interested to know that i entered into this thread
originally because I agreed with you in your main argument. Like you, I do
not believe there is a worldwide shortage of food production, nor do I
subscribe to Malthusian scaremongering over population growth. Where I
might disagree with you is in the means to distribute this food surplus to
where it is most needed. The problem in my view is political and is hampered
by our dependence on Western capitalist market strategies in inhibiting
maximum food distribution, thus making poverty endemic around the world.

Well I just want to point point out that I did not take any statement back, nor consider my words to be intolerant. I have said the same thing all over this thread, in what I consider to be a relatively clear language. I never said that I deny Global Warming, or that I think chopping down forests is good, or that there are no local problems wrt food production. In fact I stated repeatdly that there are all sorts of local problems, which can't individually be used to make a global point.

I'm glad that you agree with me that Malthusian scaremongering is wrong (and sometimes dangerous, not to mention that it sometimes has near racist connotations), but would like to clarify that in this thread I said nothing about how to distribute the existing food surplus; I only stated, repeatdly, that it exists, and that local food shortages are explained by economical limitations and not physical ones.

The Earth can provide for us all (and much more of us), and I don't see with good eyes those who think they have the right to tell people how many kids they can have based on their flawed conception of susteinability. It is ironical that liberals like me are considered selfish scum when there is nothing more shockingly selfish than imposing limits on child birth of poor countries to create more "living space" for the rest of us.

 

[Amin001]

We can let the governments of the world start killing us all and let them kill themselves last, because we can trust them to do so right?

lol

 

[BasketCase]

It is ironical that liberals like me are considered selfish scum when there is nothing more shockingly selfish than imposing limits on child birth of poor countries to create more "living space" for the rest of us.

To the contrary. The first and greatest beneficiary of birth control in a poor country is the poor country where it's practiced.

A lower population means less competition for living space and farmland. More food per person. Less trash and pollution. Less disease. And because some of these previously-listed things lead to warfare--fewer wars.

When population in a poor country goes down, all those benefits apply directly and immediately, IN the country where the population goes down.

The reason I support population control is nothing to do with me. Being an American, I'm almost totally immune to the damages caused by overpopulation. Population control in poor countries doesn't benefit me. It benefits THEM.