Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: goodsamaritan on March 01, 2012, 12:00:31 am
-
Bill Gates, Monsanto, and eugenics: How one of the world's wealthiest men is actively promoting a corporate takeover of global agriculture
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035105_Bill_Gates_Monsanto_eugenics.html#ixzz1nmrl4yHs (http://www.naturalnews.com/035105_Bill_Gates_Monsanto_eugenics.html#ixzz1nmrl4yHs)
-
he states here that vaccinations are a means to control population overgrowth at 29 seconds into the clip........ verbatim!
http://youtu.be/U_Gi6cf-jiI (http://youtu.be/U_Gi6cf-jiI)
-
This is a big issue, but the other side of it is whether or not we can actually support 7+ billion people on Earth while providing them with a healthy diet. Right now we support 7+ billion, but most are forced to eat a sub-standard diet that most of us would (and do) turn our noses up at.
-
I get the feeling that Gates is sincere in believing that he is doing the right thing.
He probably believes that "population overgrowth" would be a bad thing for the world.
Maybe he's not thinking enough about individual rights.
-
THis b*ll*cks is just a conspiracy theory of dubious means. I wish it were true. I mean, the birth-rate in the 3rd world is already far too high, and needs to be reduced by something like 95%. Otherwise endless species of wildlife will inevitably get wiped out.
-
Please explain to me why a medical doctor is interviewing Bill Gates about health issues????
I only know one person who was not vaccinated. He is very healthy and happy.
I'm assuming the comment Jessica is referring to was a slip?
-
THis b*ll*cks is just a conspiracy theory of dubious means. I wish it were true. I mean, the birth-rate in the 3rd world is already far too high, and needs to be reduced by something like 95%. Otherwise endless species of wildlife will inevitably get wiped out.
Tyler. This conspiracy theory IS true. And Bill openly talks about it. Bill gates believes in what you believe. And he has the money to do it. It's his passion.
(http://www.naturalnews.com/cartoons/Sperminator_600.jpg)
http://www.naturalnews.com/035059_Bill_Gates_depopulation_Sperminator.html (http://www.naturalnews.com/035059_Bill_Gates_depopulation_Sperminator.html)
Vaccination is his chosen method of delivery of depopulation.
I am personally opposed to myself being culled. So I rebel and protest and make babies every chance I get. And I'm teaching my babies to protest as well and make and make and make. Spread the genes. He can't eliminate all our progeny. We have the primal instinct to want to live.
-
And Bill openly talks about it.
where?
-
where?
Bill Gates' depopulation agenda is 100% true. This is a guy who openly admitted on stage in front of a live audience that if society does a "really great job" with vaccines and health care, we can "lower the population by perhaps 10 to 15 percent." Watch that video yourself right here:
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=A155D113455FAC882A3290536575C723 (http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=A155D113455FAC882A3290536575C723)
"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent!" (About 1 Billion People!)
Go to 2:40
-
THis b*ll*cks is just a conspiracy theory of dubious means. I wish it were true. I mean, the birth-rate in the 3rd world is already far too high, and needs to be reduced by something like 95%. Otherwise endless species of wildlife will inevitably get wiped out.
Don't forget that the population in industrialized nation use far far far more resources. I remember reading somewhere that one American birth in terms of carbon footprint is equivalent to 20-some births of an Indian.
-
Bill Gates' depopulation agenda is 100% true. This is a guy who openly admitted on stage in front of a live audience that if society does a "really great job" with vaccines and health care, we can "lower the population by perhaps 10 to 15 percent." Watch that video yourself right here:
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=A155D113455FAC882A3290536575C723 (http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=A155D113455FAC882A3290536575C723)
"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent!" (About 1 Billion People!)
Go to 2:40
We live on a finite planet, so population growth has to stop eventually, either with policy, war, or famine (or a combination of all three). If you read Daniel Quinn's work, one can find that population growth would stop if we stop increasing the supply of food every year. As food reaches a plateau, populations adjust and stop having as many children. Population growth is certainly one of the most controversial topics of today. It challenges the very foundations of Western culture -- that is to say the notions that humans are not animals and are above nature (rather than part of nature), that humans have complete dominion over the Earth, and that economic growth is necessary for a healthy economy and society.
-
So who is volunteering for your own bloodline's extermination?
-
So who is volunteering for your own bloodline's extermination?
I'm kind of with this sentiment.
Of course if you do the math, at the current rate of human reproduction in less than a million years there will be more humans than there are atoms in the universe.
But who cares? We should just let it play out. Nature has a way of balancing things out, and we are nowhere near that point yet.
I was driving through Nebraska not too long ago, and I can tell you that there is still plenty of space on this earth.
This fear we have of overpopulation just gives politicians and others who like to control people another point of leverage.
-
Don't forget that the population in industrialized nation use far far far more resources. I remember reading somewhere that one American birth in terms of carbon footprint is equivalent to 20-some births of an Indian.
True, except for the fact that 3rd world nations are all currently trying to emulate first-worlders in terms of consumption etc. I can only hope that when all Indians and all Chinese etc. are using the world's resources at the same pace as the Americans, that we will all run out of resources and have to face famine and other consequences. Quite frankly, I find it already far too overcrowded in Europe, as it is. Perhaps if we had Palaeolithic-era population-sizes, things would be better.
-
I'm okay with paleolithic era population size as long as they are composed of my descendants... :)
Just baring my paleo human desire to live.
Therefore I will be teaching my descendants to go the complete opposite of whatever that depopulation imperialist Bill Gates is saying.
- Yes to real sex.
- No to contraception. No to abortion.
- No to vaccinations.
- Yes to polygamy.
- Yes to early child bearing.
- Yes to natural organic foods, high fertility nutritious paleo foods.
-
Let's dissect what the depopulation imperialist is saying:
"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on
- new vaccines,
"Harmful drugs that cause death, misery, injury, weakness in children. Making them less healthy humans and less able to procreate. Vaccine theory is dogma that does not work. Never has. Statistics they trot out are doctored and cherry picked. It's big business to mandatory vaccinate everyone.
And they want to do it against your will.
And they have in the past, and at present and in the future lace these vaccines with contraceptive, abortive substances. They were caught in the Philippines and in India doing this."
- health care,
"Aka western medicine... disease promotion... disease diagnostics, allopathic stupid medicine... that always says we are close to getting at the cure for cancer. All the while killing millions while taking their money over their dead bodies.
All the while real healers, independent nobodies like me heal friends and family for FREE."
- reproductive health services,
"There is nothing reproductive in RH. This is 1984 doublespeak. They say one thing, they mean the complete opposite. RH is ANTI-REPRODUCTIVE. Calling anything reproductive as UNSAFE.
There is nothing that enhances HEALTH in any of their reproductive health laws or RH bills being filed in various countries worldwide.
All there is in reproductive health is merely CONTRACEPTION and ABORTION PROMOTION mandatory for everyone.
Those imperialistic FREAKS."
....we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent!" (About 1 Billion People!)
---------
In the eyes of Bill Gates, our forum, which teaches:
- True Health
- True Healing
- which results in ENHANCED FERTILITY
- is truly subversive.
Maybe we are in their "Terrorist Watch"... because we are TRUTH seekers.
- Holy crap, RPD women can easily give birth.
- Holy crap, women on RPD become pretty, sexy and fertile.
- Holy crap, men on RPD are cured of Erectile Dysfunction and have Extremely High Sex Drives and High Sperm Counts!
- Holy crap, men and women on RPD know, they know, they can see through the matrix of lies of the harm of contraceptives, ligation and abortion... freak... can't have that.
-
Haha this guy is amazing.
He wants to solve the planet's problem with CO2, which isn't even proven to be a problem in the first place. Scientists haven't figured out yet if the climate change is something human-caused (extra CO2 or whatever) or just something that's happening naturally, as it has happened countless times back in history. At some point in history the air had more than 10% of CO2! Now it's just 0.3% and everyone is going crazy about it.
-
Haha this guy is amazing.
He wants to solve the planet's problem with CO2, which isn't even proven to be a problem in the first place. Scientists haven't figured out yet if the climate change is something human-caused (extra CO2 or whatever) or just something that's happening naturally, as it has happened countless times back in history. At some point in history the air had more than 10% of CO2! Now it's just 0.3% and everyone is going crazy about it.
There is essentially a scientific consensus among climate change researchers that climate change is anthropogenic. Don't believe the media that there is "still a debate raging on." The debate is political, not scientific.
-
True, except for the fact that 3rd world nations are all currently trying to emulate first-worlders in terms of consumption etc. I can only hope that when all Indians and all Chinese etc. are using the world's resources at the same pace as the Americans, that we will all run out of resources and have to face famine and other consequences. Quite frankly, I find it already far too overcrowded in Europe, as it is. Perhaps if we had Palaeolithic-era population-sizes, things would be better.
True. Overpopulation is the nature of civilization. Permaculture to the rescue!
-
Haha this guy is amazing.
He wants to solve the planet's problem with CO2, which isn't even proven to be a problem in the first place. Scientists haven't figured out yet if the climate change is something human-caused (extra CO2 or whatever) or just something that's happening naturally, as it has happened countless times back in history. At some point in history the air had more than 10% of CO2! Now it's just 0.3% and everyone is going crazy about it.
Hey yeah, I agree with you on that observation that in very ancient times, the air had tons more CO2.
That is why our human lungs are made to actually inject / create more CO2 from the air we breath before it pumps the air into our blood. So says the BUTEYKO breathing technique.
-
True. Overpopulation is the nature of civilization. Permaculture to the rescue!
I'm disappointed we haven't been reaching for the stars yet.
Space exploration has stalled after Apollo moon missions halted.
The human race's exploration of space had suddenly stunted and we are focusing inward. Much like some ancient Chinese emperor who destroyed their ancient Chinese shipping exploration technology.
I used to watch Space 1999 on TV in the 1970s and we are NOWHERE there and it is 2012. We actually regressed.
-
That is why our human lungs are made to actually inject / create more CO2 from the air we breath before it pumps the air into our blood. So says the BUTEYKO breathing technique.
Yeah, Buteyko and a few others in the 70/80s were actually concerned that there's too little CO2 in the atmosphere, and that if we don't do something about it plants will eventually 'consume' it all :) So I say go on with the burning! It's all an easy way of getting extra money from the people if you ask me, by taxing CO2 wherever possible, cars, industry, etc, like CO2 is some poison.
Space exploration is VERY expensive. Right now Europe doesn't have enough money to send even a small robot on Mars.. USA isn't interested to join, and Rusia same I guess.. :-) For now it's much more rewarding to focus on exploring our own planet, and there's a lot going in this.
-
Please explain to me why a medical doctor is interviewing Bill Gates about health issues????
I only know one person who was not vaccinated. He is very healthy and happy.
I'm assuming the comment Jessica is referring to was a slip?
here is another example " "if we do a really great job on HEALTH CARE and NEW VACCINES we CAN LOWER THE POPULATION by 10-15%!"-bill gates 2:40
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=A155D113455FAC882A3290536575C723 (http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=A155D113455FAC882A3290536575C723)
-
Space Exploration is easily achievable. All one would have to do is ensure that every country worldwide contributed, say, at least 1/4 of a percent of its annual GDP towards spaceflight, with the money all being pooled towards the World's 1 Space Program. If this had been done 40 years ago, we would, by now, have reached Mars long ago.
-
The more human population, the merrier. Let's convert ALL the plants and animals into human flesh--let's shoot for 100 trillion or more humans--the more the merrier--and then cannibalize each other when human flesh is all that's left to eat. Cool! And let's do the same to every planet we can get our hands on. I call it progress, don't you? [Insert humor-challenged ad hominem responses and straw men here.]
-
The more human population, the merrier. Let's convert ALL the plants and animals into human flesh--let's shoot for 100 trillion or more humans--the more the merrier--and then cannibalize each other when human flesh is all that's left to eat. Cool! And let's do the same to every planet we can get our hands on. I call it progress, don't you? [Insert humor-challenged ad hominem responses and straw men here.]
Star Trek and Star Wars Phil, we will then progress enough to a level to meet aliens of similar or more advanced development.
It takes a lot of tender love and care to make and raise children.
Destruction as to what Bill Gates is promoting is easy.
Just see the steep decline in fertility rates that past 5 decades globally per country.
Depopulation is easy and quick.
Check out the graphs and figures first please.
-
Yup, let's shoot the population even higher. The more the better. Even the sky is not the limit. So Star Trek and Star Wars is progress and beyond even that is perhaps even better, some sort of hyper-progressive utopia, eh? Is there ever any end goal to it all, or just endless growth and expansion and wants and never achieving satisfaction?
-
Yup, let's shoot the population even higher. The more the better.
In 2012, this will not happen even if you shout to the top of your lungs.
The depopulation masters have already succeeded.
Most people these days are so afraid of their own sexuality.
They are literally frightened to death to touch a bare penis to a bare vagina thinking they will get:
- aids
- some STD
- or worse... a baby! Horrors!
(humans must be the most brainwashed of all animals now that many are afraid to reproduce)
So look, look at the population pyramid structures and graphs of declining fertility rates globally.
For most of the westernized contraceptive captured world, their bloodlines have zero future.
There are only a few who wake up to the reality of being human and they are persecuted and despised.
Sister Wives- Meet the Family Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=399e_xSgpCI#ws)
People like these will inherit the earth.
-
Don't worry, Muslims and others will probably make up for much of the deficit, and come to dominate the planet.
-
Don't worry, Muslims and others will probably make up for much of the deficit, and come to dominate the planet.
That's one of my theories too.
I named our 2nd son: Moses - Ishmael
If the Christians dominate, call him Moses.
If the Muslims dominate, call him Ishmael.
(in the meantime his nickname is MISH... my avatar)
Must survive, must survive, must survive... the depopulation masters' schemes.
-
Personally, I find the notion that the future could resemble anything like Star Wars or Star Trek to be absolutely revolting. A future based on Blake's 7, Babylon 5, or even Lexx(!) or Farscape, would be far more preferable. At least those TV shows are more honest about human nature, and less 2-dimensional than the other two.
-
Bill Gates is a brilliant software designer and technological pirate, but he has no idea about eco science and his "global warming due to overpopulation" theory is out right stupid.
I have a more positive view of human mass reproduction. I believe that with a larger population there will be more possibilities for our species to work together and progress toward a future where technology will make it possible to produce clean energy and develop sustainable ways of food production.
Perhaps one day we will even have a star trek style replicator that could turn energy into food or whatever we could dream up and then there would be no limit to where humanity could go or what they could do.
Overpopulation is a perverse concept invented by the monarchs of the middle ages, who wished to keep the peasant classes numbers to a manageable level. Todays rulers have the same control freak issues, about how the human population must be kept under control.
Regardless of the theoretical sustainability of the human race at its current growth curve or what the ultimate fate of humanity is projected to be, I don't think preventing "overpopulation" is the responsibility of people like Bill Gates to take on. Life will find its own way with or without humankind.
Being human myself and believing that our species is the ultimate expression of life on earth, I certainly hope we can survive this period of population increase without destroying the planets ecosystem or ourselves. But even if something catastrophic befalls us and there is a mass culling of the human population, then it may just be part of natures plan. If there are survivors , they will rise from the ashes to continue the process of evolving into higher beings just as our tiny mammalian ancestors had done during the time of the mass extinction 65 million years ago.
I am a skeptic that any ultimate good will come from the type of extreme interventionist measures people like Bill Gates is proposing,{ to cull the human race}. There are some really scary conspiracy's out there.
It seems that people like Bill Gates and the Monsanto overloads are wanting to play God with the processes of life and are working to high-jack humanity and severe its connection to the environment from which it came. They want to forgo the struggle for survival , that has made us who we are. You cant removing suffering and pain from life without seriously negative consequences. Its the struggle to survive and the life and death trials and errors of countless generations that is responsible for the evolution of human kind.
If given the power to do what they wished the eugenisist would cull of the majority of humans living today and then turn the remaining people of earth into serfs on a technological manner, and by doing so they will unwittingly disrupt the natural evolutionary process and cripple our capacity to evolve into higher beings.
It's rumored that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is funding secret laboratories in China that are conducting human engineering, and God knows what other kind of mad science they are working on. So perhaps they are already planning ahead, and they believe that human kind can be redesigned in order to endure such an unnatural life.
-
Bill Gates is doing the sensible thing. We need to reduce the overpopulation. It isn't just a question of numbers any more. We now have more and more people indulging in a profligate 1st world-style of living which can only lead to the destruction of the world's resources in time, as each human's ability to destroy his/her environment increases at a dramatic rate. I suspect that within a few centuries, if this goes on, our national parks will consist of just a half-dozen trees each, with all remaining animals in the world kept in zoos or as pets.
-
I guess its all about perspective.
I don't give a damn if there are any trees left when I am dead and gone.
I kind of like the Idea that I will have a million direct descendants, devouring the planets resources and enjoying life under the sun. People are too sentimental about the animals and the Forrest anyway. Life will persist one way or another, I care not for the outward appearance it takes. The life forms that we don't destroy will evolve to eventually take the place of the ones that have gone extinct, and a 100 million years from now whatever damage man has done would be completely erased by whatever new modes of life have risen up to cover our tracks
The type of people who are born in the future will be to busy with their I pads and whatnots too even bother visiting a nature reserves, or apreatiate the large game animals anyway.
-
I don't give a damn if there are any trees left when I am dead and gone.
That reminds me of a funny old guy I knew who said the same basically the same thing, and then said, "Fuck nature!" LOL He was a real pot-stirrer.
-
I wrote this blog post for my counterpart religious pro-lifers.
Atheists and Real Healers think Contraception Sucks
http://www.myhealthblog.org/2012/03/05/contraception-obama-2012-atheists-and-real-healers-think-contraception-sucks/ (http://www.myhealthblog.org/2012/03/05/contraception-obama-2012-atheists-and-real-healers-think-contraception-sucks/)
-
Check out "INFOWARS.COM" for more about New World Order Eugenics and Bill Gates!
-
- Yes to real sex.
- No to contraception. No to abortion.
- No to vaccinations.
- Yes to polygamy.
- Yes to early child bearing.
- Yes to natural organic foods, high fertility nutritious paleo foods.
I agree with the vaccination (it's mostly nonsense) and eating a proper diet.
But I cannot agree with early child bearing in an extremely complex society, nor can I agree with Polygamy.
And yes, "real sex" is wonderful, but Condoms are a very good thing if you don't want to pick up something nasty. :P
-
I wrote this blog post for my counterpart religious pro-lifers.
Atheists and Real Healers think Contraception Sucks
http://www.myhealthblog.org/2012/03/05/contraception-obama-2012-atheists-and-real-healers-think-contraception-sucks/ (http://www.myhealthblog.org/2012/03/05/contraception-obama-2012-atheists-and-real-healers-think-contraception-sucks/)
Do you not think that it's a little irresponsible to promote sexual intercourse without Condoms? Sure, I agree that Condoms "suck" in regards to the sensation vs skin-to-skin contact but I'd rather that then be infected by a sexual transmitted disease.
Also, my grand-parents also had large families but we must put that into context.
1. The economy was better in general.
2. The world population at the time was not even 2 billion.
3. Society was far less complex and you could get by with far less education and certification etc.
4. Spending per-child was far, far lower than today.
When it comes to contraception in general, after the baby boom, it's a good idea. We must face the facts, we do need a reduction in the global population and promoting contraception is a very soft, easy, way to do it.
Because when resources become scant, we're going to have more Wars.
The best way to peace is to have less children. In fact any country that claims to value peace and is not actively taking steps to reduce their population by education are liars.
Yes, we can eat like our ancestors did but, breed like them? That's out of the question.
-
In 2012, this will not happen even if you shout to the top of your lungs.
The depopulation masters have already succeeded.
Most people these days are so afraid of their own sexuality.
They are literally frightened to death to touch a bare penis to a bare vagina thinking they will get:
- aids
- some STD
- or worse... a baby! Horrors!
(humans must be the most brainwashed of all animals now that many are afraid to reproduce)
So look, look at the population pyramid structures and graphs of declining fertility rates globally.
For most of the westernized contraceptive captured world, their bloodlines have zero future.
There are only a few who wake up to the reality of being human and they are persecuted and despised.
Sister Wives- Meet the Family Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=399e_xSgpCI#ws)
People like these will inherit the earth.
Humans all descend from the same Blood-line on their Mother's side since Mitochondrial Eve. So, as long as one Woman in the world has a child your 'blood-line' has been passed on.
"People like these will inherit the earth. " --- If there is anything left to inherit.
If that man loves children so much, then why not adopt and have maybe 1 of his own?
-
Bill Gates is doing the sensible thing. We need to reduce the overpopulation. It isn't just a question of numbers any more. We now have more and more people indulging in a profligate 1st world-style of living which can only lead to the destruction of the world's resources in time, as each human's ability to destroy his/her environment increases at a dramatic rate. I suspect that within a few centuries, if this goes on, our national parks will consist of just a half-dozen trees each, with all remaining animals in the world kept in zoos or as pets.
Very well said.
-
I didn't have a child to save the world. I had her because I loved and wanted her. I didn't have sex or not out of fear. I fell in love. I believe that love would have been the driving force for my paleo ancestors too. I don't think they were prudish. But promiscusity may be more lack of free will and self esteem. So, assuming with physical health they also had integrity, they may have been capable of much deeper, loving connected relationships.
Raising a child well is a huge commitment. I suspect women knew of herbs to prevent pregnancy and abort. I suspect this could even occur with mental/spiritual focus in times of need. I further suspect that primitive man was capible of mental telepathy and rapid physiological adaption. So, limiting reproductivity is not a stretch.
I don't think it is really a numbers game where the winners have the most partners or offspring. If your talking about a person, couple, family, band, or world the winners are the ones who feel loved.
I am well loved it came through commitment to my self. When I look around me near and far I see pleanty of procreation and hardly any love. That what we all need. That's what the world needs. Without it, we suffer, eat junk, hate, fight, kill and die.
Did Bill Mention that?
Have sex and children, when it is the most loving thing your heart desires. That's my advise, I think it holds true from the beginning till the end.
-
When it comes to contraception in general, after the baby boom, it's a good idea. We must face the facts, we do need a reduction in the global population and promoting contraception is a very soft, easy, way to do it.
Because when resources become scant, we're going to have more Wars.
The best way to peace is to have less children. In fact any country that claims to value peace and is not actively taking steps to reduce their population by education are liars.
Yes, we can eat like our ancestors did but, breed like them? That's out of the question.
This is pure hyberbol.
The numerical upper limit of a sustainabile human population is unknown. It is totally dependent on circumstances beyond anyone's ability to foretell.
Who is to say that devices will not be invented that could create unlimited clean energy. New methods of food production could easily keep growing populations well fed, if the technology was applied properly.
Where there is a will there is a way.
Who is bill Gates to decide what is and isn't sustainable?
Our human species is 7 billion strong and with the ability of technology to connect us to each other I am sure we can work on solutions to better use and manage the worlds resources that don't involve mass extermination through War, Sterilization, and soft kill eugeniside.
There have been malthusian types since the dark ages hyping the nonsensical idea of overpopulation. Their ideas are just as idiotic today as they were back then.
-
This is pure hyberbol.
The numerical upper limit of a sustainabile human population is unknown. It is totally dependent on circumstances beyond anyone's ability to foretell.
Who is to say that devices will not be invented that could create unlimited clean energy. New methods of food production could easily keep growing populations well fed, if the technology was applied properly.
Where there is a will there is a way.
Who is bill Gates to decide what is and isn't sustainable?
Our human species is 7 billion strong and with the ability of technology to connect us to each other I am sure we can work on solutions to better use and manage the worlds resources that don't involve mass extermination through War, Sterilization, and soft kill eugeniside.
There have been malthusian types since the dark ages hyping the nonsensical idea of overpopulation. Their ideas are just as idiotic today as they were back then.
You are kidding right? We don't know the limit? Have you looked at the state of the planet lately? I know we live in a nice place with lots of food and clean water, but we're very lucky! Most of the people on this planet live terrible lives and a lot of them are already starving. We make war to sustain this level of existence for ourselves; stealing as it were.
So, we're already beyond the optimum population level in my opinion. As for technology, it will probably come someday but that's no reason to increase the suffering now. For example, a lot of the diseases that we fear now will probably have a cure in the future or even tomorrow afternoon, but, that said.. I'm sure that you're not going to take up smoking, heavy drinking and sex with HIV-Positive persons, are you? Of course you're not because that would be an extremely foolish risk.
Right, now who is Bill Gates to decide? Well to be honest no one. He has no background in any of this stuff, but, with his money and influence he has connections to experts who do have the background and knowledge. Heads of state included. I should think that they know a thing or two about the global realities we face.
Who said anything about Eugenics, Sterilization? Birth control is working well enough.
As for War, war is the inevitable consequence of overpopulation. There are only so many resources and War comes when those resources become scarce or more valuable. Sort of like Oil.
-
I am not kidding, I hold firm to what I have said throughout this thread, and I will stand my ground.
Nothing you said shows any proof of your position.
Yes, there is a global inequity and colossal waste and destruction of resources. Subjects of the first world are stealing their quality of life from the pale and down trodden of third and second world. People are forced to live in terrible situations, but it doesn't have to be that way, and saying its a problem cause by overpopulation people is absurd.
The earths resources are far from being tapped out. Artificial scarcity and suppressed technology have made people fear full of the future and slaves of the energy cartels that lord over the of life. Truth be known if the technology wasn't being suppressed then there would ways of producing clean energy without the need for oil, as well as new methods of producing renewable food sources of high quality.
Overpopulation in urban impoverished communities is dreadful and its problems are real, but those problems are not the result of total global overpopulation.
There were similar problems in Dickensian London, which was in reality were caused by conditions of overcrowding, poor sanitation and malnutrition: it was not an issue of too many people. There are certain areas of the world that are overcrowded and the resources mismanaged. Places like mexico city where there are too many people in a confined area without the proper resources to care for them all. This by no way has anything to do with global overpopulation.
Its about ones own vision, and perspective as I had said before. The view of the overpopulation theist is full of fear and disgust for the future of man. Much of their fears are unfounded and stem from a misunderstanding of the root causes of human suffering today. They have no faith in the power of the human spirit to overcome the problems created by such a large population increase on its own.
We are in the middle of the possible genesis of of a bright new age and yet there are those who like Malthus claim that the future of the world would be better off without us. I see things in a different light and would like to share it with all who are open to it.
Please consider an alternative view of new manifest destiny for humanity. I am introducing a compromise that will appease both sides of the issue.
First of all overpopulation is not our problem, and those who carry its cross are misguided. Humanity has come into a phase of full bloom, our technology is being refined to higher and higher levels, while human brain power is beginning to be harnessed in ways that were never possible before. The more humans alive, free and able to participate in this information age the better our chances will be of devising practical solutions to the problems of population growth, as it happens.
Time is on our side. If enough people wake up and realize that even as things are right now, we could still grow the population to somewhere over 50 billion people over the next several generations, as long as technology is unleashed by the world controllers and the proper accommodations are made. Thats another 500 years or so time for humans to learn to cooperate on a global level, and develop technology to an ever higher apex. Just think of the freaking potential of 50 billion human minds that are free to think as they please and are linked together by high tech communications. Its unimaginable what could be accomplished by such a collaboration of brain power and technology if properly guided.
If only Bill Gates would play the role of the Good Shepard and engage in such positive endeavors?
Then perhaps by the year 600 After Ford as predicted by Aldous Huxley the technology may become available that would make it possible for people to live without the want or need to have children or raise families. The methods of providing surrogate activities will be advanced enough to satisfy all the human needs and the people will willingly give up their right to breed in order to live in the brave new world. Those who refuse to assimilate may even have the option of living on a savage reservation.
Eventually if humans can survive until we reach that level of advancement then perhaps a free society more in line with what Gene Roddenberry had envisioned will emerge. I just don't see that kind of positive future being envisioned by the population control crowd.
In conclusion. The problems are not so black and white, neither are the solutions, but if anything we must be liberated from narrow thinking of the Malthusians. Whatever the endgame is, I am not comforted by the prospects of people like Bill Gates and organizations Monsanto Controlling what goes into our bodies. No matter what their intentions are people who preach population reduction are not to be trusted.
-
Well, Sabertooth has only said one thing that I agree with, namely that Aldous Huxley's Brave New World would be a lovely, futuristic society to be in. SB hasn't obviously read the book, though, as the society involved has eugenics and sterilisation featured heavily in it.
SB is also overly optimistic about the effects of technology. People are often negatively affected by modern technology - look at all those modern mines which have stripped entire countryside landscapes rendering them ugly as hell. Then there are all those examples of cyanide from gold mines being washed into rivers by accident, every so often(the Romania/Danube example was one of the worst, as I recall). There is a whole class of people in Japan, the "Hikikomori" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori) who have been negatively affected by changing technology/modern social systems.
Plus, advancing technology has led to more people surviving who would have either died out due to some form of natural selection or been less likely to reproduce , as in past centuries. Plus, intelligent people are having far fewer children, no doubt due to the advent of the welfare state favouring the less intelligent, among many other factors:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics)
After the advent of modern medicine, the rate of genetically-inherited health-problems such as heart-defects or cystic fibrosis or haemophilia etc. has risen every single generation thereafter. It wouldn't surprise me if in a few thousand years, virtually all humans end up in societies much like that film "Idiocracy", as a result. Eventually, such a society would become more like EM Forster's novella "The Machine Stops" and such societies would in the end be wholly replaced by primitive HGs without access to technology.
Simply put, technology is only useful if it is properly applied. Advancing technology makes it easier for people to improve their condition as well as to foul things up even more than before.
As for Gene Roddenberry's so-called "vision", I can't imagine a more horrifying dystopia. Never mind, that Star Trek creators had the mindless arrogance to assume that virtually all aliens would just look like humans but just with some pointy ears or odd-shaped bulges on their skulls, but they also had the notion, in almost all episodes, that humans were, as a whole, somehow "morally" superior/more intelligent etc. than most aliens, with the humans usually winning against the aliens in most episodes, which is an unlikely scenario. Star Wreck also tried to peddle Roddenberry's Liberal views, and "naturally" l) assumed that all aliens would somehow benefit from having such views as well. Never mind the fact that a truly alien, non-human society would likely neither understand nor even benefit from such a limited Terran viewpoint, let alone any other human political viewpoints.
Even worse, it's clear from Star Wreck's b*ll re "Eugenics Wars" in its fictional history etc. that it is wholly anti-transhuman/anti-posthuman in its beliefs. Which is ridiculous, because one can safely assume that, in order to be able to have a genuine spacefaring culture, one would also need to improve human beings via genetic engineering/cyborganisation etc. so that they could fully compete in such a futuristic society.
I far prefer Blake's 7 which had poorer special effects than Star Wreck, but which was far more realistic about human society and human failings. Babylon 5 was also good in that it sometimes featured powerful and credible non-human aliens in its episodes, although he made the character of Sheridan into a holy Messiah-figure which was ridiculous, among other flaws. Of course, the twisted people at Star Wreck ripped off most of their ideas for DS9 from Babylon 5, and then promptly ruined the story of DS9 anyway, despite their crime. Straczynski should have sued them for billions.
-
I think the aliens in star trek were more like caricatures that embody the differences between types of human beings. The Vulcan, romulans, klingons, ect. embodied different attributes of humanity. They are representations of the more alien attributes of man, anthropomorphed into alien characters. To learn to live with beings of such diversity is a noble , but difficult task.
If the Malthusians get their way they will destroy all this diversity and the good bad and ugliness that it engenders, in order to create a perfect homo-genius society of borg. Which is a far more dystopic than what I optimistically envision.
Bill Gates of Borg "You will be assimilated". Good God, I hope not.
Huxley revised his vision and created a better world in his book Island, where people were capable of limiting the negative impacts of technology in order to create a well balanced and sustainable society.
Are you saying that technology is such an uncontrollable force that a world of 50 billion people may not be able to reign it in?
You may be right, but I still say if enough people share my dreams we can make it real.
-
Share the dreams of not giving a fuck about the forest? Fat chance bruva! You realize the trees can feel your energy right? They know how you feel about them(not anthropomorphically but through energy), and incidentally so does the rest of the universe, probably not pleasing to them. Your lack of empathy is going to inhibit that evolution and awareness you're so fond of.
-
...if enough people share my dreams we can make it real.
If enough people share your delusions...er...dreams, we'll end up in an even faster downward spiral than we're already in. You should apply to be the CEO of an oil company Sabertooth, or go work at the World Bank and rape less developed countries for their resources. You'd fit right in.
-
I'm saying that the vast majority of human beings are mindless retards who will help destroy the rest of us as well if we don't control technology in a way that is useful to Mankind and the rest of the Earth's species. Even worse, mobs/crowds of people usually are far less intelligent, on the whole, than many human individuals. That is why I prefer a technologically-advanced individualist-anarchist society where technology is so supreme, that individuals can grow their own food in hydroponic tanks or small fields(even perhaps raw wild game), where everyone has their own microfusion reactor for their own energy needs etc., and can control technology in whatever way they wish so that no one need be dependent on the State or companies etc. and so that organisations wither away to nothing. Such a society would inevitably result in the eventual extinction of the more worthless elements of society since the latter would inevitably end up wasting their lives in virtual reality worlds or getting drugged on substances like Soma(of Brave New World fame) while the wiser ones would go in for genetically-engineering their offspring etc. and thus enhancing their own survival.
The aliens in Star Trek were extremely bad, one-dimensional caricatures of certain human societies. The Federation was supposed to represent the United States, the Klingons were supposed to represent the Russians, while the Romulans were supposed to represent the Chinese. Needless to say, none of those 3 were remotely accurate representations of those Earth cultures. Star Wreck was, at most times, painful to watch with me constantly wishing that the aliens in those episodes would put down those worthless, overly sanctimonious human Federationists. Indeed, I only watched that show in those days because there was no other SF series on TV easily watchable during my free time. As regards "diversity", you again missed the point. The whole thesis of Star Cr*p, in most episodes, was that the aliens should accept that the humans were right and that the aliens were wrong. No diversity of opinion, there at all. Indeed, it is implied, often, that the human-led Federation will always defeat the aliens in the end, due to some supposed mythical human superiority. Even in the case of non-human aliens in the Federation, these are routinely portrayed as being decadent/degenerate and highly flawed(such as the Vulcans who are routinely shown as being emotionally-handicapped). So there is no real diversity in Star Wreck, just a humanocentrist argument of no validity. A genuine "diversity" claim can be made, to a limited extent, as regards Babylon 5 and Lexx, among a very few other SF shows which (sometimes)dare to show aliens as being truly alien. What I would like to see is an SF TV show with a genuine, non-human-looking alien as a protagonist. I wonder if they will ever turn "Shakara" , the SF comic-book story/hero from 2000AD into a TV show? That would be cool. I always remember the first few pages of that amazing story which involved the wholesale destruction of Planet Earth, thus allowing a more original story to happen from then on, which featured no human beings in it at all.
-
Holy fuck, I can not believe the things I'm reading here. Glad you're honest, the ugly truth is better than lies, but seriously, now I get why there's so much conflict here.
-
Holy fuck, I can not believe the things I'm reading here.
Neither can I.
I had a much longer response typed up but I'll wait until I've got over 1000 posts before I make some serious enemies. There are some here who think like my dad -- he sincerely believes that taking as much nylon shit as you can afford into the woods will keep you alive indefinitely, and I'm not joking.
-
Share the dreams of not giving a fuck about the forest? Fat chance bruva! You realize the trees can feel your energy right? They know how you feel about them(not anthropomorphically but through energy), and incidentally so does the rest of the universe, probably not pleasing to them. Your lack of empathy is going to inhibit that evolution and awareness you're so fond of.
You know nothing of my feelings. I am more in tune with the earths energy than you think. The problem is a lack in my ability to express these Ideas without being misunderstood or labeled delusional. Its not that I am so heartless and diconnected as to not care for the fate of our trees. I love the trees. I am just trying to be realistic. On a long enough timeline the survival rate of any given species falls to zero. If the trees are threatened with extinction by the activities of man, so what, new life will spring up to take place of the void left by the death of the forrest. Nothing is lost in extinction, life will go on, so there is no need to worry, the tree spirit will live on in us primates, whose hands evolved for gripping their trunks, and whose agility and dexterity were perfected while harbored by its shelter. We will miss you mighty forest trees, you served us well .
Reality check
Life isn't pretty and is inherently full of pain and suffering. All Life, not just human life. Every creature plant or animal will suffer pain within its life cycle, and die. Its ignorant to think you can somehow devise some scientific method of routing out the negative aspects of life without upsetting the natural order.
Life is pain, if anyone tells you otherwise they are selling something.
I am with you Tyler all about the ignorance of the masses being man kinds eventual downfall. Its just that I don't trust any authority with the power to do something about it. Any such authority would most likely not be able to differentiate you or I from the mindless mob. The best attributes of man could be thrown out with the riffraff.
We are not at the point of the planet of the apes yet, there is still time for people to work on building a technologically-advanced individualist-anarchist society. The time is now.
We must do something, if we don't the people of the world will soon be forced to eat only GMOs, and within three generations the damage will be irreversible.
It seems that we are being set up for a self fulfilling prophecy , where the people will be made so sick and retarded by the ignorant practices of today, that the only humane thing to do in the future is to wipe out the suffering people though eugenics.
-
Everything is lost in extinction as it is highly unlikely that the same species will arise again. Plus, it takes billions of years for new complex organisms to evolve from simple bacteria.
I'm not all that much of a fan of standard eugenics. I believe more in natural selection(ie "uncontrolled eugenics"). In other words, if there were no regulations and no authority, then those interested in their own survival would be able to go in for genetic engineering, cloning, private space-travel etc. all of the things needed for survival. The rest of humanity would undoubtedly stagnate and become extinct.
Sadly, corrupt authorities these days like to ban any kind of individual initiative. of that sort.
-
You know nothing of my feelings. I am more in tune with the earths energy than you think. The problem is a lack in my ability to express these Ideas without being misunderstood or labeled delusional. Its not that I am so heartless and diconnected as to not care for the fate of our trees. I love the trees. I am just trying to be realistic. On a long enough timeline the survival rate of any given species falls to zero. If the trees are threatened with extinction by the activities of man, so what, new life will spring up to take place of the void left by the death of the forrest. Nothing is lost in extinction, life will go on, so there is no need to worry, the tree spirit will live on in us primates, whose hands evolved for gripping their trunks, and whose agility and dexterity were perfected while harbored by its shelter. We will miss you mighty forest trees, you served us well .
So the first part makes the last part ok, then?
Exactly what are you saying in all this, boiled down to two sentences, so us kindergartners can understand it?
I'm curious, because:
Its not that I am so heartless and diconnected as to not care for the fate of our trees.
and
If the trees are threatened with extinction by the activities of man, so what...
... are mutually exclusive attitudes.
-
Neither can I.
I had a much longer response typed up but I'll wait until I've got over 1000 posts before I make some serious enemies. There are some here who think like my dad -- he sincerely believes that taking as much nylon shit as you can afford into the woods will keep you alive indefinitely, and I'm not joking.
Hmm, if it was my posts you were concerned about, then you needn't worry. GMs on rawpaleoforum as a whole don't like to ban and we need a concensus of GMs to do so, unless the offender is a spammer or a very obvious troll. Indeed, it took me months before I was able to temporarily ban a particular former member and that only happened because he kept on condemning "carb-eaters" as evil and repeatedly promoting cooked foods like pemmican on the site.While religion/politics probably need to be more superficially tackled(I am not a good example as regards that), I would think that Science is an open subject which can be discussed freely, indeed even vehemently.
Though, I'm not quite sure how my past couple of posts caused offence unless a) some people here are devout Trekkies who speak Klingon fluently etc. :o or b) they are Unabomber-types who insist on the government controlling or stopping all technological advances supposedly "for the greater good of Mankind".
Re" nylon shit":- What on earth is that? is this some vague reference to Survivalism? I actually rather admire that concept, but anyway...
-
This kind of stuff!!!
Everything is lost in extinction as it is highly unlikely that the same species will arise again. Plus, it takes billions of years for new complex organisms to evolve from simple bacteria.
I'm not all that much of a fan of standard eugenics. I believe more in natural selection(ie "uncontrolled eugenics"). In other words, if there were no regulations and no authority, then those interested in their own survival would be able to go in for genetic engineering, cloning, private space-travel etc. all of the things needed for survival. The rest of humanity would undoubtedly stagnate and become extinct.
Sadly, corrupt authorities these days like to ban any kind of individual initiative. of that sort.
And this kind of stuff are fuhreaking me out, not offending me.
That is why I prefer a technologically-advanced individualist-anarchist society where technology is so supreme, that individuals can grow their own food in hydroponic tanks or small fields(even perhaps raw wild game), where everyone has their own microfusion reactor for their own energy needs etc., and can control technology in whatever way they wish so that no one need be dependent on the State or companies etc. and so that organisations wither away to nothing. Such a society would inevitably result in the eventual extinction of the more worthless elements of society since the latter would inevitably end up wasting their lives in virtual reality worlds or getting drugged on substances like Soma(of Brave New World fame) while the wiser ones would go in for genetically-engineering their offspring etc. and thus enhancing their own survival.
Lol, you don't want GM foods, but you want to GM yourself? That sounds pretty zany to me!
-
What is up with all the misanthropes who value foliage over human life? Whats wrong with murdering trees so long as it provides us with cheap cardboard? I am not conflicted over the issue, I just reconize the duality involved enough to realize we cant have our way of lavish lifestile and support a large population of humans without a little distruction of the environment.
Since I value human life and in particular the human soul as the highest attainment and expression of the divinity of life, on this third rock from the sun. I think it justified in order to preserve the body of humanity that we do whatever it takes to step through the next stage of our development. If that means the trees have to die then so be it.
(Oh I yeah, I am being a bit fascist when I talk about the extinction of the trees." Save the forest" seem to be a battle call of the environmentalist. They preach that one day all the forest will be gone and the only trees that are left will be in a botanical zoo) I think the idea is hilarious, forgive my insensitivity on the issue.
I often feel like a Oskar Schindler, who looks out on the earths resources and thinks if only we could level this rain forest to make room for cattle pasture then we could save a few more humans.
-
I have no plans on becoming a cannibal so the notion of me or other humans genetically modifying themselves isn't abhorrent to me as it does not clash with the notion of avoiding eating GM foods. Genetic engineering of humans is merely a more radical version of the "self-improvement " philosophy. I really don't see anything wrong with changing a human embryo's DNA so that it can see in the infra-red or have electronic vision like a shark. Or indeed in changing an adult's DNA/eyeballs etc., for that matter. For the Philistines/non-transhumanists among us, I suggest you watch the following clips to see what I mean:-
2001 A Space Odyssey - ending (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXS8P0HksQo#noexternalembed-ws)
Blade Runner - time to die (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOW4QiOD-oc#ws)
Re my comment:- "Everything is lost in extinction as it is highly unlikely that the same species will arise again. Plus, it takes billions of years for new complex organisms to evolve from simple bacteria." Well, that is self-evident, to put it bluntly. It does indeed take billions of years for complex organismsl like mammals etc. to arise from mere bacteria. And since every species' evolutionary steps are unique, it is extraordinarily unlikely that the same DNA of that same species gets reinvented all over again. Even worse, since the Earth took billions of years to create a sentient species(Man), no 2nd sentient species could be formed before all life on Earth dies anyway within 300 million to 1 billion years' time(depending on the scientists' estimates).
Re technology:- I see nothing wrong with placing all technology into the hands of individuals, rather than the State. Either we state, like the Unabomber, that all technology is dangerous and stay in a stagnant society(stagnation cannot last forever, so, inevitably, the civilisation eventually degenerates backward in the long run), or we should embrace the whole meaning of being human, which is to constantly transcend our limits without being forced to toe the line by a Nanny-State. Now, granted, there are a lot of people who would, for example, rather waste their money on food-stamps or on foreign aid to dictators in the 3rd world rather than spend it on space-travel or something equally useful, but those are the very people who would not survive in a rapidly-advancing technological society. Unlike some transhumanists, I am not necessarily suggesting that the "have-nots" in such a society would be forced to go to war with the "haves", I am merely stating that the "have-nots" would inevitably become irrelevant in any futuristic society.
-
Since I value human life and in particular the human soul as the highest attainment and expression of the divinity of life, on this third rock from the sun. I think it justified in order to preserve the body of humanity that we do whatever it takes to step through the next stage of our development. If that means the trees have to die then so be it.
As I pointed out before, value is, to a large extent, determined by scarcity. So the fact that there are 6.94 billions of humans on this overcrowded planet means that human life has almost no value whatsoever. Very, very few of those humans could be said to actually contribute anything of value such as scientific endeavours or whatever. As regards the "soul", there is no proof whatsoever that a soul exists. For all we know, the only beings that can have genuine souls are "Strong Artificial Intelligences". And there is no need for us to kill off trees in order to advance technologically. After all, a more advanced society would not need trees for wood or whatever as it would have new, more flexible materials/alloys etc. which could replace wooden tables/chairs, or would have enhanced solar panels rather than using wood for fire.
-
Saber, I'm not talking about hugging trees. I'm talking about a deep love and respect for all life, and the part each plays in the web, why can't there be a future for all life? You are completely without empathy when you express a desire for your descendents and species to live long in to the future, while not giving a good fuck if any other species do, duh.
Ty, I don't think there should even be a 'government' so no argument there. But it's pretty silly to advocate fucking with your genes when you won't eat a salmon that's had its genes fucked with, and not sure why you think that involves cannibalism.
-
Ahh, Im pretty sure that a living tree is ten thousand times more important than cardboard.... Bulldoze the rainforest for pasture? what the hell? are you serious?
and if you dont care about how rainforest's are a necessary piece of natures function, then at least there are people who live in the rainforest with the new model HUMAN SOUL in them, and you want to bulldoze their homes to make some pasture so that your family in another country can eat steak?
I thought as you developed your soul, you gained things like love and compassion, not lost them...
-
Ty, I don't think there should even be a 'government' so no argument there. But it's pretty silly to advocate fucking with your genes when you won't eat a salmon that's had its genes fucked with, and not sure why you think that involves cannibalism.
You're missing the point. I am not against GM foods for religious reasons. I am only against GM foods because they might affect my digestion in a negative way so if humans are genetically-altered and animals/plants aren't, that's fine with me. Now, granted, some genetically-modified humans might end up with severe health-problems as a result of faulty technology, here and there, but that's just natural selection at work. Those whose GM-techniques ended up in benefitting them more overall, would be the ones that survived. One thing's for sure, no "ordinary" human could possibly ever compete against a GM-ed human with a dozen extra senses, enhanced intelligence/strength etc. The ordinary humans would be destined for a life in the slums in perpetuity.
-
Tyler ,
There is no holding on to one form of life, everything living is riding a wave of perpetual mutilation there is no getting back what is lost, but as long as the chain of life persist then new forms will arise that be more suited to survival in the ever changing terrestrial environment. Regardless of if man or nature is responsible for the destruction of a habitat, life will persists. It may not be the form of life that is fancied by the vista gazing tree huggers, but it will be life just as valuable and precious as any.
It took the mass annihilation of 65 million years ago to clear the way for the evolution of the higher mammals. It seems that the catastrophic event jump started an evolutionary quickening that quickly changed little bug eating tree weasels into the creatures we are today. Life if left to its own disign will rise to whatever challenge is presented by the forces of nature(as long as the conditions for life are still intact)
I am an advocate of leaving the DNA molecule unmolested by scientific intervention. Let the human population degenerate and decline of its own accord, those who survive will pass on the traits necessary for survival, and if none survive then the earth will be clear for the genesis of a more worthy master. So what if it takes another 65 million years for the ground moles to evolve into sentient beings. Time is of no importance only life has value.
Now if perhaps we do develop (or are given by aliens) the technology to create the 5th element type of supreme being, then I may change my tune. I am just skeptical that the earth scientist of today will reach that level of craft before they begin their experiments with human engineering. The potential for monstrosity during the experimental phases is what I am warning against.
In regards to the inate value of human life.
Humans are born with a blank slate, the potentials are limitless. Individual worth should not be measured in relation to the other 7 billion people already living. My life has value regardless of how worthless the misanthropes believe I am. If people would quit being so negative and misanthropic about having to share this world with each other, and actually try to learn how to lift up our brothers and sisters, then our world would be a lot better place.
Defaming the character of your fellow man, and claiming that there is no such thing as a human soul, and the individual human life has no value, is a cynical attitude. Even if it could be proven as true, I would still choose to believe otherwise. There are alot of things that are not tangible or effable, that doesn't mean that they are not real or valuable.
-
You're missing the point. I am not against GM foods for religious reasons. I am only against GM foods because they might affect my digestion in a negative way so if humans are genetically-altered and animals/plants aren't, that's fine with me. Now, granted, some genetically-modified humans might end up with severe health-problems as a result of faulty technology, here and there, but that's just natural selection at work. Those whose GM-techniques ended up in benefitting them more overall, would be the ones that survived. One thing's for sure, no "ordinary" human could possibly ever compete against a GM-ed human with a dozen extra senses, enhanced intelligence/strength etc. The ordinary humans would be destined for a life in the slums in perpetuity.
I'm not missing the point at all, I assumed that was your angle, though I'm not sure why you brought in religion, since that is not what has me against GM either.
But I guess I should back peddle a little bit. I have been against GE because it usually it involves putting some poison gene in to the plant that you're going to eat, OR it allows farmers to douse their fields (and my soil, water and air supply!!) with the worst kinds of poisons possible. But there is also my desire for purity, I don't want to be wondering whether some food I find growing in the woods is contaminated with modified genes. This can extend to us too, because microbes will be feeding on us, meaning that they will be eating GM foods. This is where empathy comes in.
I'm not saying someone can't willingly GE themselves, as I've said in the past, all things permissible to do, but that doesn't make them good or healthy. Also, it's not very nice to GM a new being without its permission, which is what your embryo scenario would entail.
If you want to GE yourself, great, I remember wanting more than anything to be a werewolf (with sentience and consciousness) when I was in elementary school. I remember vividly kneeling on the floor in the library area, reading a book about werewolves. I was super excited because there was a section labeled 'How to become a werewolf' but to my uber-religious (I was Mr. Baptist Fundamentalist Church Boy as a child) dismay, it claimed I had to make a pact with 'satan' for that to happen, there went my dreams of being a juvenile werewolf! And maybe yet today I would succumb to the temptation of retrofitting my genes to develop wings, or claws or flesh-tearing, bone crushing jaws. But then again, might not be worth the price (think frankenstein here)
The other reason is my lack of faith in technology. I see no benefit in antibiotics. I see no benefit in pharmaceuticals. No benefits in modern housing. Little to no benefits in any of modern medicine (not even physical trauma and surgery for the most part, see: Mutant Message Down Under). There is very little technology that I find truly useful in the grand scheme of things. The internet, yes, my smart phone, yes, media players, yes, transportation, yes.
But by and large, the ends put to our technology have not been beneficial. They have only enabled us to manhandle nature, pollute her and ourselves, cause countless extinctions of species and so much other sadness.
-
Re" nylon shit":- What on earth is that? is this some vague reference to Survivalism? I actually rather admire that concept, but anyway...
"nylon shit" is a survivalist thing. Survivalism is one thing, but thinking that your survival depends not on what you know about your environs but on how much crap you can fit into a backpack is quite another. Nothing worth admiring.
I didn't think it was all that vague.
What is up with all the misanthropes who value foliage over human life? Whats wrong with murdering trees so long as it provides us with cheap cardboard? I am not conflicted over the issue, I just reconize the duality involved enough to realize we cant have our way of lavish lifestile and support a large population of humans without a little distruction of the environment.
Wow. You're calling me a misanthrope?
No habitat = no humans. If you can't see that, have fun on your super-future spaceship to your imaginary interplanetary colony.
I'm done with this thread.
-
Wow. You're calling me a misanthrope?
No habitat = no humans. If you can't see that, have fun on your super-future spaceship to your imaginary interplanetary colony.
I'm done with this thread.
What we have here is failure to communicate, some me you just cant reach.
Not liking the way things are and insulting those who don't care to express themselves in a Politically correct fashion, inst going to help. The Forrest are being destroyed to make card board and people are slashing and burning to make way for cattle. Its just the way it is, don't hate the messenger for bringing you the bad news.
Who said that the habitat of earth was going to be destroyed? Sure there may be no trees, but that doesn't mean that we wont find ways to sustain human life. We could set up huge grub farms that could supply the millions of hungry mouths with good nutrition that is clean and sustainable.
Open your mind to a positive vision of the future, and begin work on it with your own two hands.
If we don't no one else will?
-
Well, bacteria are a very adaptable type of organism. So much so, that they could easily handle the breaking down of a genetically-engineered human, after just a few generations. I believe 1 bacterial generation lasts only c. 20 minutes.
The point is that technology might advance to the point where people could get all or most of their energy from the Sun, for example(via using skin cells which used photosynthesis), and so on. So in a 100,000 years, maybe humans wouldn't need to eat any more due to being energy beings etc. The worst thing one can do is to restrict technology and only allow the State to use the most advanced tech.
Also, we wiped out many, many species long before we invented modern technology. And some of our tech has made it easier to preserve the environment. As regards "improving" humans, I should add that 99% of mutations are supposed to be either useless or harmful to life to some extent, yet species have continued to evolve, despite that. So, even if advanced technology harms the human race 99% of the time, then the 1% of the time it enhances human survival will be the key factor.
SB missed my previous point. There is no guarantee whatsoever, that a new sentient species would arise from ground moles or whatever. Sentience is no guarantee, plus we are nearing the end of the Earth's life. Some claim that all Earth-life will be dead within 300 million years, due to an expanding Sun and the greenhouse-effect. So we might as well aim to leave the Earth in time and practice GE in order to allow humans to survive in a spacefaring society.
The issue of scarcity is relevant and recognised by most humans. One only has to look at some of the world's most overpopulated countries like China, where individual rights are commonly ignored. Take the US, as its population has increased, so has its control over the population increased, along with a reduction in individual rights.
-
What we have here is failure to communicate, some me you just cant reach.
Not liking the way things are and insulting those who don't care to express themselves in a Politically correct fashion, inst going to help. The Forrest are being destroyed to make card board and people are slashing and burning to make way for cattle. Its just the way it is, don't hate the messenger for bringing you the bad news.
Who said that the habitat of earth was going to be destroyed? Sure there may be no trees, but that doesn't mean that we wont find ways to sustain human life. We could set up huge grub farms that could supply the millions of hungry mouths with good nutrition that is clean and sustainable.
Open your mind to a positive vision of the future, and begin work on it with your own two hands.
If we don't no one else will?
The more people there are, the fewer resources there will be, the fewer opportunities there will be for peace, quiet and solitude, the more misery and shame people will feel as the world is increasingly being turned into an overcrowded global zoo, rather than a global village or whatever. Life would be a living hell - heck it's already very bad with 7 billion people. I'm happy that the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the ALF and similiar organisations exist which loathe your POV.
-
My POV is a bit screwed up I will admit, but please realize I have cultivated a system of belief that accepts the brutal reality for what it is, while at the same time attempting to keep a positive outlook, on otherwise dismal circumstances.
My point of view keeps me sane (believe it or not). If I had to constantly worry about such facts like, how all the oceans fish will be gone in thirty years, or how the living hell you are talking about is only going to get worse, I would lose my mind.
So as an alternative to despondency, I have crafted a view that embraces and accepts things as they are (to me) and not as they should be (to others). I think by embracing the future in the spirit of love for whatever will be, will give one much more satisfaction in life than all that fear and loathing being preached by captain planet and the planeteer types.
So what if the humans screw up life on earth? There will be other planets, other dimensions, and perhaps even other universal incarnations, so its no big deal no matter what happens. (It's a terrible attitude, but in such views there is the deepest solace to be found)
On the bright side if I am lucky, I will live another fifty years and die before things really get bad.
Please I encourage you all to drop your cares and embrace denalism. The world would be a much happier place.
-
I have never before come across such a nihilistic approach, one without even a tidbit of conscience.
-
Thanks for your honesty TD
I don't like to complain or make excuses for being the way I am. You have to believe me that the circumstances of my developmental years where screwed up beyond expression.
A lack of conscience was necessary for me to cope with a harsh and uncaring world.
I am completely aware my unfeeling nature, its one of the reasons I chose the name Sabertooth, based on the X man villain.
In defense of my honor as a human being I say judge me by my actions and not my sentiments. I try to dedicate everyday to making the world a better place. I am raising my children in the spirit of peace and understanding.