It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Going "Green" = People Must Die! Why?
page: 3share:
They say blood makes the grass grow why not throw that blood on fields that need them plenty of copper every where within areas that need some
electromagnetic conduction.
Blood makes the grass grow, go figure.
Blood makes the grass grow, go figure.
Originally posted by Heike
Well, I can certainly agree with that. After bad experiences trying to work for big and small businesses, I got so disgusted that I now choose to work for a nonprofit. It puts me in a very low income bracket, but at least I can feel good about my job because we actually help people.
Capitalism one can survive but corporatism is another thing altogether...
Perhaps in some respects I am only a product of the propaganda. I keep thinking I've heard somewhere that, if overall human population growth continues at its current rate, we will exceed the Earth's ability to feed us in the fairly near future.
Well if cash crops of various sorts at exchanged for food crops we wont have to change anything to feed a additional few billion. If peasant farmers got back some land and continents such as Africa stabilizes and becomes developed that's another few billion; a world war or everyone becoming wealthy enough to have smaller families are far more likely than 'space' running out.
Or, perhaps, it is only that our cities and towns and farms will overrun all arable or livable land and there will be no forests, rainforests, jungles, or wildlife left.
Presuming a world population of a few hundred billion that might become possible.
I understand that humans are supposed to be more important than plants and animals, but I personally would still see that as a tragedy.
And since when wouldn't any right thinking person agree? I mean are there really that many people who want to ruin their environment just for the fun of it? How many would disrupt/destroy their environment if they were wealthy enough to have serious alternatives?
I agree with you about societal trends too, especially in the USA. I've escaped to the boonies and have my ten acres and intend to work on becoming self-sufficient. I'm tired; I've given up on fighting to change the world and I'm just trying to survive in it now.
There is nothing all that wrong with societal trends in the US or most other places. What is wrong is the perceptions inspired by the MSM which does very little to endear human beings to their fellows as portrayed on the idiot box. As to the 'fight' to change the world i don't even plan on starting and will instead do my best to spread some knowledge around doing my best to learn from others in the process.
I think the Native Americans had the right idea; live with nature and be part of it, and naturally limit your population to what the land can sustain. But it's too late for most of us to go back to that now.
The native Americans had a few good ideas but not before the original native Americans had hunted the big game of North America to practical extinction resulting in a episode of starvation and hardship for the large populations that have grown up around this excessive hunting. Native Americans were by no means perfect and since they did spread all over the continent it can't be said that they lived in the perfect harmony that is sometimes suggested.
PS I, too, enjoy civilized discussion and debate. I get annoyed now and then, but seldom get angry and even then I try to remain courteous and polite. The worst I usually do is a bit of sarcasm, but most adults can take that - and respond in kind.
More easily said than done and especially so in the long run; i wish you all the best of luck and your free to practice on me.
Stellar
Here we go again with all these folks who thing that humans can just go on breeding forever. That the next generation will surely have the majical
answer to how to do it. Maybe they can make the Earth larger.
In the meantime all our waters are polluted with toxic chemicals.
All our waters are polluteted with animal and human feces.
No one has yet figured out what to do with all the garbage collected.
No one has figured out how to disintigrate all this garbage into something that is non polluting.
No one has figured out how to process human and animal feces so as notto pollute the water and the air.
And yet you defend you assumed "right" to reproduce.
"Who" you say, "will decide who has children and who does not"
With just a wee bit of smarts anyone shoud be able to figure out if they are fit to reproduce.
Isn't it obvious to you that there are millions of people with heritable defects that should be sterilized Right Now?
When you look in the mirror can you honestly say that you want your children to look like you do?
Alas, beauty is heritable.
And so is intelligence.
Do you honestly think that mental retards should reproduce?
"Oh", you say, "but they might have a normal child".
Well so what? Why does the world need that when there are healthy, intelligent beautiful people who can fill any percieved gap in the population numbers.
And then we have the clueless who suggest that cities be built in places where there are none today. LIke the "badlands" I guess. Just goes to show you have not done much traveling.
You be the first to put up a cabin ok?
badlands
In the meantime all our waters are polluted with toxic chemicals.
All our waters are polluteted with animal and human feces.
No one has yet figured out what to do with all the garbage collected.
No one has figured out how to disintigrate all this garbage into something that is non polluting.
No one has figured out how to process human and animal feces so as notto pollute the water and the air.
And yet you defend you assumed "right" to reproduce.
"Who" you say, "will decide who has children and who does not"
With just a wee bit of smarts anyone shoud be able to figure out if they are fit to reproduce.
Isn't it obvious to you that there are millions of people with heritable defects that should be sterilized Right Now?
When you look in the mirror can you honestly say that you want your children to look like you do?
Alas, beauty is heritable.
And so is intelligence.
Do you honestly think that mental retards should reproduce?
"Oh", you say, "but they might have a normal child".
Well so what? Why does the world need that when there are healthy, intelligent beautiful people who can fill any percieved gap in the population numbers.
And then we have the clueless who suggest that cities be built in places where there are none today. LIke the "badlands" I guess. Just goes to show you have not done much traveling.
You be the first to put up a cabin ok?
badlands
Originally posted by Essan
I'd call that common sense!
Trouble is, as soon as you start suggesting those on welfare/social security shouldn't be able to have a dozen children - all paid for out of our taxes - you start getting called a nazi or some such.
But those on welfare are not having a dozen children and if a very few do have more children than you like ( 3 children being required to yield productive growth) should we not investigate the other socio- economic conditions that is contributing to the problem? Why would American women be different than Russian women when it comes to not wanting children ( plenty of abortions) when they feel they will be unable to properly support them? Isn't this just about a lack of education and/or health care infrastructure?
Personally I believe bearing children should be a privilege not a right - a privilege anyone can readily earn should they wish.
The best way to control population sizes is to give women economic rights as well as education enough to allow them to take independent action; there are very few women that actually wants to go trough more than 1 or two pregnancies. In wealthier western societies where women's rights are protected as well as men's right they are experiencing problems with declining populations because of this.
The fact I have no paternal instincts whatsover may however make me a little biased on this subject!
No paternal instincts? How old are you again?
Stellar
i can only guess what somebody else really thinks, so that's not really the point. all i've been seeing is that climate alarmism (among other
things) works quite well by first raising surreal alarm by heavily appealing to emotion (just think of the movie inconvenient truth, which is
prototypical), then harmlessly suggesting 'counter' - measures which are sold as strictly innocous, but rarely discussed in their infancy,
when they could still be improved or averted, and then slammed down everyone's throats by political clout.
these people may not technically have proposed every detail or even openly coaxed people into accepting detrimental practice and loss of wealth (division of labor, that's the politicians' part), but they sure had a huge headstart on us in terms of iinformation and did not object at all when things went wrong, in fact there was no protest from these alarmists when the real consequences became obvious and the show goes on as if othing had happened.
under these circumstances do not expect to hear only sugar coated comments for alledgedly commendable viewpoints and proposals., because where the rubber meets the road, smart***s are suddenly nowhere to be found to clean up the mess.
while true, this statement is only about intent. the solution you proposed (tax incentive) would of course target the wrong people, as i said, while those you wish to reach are beyond our influence. therefore, what'S the point? this ain't school where one had to write nice and cuddle the mainstream to get As, is it? here, things don't just get shelved or tossed when they're done, they have a lasting effect.
these people may not technically have proposed every detail or even openly coaxed people into accepting detrimental practice and loss of wealth (division of labor, that's the politicians' part), but they sure had a huge headstart on us in terms of iinformation and did not object at all when things went wrong, in fact there was no protest from these alarmists when the real consequences became obvious and the show goes on as if othing had happened.
under these circumstances do not expect to hear only sugar coated comments for alledgedly commendable viewpoints and proposals., because where the rubber meets the road, smart***s are suddenly nowhere to be found to clean up the mess.
Originally posted by Heike
I did also probably hint or imply that I think people shouldn't have kids they can't support. Yes, that is how I feel and I will stand by it. If a person or family doesn't have enough resources to feed, clothe, and shelter a(nother) child, they shouldn't have a(nother) child.
while true, this statement is only about intent. the solution you proposed (tax incentive) would of course target the wrong people, as i said, while those you wish to reach are beyond our influence. therefore, what'S the point? this ain't school where one had to write nice and cuddle the mainstream to get As, is it? here, things don't just get shelved or tossed when they're done, they have a lasting effect.
Originally posted by OhZone
Here we go again with all these folks who thing that humans can just go on breeding forever. That the next generation will surely have the majical answer to how to do it. Maybe they can make the Earth larger.
In the meantime all our waters are polluted with toxic chemicals.
All our waters are polluteted with animal and human feces.
No one has yet figured out what to do with all the garbage collected.
No one has figured out how to disintigrate all this garbage into something that is non polluting.
No one has figured out how to process human and animal feces so as notto pollute the water and the air.
oh i see, let's all move into cities and complain that it's crowded
toxic chemicals are produced by industry, not human beings themselves, therefore don't buy things from countries without at least adequate environmental protection standards. toxic chemicals can be recycled or neutralized, it might cost a bit but there's no reason to leak the stuff, except that it's sometimes cheaper, right?
ever heard of sewage treament?
incinerators work quite well and with good maintainance and processing, their contribution to air pollution can be nearly eliminated. they are not as cheap as dumping the garbage into the nearest landfill, however, unless said laindfill is full and new ones are unavailable. the tech is still there, whether you deny it or not, trash can even be processed to fuel or be used to generate electricity.
sh't again? see above - sewage treatment.
to summarize: are you kidding?
right to reproduce, well i can see the problem, but the difference between being a fashionable alarmist and doomsayer and something that's trying to resemble a member of an intelligent species is taking the other side of the coin into account.
i sure don't want anyone like you to regulate who can have how many kids. eugenic screening is sure to be wating behind the next corner and considering the unmitigated desaster of just AGW-related regulations of the recent years, i'm probably far too naive to fully grasp the amount of mayhem that would inevitably spring from the desire of a few old sadistic men in power to gain an 'evolutionary advantage' by imprinting their 'superior' genes on future societies. *shudders* heck as if they didn't have it easy enough already.
==========
Originally posted by StellarX
The best way to control population sizes is to give women economic rights as well as education enough to allow them to take independent action; there are very few women that actually wants to go trough more than 1 or two pregnancies. In wealthier western societies where women's rights are protected as well as men's right they are experiencing problems with declining populations because of this.
i think you're repeating yourself....
consider the chance they overlooked the idea in your recent posts. slim is an understatement, isn't it? so, why no feedback ?
imho, they don't want to hear about it, it might actually work!
[edit on 2008.8.9 by Long Lance]
Originally posted by Heike
Not exactly. When resources become scarce, animals begin to compete for the resources (like food and water). Competition can be violent, even among normally placid species.
Competition amongst herbivores are at best decided by the intelligence to arrive at the remaining edible resources first; obviously size matters but violent interaction is normally reserved for the interaction with predators.
The weaker animals begin to succumb to injuries, illness, and malnutrition.
The weaker animals may also get eaten and since grazing may or may not be largely seasonal and regional entire populations are destroyed largely independent of whether their constituent members were stronger or weaker. The whole notion that 'the fittest' ( however weirdly defined it may be) species or individuals survive is one of the common mythologies attached to evolution based on the false premise that punctuated and abrupt extinction episodes were not responsible for the vast majority of extinct species.
When a sufficient percentage of the population has died, there is again enough food for the stronger survivors and the population stabilizes at a lower number.
Presuming that there remains enough food to keep the 'strongest' alive? How strong will the strongest be and wont they just be at the mercy of predators now that they are no longer all that strong? Isn't it more likely that entire regions might become depopulated( or some species; survivors migrating away in time) due to starvation and predation episodes with the area being recolonized later on when conditions had improved?
Hmm.. where are you getting your figures from? I'm finding a lot of information that says just the opposite.
Do not need other people's figures; i have a brain with some information in it.
Human Overpopulation
Is there any place more densely populated , with fewer natural resources, than Japan that is wealthier? What does that suggest about the notion of overpopulation?
This source suggests a number between 2 and 50 billion. Since the planet are supporting 6 billion despite the implementation of a terribly wasteful and exploitative economic system i a very confident that the implementation of just a few known technologies could allow for that 50 billion mark with the currently imposed economic system probably able to 'sustain' 10 billion at western European standards given the implementation of just a few environmentally sound policies.
Human Population Crisis
That's just a couple. There are dozens more if you want them ....
I have been on more of those sites than you know about so please feel free to assume that i am not making my predictions or accusations from ignorance. The idea of a human population crisis is in my opinion fundamentally flawed as it presumes not only the absence of progress but also the growth in more ability to use towards progress.
From your source :
Overpopulation is not population density (amount of people per landmass), but rather the number of people in an area relative to its resources and the capacity of the environment to sustain human activities.
www.cosmosmith.com...
So basically overpopulation is not the problem as much as how we interact with our environment. Given sufficient use of hydro, solar and other sustainable energy 'sources' we can not only continue to extract minerals and such from the debts of the earth but start to colonize interplanetary space. Given the use of vacuum energy extraction and other suppressed technologies the human race can not be limited by population numbers any where near as much as we are by captured markets and economic policies that does not seek to increase the size of the pie but just the share of if that falls into the hands of those who are seeking control.
Besides, if our population continues to increase at the current exponential rate, we will have 2 to 3 times as many people in the not very distant future.
If you would give heed to properly researched numbers you will quickly found that such projections are alarmist at best and total fabrications at worse.
The wiki people have in my knowledge come up with reasonable projections based on a variety of presumptions:
en.wikipedia.org...
As of yet the doomsday claims of the Malthusians have not come true but just like their friends in the environmental and peak oil movements they don't seem to learn from history with the future becoming ever bleaker as their past disproved predictions fall by the wayside.
Stellar
reply to post by OhZone
Here we go again with someone thinking we have reached the earth's maximum threshold of human population.
From pharmaceuticals, household cleaners, and as a result of using poor technology to 'treat' those toxins. Not a result of population.
Oh, so now the animals are overbreeding as well?
Sure they have. Quit making garbage. Problem is, no one is listening. Why do I have to accept three layers of plastic wrapping to get a chocolate bar? So again, not an issue of population, an issue of common sense not being used.
Er, that's called 'nature' Everything rots into something that isn't 'pollution', just some things take longer than others.
That happens naturally. Feces are plant food. So we simply need to feed it to the plants rather than try to recycle it ourselves into that chlorinated sludge you probably call 'drinking water'.
So now those who disagree with you do not have 'a wee bit of smarts'? Everyone sees things differently; surely you can figure that out seeing you're posting on ATS?
Define, please, what should be 'sterilized'. Retardation? You have an IQ level in mind? How about birth defects? Does that include birthmarks? What about poor eyesight? Wouldn't that mean less plastic used for glasses?
No, it is not 'obvious'. What is obvious to me is that you are uncaring and selfish. You have a chance to live, yet you would deny that same chance to others. And you would do it in the name of 'saving the planet', rather than admitting your selfishness.
No, I don't. And they don't. They look like themselves. It's called 'genetics'.
Oh, so we are all simply filler in the population now? That's a sorry attitude, and one I find offensive. Who are you to decide what gap should be filled and by whom? Would you have decided to 'sterilize' Einstein? Beethoven? Gallileo? Luther? Hawkins?
Cities are not generally planned. They grow because the living conditions make more people either want to reproduce while there or move there. I thought this was common knowledge.
Done. Your turn.
TheRedneck
Here we go again with all these folks who thing that humans can just go on breeding forever. That the next generation will surely have the majical answer to how to do it. Maybe they can make the Earth larger.
Here we go again with someone thinking we have reached the earth's maximum threshold of human population.
In the meantime all our waters are polluted with toxic chemicals.
From pharmaceuticals, household cleaners, and as a result of using poor technology to 'treat' those toxins. Not a result of population.
All our waters are polluteted with animal and human feces.
Oh, so now the animals are overbreeding as well?
No one has yet figured out what to do with all the garbage collected.
Sure they have. Quit making garbage. Problem is, no one is listening. Why do I have to accept three layers of plastic wrapping to get a chocolate bar? So again, not an issue of population, an issue of common sense not being used.
No one has figured out how to disintigrate all this garbage into something that is non polluting.
Er, that's called 'nature' Everything rots into something that isn't 'pollution', just some things take longer than others.
No one has figured out how to process human and animal feces so as notto pollute the water and the air.
That happens naturally. Feces are plant food. So we simply need to feed it to the plants rather than try to recycle it ourselves into that chlorinated sludge you probably call 'drinking water'.
And yet you defend you assumed "right" to reproduce.
"Who" you say, "will decide who has children and who does not"
With just a wee bit of smarts anyone shoud be able to figure out if they are fit to reproduce.
So now those who disagree with you do not have 'a wee bit of smarts'? Everyone sees things differently; surely you can figure that out seeing you're posting on ATS?
Isn't it obvious to you that there are millions of people with heritable defects that should be sterilized Right Now?
Define, please, what should be 'sterilized'. Retardation? You have an IQ level in mind? How about birth defects? Does that include birthmarks? What about poor eyesight? Wouldn't that mean less plastic used for glasses?
No, it is not 'obvious'. What is obvious to me is that you are uncaring and selfish. You have a chance to live, yet you would deny that same chance to others. And you would do it in the name of 'saving the planet', rather than admitting your selfishness.
When you look in the mirror can you honestly say that you want your children to look like you do?
No, I don't. And they don't. They look like themselves. It's called 'genetics'.
And so is intelligence.
Do you honestly think that mental retards should reproduce?
"Oh", you say, "but they might have a normal child".
Well so what? Why does the world need that when there are healthy, intelligent beautiful people who can fill any percieved gap in the population numbers.
Oh, so we are all simply filler in the population now? That's a sorry attitude, and one I find offensive. Who are you to decide what gap should be filled and by whom? Would you have decided to 'sterilize' Einstein? Beethoven? Gallileo? Luther? Hawkins?
And then we have the clueless who suggest that cities be built in places where there are none today. LIke the "badlands" I guess. Just goes to show you have not done much traveling.
Cities are not generally planned. They grow because the living conditions make more people either want to reproduce while there or move there. I thought this was common knowledge.
You be the first to put up a cabin ok?
Done. Your turn.
TheRedneck
StellarX:
I haven’t addressed this point because I find the premise to be false. As we’ve already seen in this thread, facts, figures and sources can be found to support almost any point of view. Based on what I SEE with my own two eyes, it’s not true. Every time I go to Walmart there are people with 3, 4, 5, and more kids. The client base where I work is 2/3 DHS kids, and most of them have multiple siblings - and this is a population that is already in foster care and being supported by social services. Among my coworkers, acquaintacnes, and “extended family,” the average number of kids per family is 3 or 4. These are American women, mostly educated, with all the education and economic rights they want, and they’re choosing to have more children.
Regarding the animal overpopulation scenario, there’s really nothing theoretical or hyptothetical about it. Deer are overpopulated where I live, and every Winter the scarcity of food happens. Some die, some live, and as soon as they regain their health on Spring growth, they start having more babies. That’s part of the reason we have a hunting season is so that some of them are killed by hunters instead of more of them starving to death over the Winter.
And as for violent interactions being reserved for predators, that’s laughable. My chickens and ducks fight over food when I throw out “good stuff” like leftovers and stale bread, sometimes to the point of drawing blood. Horses will also fight over food, and so will other “prey” animals. I have seen rats and mice become cannibals when the food source that allowed overpopulation was taken away.
Long Lance:
Okay, let’s dispense with the sugar coated platitudes and political correctness. I don’t like people, and I’d like to see less of them rather than more.
Every time I drive I see trash and dead animals littering the roadways. In 33 years of driving I’ve hit an animal exactly once, when a bird flew into my windshield. Certainly the dead turtles didn’t move too fast to be avoided. What difference does one less turtle make? Probably none, but it demonstrates a non-caring mindset that I despise.
In the 11 months we’ve lived out in the country, nearly a dozen dogs and puppies have been dumped in our area. Horses are abandoned when people move or left in paddocks of dirt to starve to death if the owner runs short of money for feed and hay.
Our rivers and lakes are full of old Christmas trees, beer cans, cars, and other trash. People trespass on any property that isn’t adequately protected and steal anything they can find. In the tiny rural town of Terlton (pop. 87), teenagers vandalized the town’s only store by breaking all the windows. In nearby Mannford (hardly a bustling burb) young people beat the crap out of an elderly woman just because she asked them to turn their music down.
Everywhere I look, people are stupid, arrogant, vicious, careless, wasteful, inconsiderate, selfish, and rude. Can’t like ‘em. I am against killing people (except for murderers and rapists but that’s another subject.) It’s wrong. I do not condone, support, or approve of killing people. Period. But I’d be just tickled pink if somehow there were fewer people around instead of more, especially around where I live. If I had the money, I’d be a hermit.
And lest you now accuse me of being a horrible person, I’m not. I work at a nonprofit that has an 89 year history of helping kids. I volunteer. I give money to the United Way every year. I donate blood. Just last week I stopped and gave a guy who’d run out of gas a ride to the gas station. Face to face, I am polite, superficially friendly, kind, and treat people the way I think I’d like to be treated in their position. In general, however, I don’t like people and you’ll never convince me that there should be more of them.
I started out in this thread to provide a gentler interpretation of the OP (people must die!) and I can't believe it's degenerated to this. But I guess you have a pretty clear picture of where I'm coming from now, and if you don't like it too bad. You asked for it.
The best way to control population sizes is to give women economic rights as well as education enough to allow them to take independent action; there are very few women that actually wants to go trough more than 1 or two pregnancies. In wealthier western societies where women's rights are protected as well as men's right they are experiencing problems with declining populations because of this.
I haven’t addressed this point because I find the premise to be false. As we’ve already seen in this thread, facts, figures and sources can be found to support almost any point of view. Based on what I SEE with my own two eyes, it’s not true. Every time I go to Walmart there are people with 3, 4, 5, and more kids. The client base where I work is 2/3 DHS kids, and most of them have multiple siblings - and this is a population that is already in foster care and being supported by social services. Among my coworkers, acquaintacnes, and “extended family,” the average number of kids per family is 3 or 4. These are American women, mostly educated, with all the education and economic rights they want, and they’re choosing to have more children.
Regarding the animal overpopulation scenario, there’s really nothing theoretical or hyptothetical about it. Deer are overpopulated where I live, and every Winter the scarcity of food happens. Some die, some live, and as soon as they regain their health on Spring growth, they start having more babies. That’s part of the reason we have a hunting season is so that some of them are killed by hunters instead of more of them starving to death over the Winter.
And as for violent interactions being reserved for predators, that’s laughable. My chickens and ducks fight over food when I throw out “good stuff” like leftovers and stale bread, sometimes to the point of drawing blood. Horses will also fight over food, and so will other “prey” animals. I have seen rats and mice become cannibals when the food source that allowed overpopulation was taken away.
Long Lance:
Okay, let’s dispense with the sugar coated platitudes and political correctness. I don’t like people, and I’d like to see less of them rather than more.
Every time I drive I see trash and dead animals littering the roadways. In 33 years of driving I’ve hit an animal exactly once, when a bird flew into my windshield. Certainly the dead turtles didn’t move too fast to be avoided. What difference does one less turtle make? Probably none, but it demonstrates a non-caring mindset that I despise.
In the 11 months we’ve lived out in the country, nearly a dozen dogs and puppies have been dumped in our area. Horses are abandoned when people move or left in paddocks of dirt to starve to death if the owner runs short of money for feed and hay.
Our rivers and lakes are full of old Christmas trees, beer cans, cars, and other trash. People trespass on any property that isn’t adequately protected and steal anything they can find. In the tiny rural town of Terlton (pop. 87), teenagers vandalized the town’s only store by breaking all the windows. In nearby Mannford (hardly a bustling burb) young people beat the crap out of an elderly woman just because she asked them to turn their music down.
Everywhere I look, people are stupid, arrogant, vicious, careless, wasteful, inconsiderate, selfish, and rude. Can’t like ‘em. I am against killing people (except for murderers and rapists but that’s another subject.) It’s wrong. I do not condone, support, or approve of killing people. Period. But I’d be just tickled pink if somehow there were fewer people around instead of more, especially around where I live. If I had the money, I’d be a hermit.
And lest you now accuse me of being a horrible person, I’m not. I work at a nonprofit that has an 89 year history of helping kids. I volunteer. I give money to the United Way every year. I donate blood. Just last week I stopped and gave a guy who’d run out of gas a ride to the gas station. Face to face, I am polite, superficially friendly, kind, and treat people the way I think I’d like to be treated in their position. In general, however, I don’t like people and you’ll never convince me that there should be more of them.
I started out in this thread to provide a gentler interpretation of the OP (people must die!) and I can't believe it's degenerated to this. But I guess you have a pretty clear picture of where I'm coming from now, and if you don't like it too bad. You asked for it.
Long Lance, I did not say we should all move into cities. Someone else suggested that.
We cannot all live in the country either, and certainly not in all that vast land that is not even good for growing sand spurs.
All this stuff about cutting population because of global warming is a crock. It is also unsaleable.
I think toxic chemicals can be neutralized too, but this is never done. Someone knew how to put them together, surely than know how to take them apart.
I am trying to point out the real problem. Processing the waste!!
I have brought this up many times and places. No one will make practical suggestions.
Yeah, I heard of sewage treatment. What exactly do you know about it?
You give the impression that you think this causes complete decomposition. It does not.
Bacteria laden, chemical laden, prescription drug laden, effluent continually runs into our waterways.
Here in Florida there are ditches that carry it into the Gulf.
Septic tank overflow seeps into wells.
Properly treated toilet flushings take 2 full years in a compost friendly situation to decompose into a material that can be used in agriculture.
But it isn't composted. It is treated so that it is laden with cadmium and cannot be used on anything but decorative plants. And it is not thorougly dedomposed - it still stinks.
Current sewage treatment plants collect everything anyone will pour down a sink, which includes toxic chemicals.
We have one of those incinerators in our area. They still need land fill.
You have no realistic idea of what goes on in this area. You are the one who is kidding. You have been misled by inadequate information. Are you unaware of the sewage problems in areas that flood? The people that get sick and die from the bacteria. You have a solution that will prevent flooding? You are going to stop hurricanes/cyclones?
And of course you are going top stop Earthquakes and breaking dams?
Oakville, Iowa 2008
I think your worst fears about eugenic screening and the elite creating themselves superior in every way will come to pass. They have the advantage when it comes to exercising their survival instinct.
Stellarex, why exactly should we use technology to support 50 billion people. You seem to overlook the fact that humans do not all like “rubbing elbows” with others constantly. We all need our space. If we don’t have it we can get really “pissy”. We already have the effects of overcrowding. In traffic, it is called “road rage”. Elsewhere there is increased bullying and physical violence like we never had before. Do you like the idea of having a “breadbox” size apartment like they have in Japan? The very Idea of 50 billion makes me feel like personally killing 45 billion of them. You see what I mean about the “pissy”.
Did you ever consider that Earth already has a depleted supply of Oxygen, and you want to add 45 billion more people, and all the animals to feed them. You & those who think this is a great idea are totally out of touch with reality. And again – please tell me what is to be done about the ocean of urine and mountain of feces that these 50 billion would produce.
TheRedNeck, Yes, obviously animals are being overbred to feed overbred humans. You are unaware of the problem with the hog farms in the Carolinas after the flooding from the hurricanes?
hog waste N.Carolina
Sorry about your chocolate bar. I guess you want a single wrapper that may come open on the bottom for others to finger. Would you settle for 2 wrappers?
Yes, it takes a long time for stuff to rot. Evidently we are producing it faster than it can rot, else it would not be a problem. How do you plan to make it rot faster.
As to rotting human feces – see above. 2 years and we would all need composting toilets or some sort of collection bin and of course collectors. Actually this would be a great idea for our present population. It could help solve our depleted soil problem too. There is a guy that has a website on “humanure” that says you can do it in your urban or suburban back yard without an odor problem, just by stacking it with straw or moss. I haven’t had the courage to try it.
What should be sterilized? The person(s) having and producing defective offspring. Yes, heritable weak eyes would be good to eliminate, don’t you think? If you had inherited really weak eyes, how would you feel about giving them to your children?
Really Redneck, you needn’t get carried away with the “birthmarks” remark. You know full well what I am saying, and just what a debilitating defect is. I would not want a mentally retarded child. Do you think they should reproduce more of themselves? Why do we need such a burden on society?
Yes, I live. I am healthy and self responsible. I ask nothing from anyone. If I’d had a hair lip or buckteeth or whatever heritable defect, I would feel very guilty and ashamed that I had passed it on to my children.
Every child has a right to a healthy beautiful body.
So I am selfish because I think that it is cruel to bring defective children into this world?
You don’t want your kids to look like you. Well lucky them. They didn’t inherit from you.
Redneck says:
“Oh, so we are all simply filler in the population now? That's a sorry attitude, and one I find offensive. Who are you to decide what gap should be filled and by whom?
****If you are offended that is your problem. You are under no obligation to be offended at anything anyone says – ever.
“Would you have decided to 'sterilize' Einstein? Beethoven? Gallileo? Luther? Hawkins?”
****Yes, what’s the point? The world would have been ok without them. Another would have taken their place. Your suggestion here – an oft used one, is fallacious.
“Cities are not planned”
****Some of them are. Ever here of City Planning? They do a really lousy job tho.
[edit on 9-8-2008 by OhZone]
We cannot all live in the country either, and certainly not in all that vast land that is not even good for growing sand spurs.
All this stuff about cutting population because of global warming is a crock. It is also unsaleable.
I think toxic chemicals can be neutralized too, but this is never done. Someone knew how to put them together, surely than know how to take them apart.
I am trying to point out the real problem. Processing the waste!!
I have brought this up many times and places. No one will make practical suggestions.
Yeah, I heard of sewage treatment. What exactly do you know about it?
You give the impression that you think this causes complete decomposition. It does not.
Bacteria laden, chemical laden, prescription drug laden, effluent continually runs into our waterways.
Here in Florida there are ditches that carry it into the Gulf.
Septic tank overflow seeps into wells.
Properly treated toilet flushings take 2 full years in a compost friendly situation to decompose into a material that can be used in agriculture.
But it isn't composted. It is treated so that it is laden with cadmium and cannot be used on anything but decorative plants. And it is not thorougly dedomposed - it still stinks.
Current sewage treatment plants collect everything anyone will pour down a sink, which includes toxic chemicals.
We have one of those incinerators in our area. They still need land fill.
You have no realistic idea of what goes on in this area. You are the one who is kidding. You have been misled by inadequate information. Are you unaware of the sewage problems in areas that flood? The people that get sick and die from the bacteria. You have a solution that will prevent flooding? You are going to stop hurricanes/cyclones?
And of course you are going top stop Earthquakes and breaking dams?
Oakville, Iowa 2008
I think your worst fears about eugenic screening and the elite creating themselves superior in every way will come to pass. They have the advantage when it comes to exercising their survival instinct.
Stellarex, why exactly should we use technology to support 50 billion people. You seem to overlook the fact that humans do not all like “rubbing elbows” with others constantly. We all need our space. If we don’t have it we can get really “pissy”. We already have the effects of overcrowding. In traffic, it is called “road rage”. Elsewhere there is increased bullying and physical violence like we never had before. Do you like the idea of having a “breadbox” size apartment like they have in Japan? The very Idea of 50 billion makes me feel like personally killing 45 billion of them. You see what I mean about the “pissy”.
Did you ever consider that Earth already has a depleted supply of Oxygen, and you want to add 45 billion more people, and all the animals to feed them. You & those who think this is a great idea are totally out of touch with reality. And again – please tell me what is to be done about the ocean of urine and mountain of feces that these 50 billion would produce.
TheRedNeck, Yes, obviously animals are being overbred to feed overbred humans. You are unaware of the problem with the hog farms in the Carolinas after the flooding from the hurricanes?
hog waste N.Carolina
Sorry about your chocolate bar. I guess you want a single wrapper that may come open on the bottom for others to finger. Would you settle for 2 wrappers?
Yes, it takes a long time for stuff to rot. Evidently we are producing it faster than it can rot, else it would not be a problem. How do you plan to make it rot faster.
As to rotting human feces – see above. 2 years and we would all need composting toilets or some sort of collection bin and of course collectors. Actually this would be a great idea for our present population. It could help solve our depleted soil problem too. There is a guy that has a website on “humanure” that says you can do it in your urban or suburban back yard without an odor problem, just by stacking it with straw or moss. I haven’t had the courage to try it.
What should be sterilized? The person(s) having and producing defective offspring. Yes, heritable weak eyes would be good to eliminate, don’t you think? If you had inherited really weak eyes, how would you feel about giving them to your children?
Really Redneck, you needn’t get carried away with the “birthmarks” remark. You know full well what I am saying, and just what a debilitating defect is. I would not want a mentally retarded child. Do you think they should reproduce more of themselves? Why do we need such a burden on society?
Yes, I live. I am healthy and self responsible. I ask nothing from anyone. If I’d had a hair lip or buckteeth or whatever heritable defect, I would feel very guilty and ashamed that I had passed it on to my children.
Every child has a right to a healthy beautiful body.
So I am selfish because I think that it is cruel to bring defective children into this world?
You don’t want your kids to look like you. Well lucky them. They didn’t inherit from you.
Redneck says:
“Oh, so we are all simply filler in the population now? That's a sorry attitude, and one I find offensive. Who are you to decide what gap should be filled and by whom?
****If you are offended that is your problem. You are under no obligation to be offended at anything anyone says – ever.
“Would you have decided to 'sterilize' Einstein? Beethoven? Gallileo? Luther? Hawkins?”
****Yes, what’s the point? The world would have been ok without them. Another would have taken their place. Your suggestion here – an oft used one, is fallacious.
“Cities are not planned”
****Some of them are. Ever here of City Planning? They do a really lousy job tho.
[edit on 9-8-2008 by OhZone]
reply to post by OhZone
You are talking about the problem itself - factory farms. These are notoriously inefficient and polluting. Raising animals is not. I think I can speak to that, as I have raised animals for food before (and am about to start doing so again). Just because someone abuses their environment, it does not follow that someone else will do so. I suggest you attack the factory farms instead of all farms.
Actually, I'd rather have a nice fresh tomato or cucumber from my garden. But that's beside the point. The point is that there is no need to surround everything we purchase with layers of non-biodegradable plastic. Do you disagree with that premise?
Human feces, animal feces, urine, these are all waste that is, in turn, food for plants. There is no need to completely decompose them. I can take the sludge from my septic tank and spread it over my garden lot this fall, till it in, and come spring there will be no more need for fertilizer. I already do this with other animal droppings (like the compost heap below the rabbit hutch). Heck, I pee on the garden whenever I can get away with it. That's the best fertilizer you can get.
Other species have no problem with this cycle of life relationship between animals and plants. Only humans could have come up with this notion that something we personally find offensive can't be worth anything in nature.
This is precisely why you won't find me on the UFO forum. As much as I would like to believe there is intelligent life in the universe, I see precious little of it here, and less in the areas that are 'civilized'. So if there is any, there would be huge warning signs all around our solar system warning them to stay away.
I did, thank you very much. Yes, my eyes are pretty bad, and so are my daughter's. That doesn't mean she shouldn't have the chance to live. How dare you take that stance!
Actually, I don't think that would necessarily be 'getting carried away', especially if you look at how societal values tend to evolve over time. Who decides what is and is not 'perfect'? The people I mentioned elsewhere have contributed quite a lot to society, despite being 'imperfect'.
Your premise is that perfection alone should be allowed. Mine is that you do not know the definition of perfection as it relates to an individual. None of us do.
No, every child has the right to life. You would deprive them of that, in some perverted search for perfection.
Yes, you are. You expect, no, demand from those you share this planet with that they somehow live up to your sense of perfection. That is selfish, since you care more for your personal sense of a perfect world than for those who inhabit it.
I have a cousin who is severely retarded. His parents are (were) of normal intelligence. He is now in his 60s with the mind of a six year old. When I visit with my aunt, he talks and acts like a child, albeit a very well-behaved one. He talks about cartoons and old westerns and what he wants to be someday. He smiles a lot, because he is happy. He has never had to worry about not having enough to eat, nor about losing his job, nor about paying bills and taxes. In many ways, I envy the man.
In my world, our present world, he will get to live a happy life. In yours, he would have been killed before he could be born. That is selfishness.
Oh, they did. They got my intelligence, and through watching me, developed similar values to mine. As for the looks, well, they got a bit of that, whether I wanted it or not.
True, it is my problem. But it is also yours, if you choose to offend with intent. What was that remark about being self-responsible?
Ah, so you are not only healthy and self-responsible (denial of attempts to offend notwithstanding), but also omnipresent.
Your suggestion is the fallacious one, as you have no way of knowing the outcome of any person not existing. Whether or not any of the people I mentioned would have been 'replaced' is not even arguable, as no one can know that.
A precious few are. Washington DC was designed by an architect, but the suburbs around it have grown without any one design in mind.
The city planning you refer to is an attempt to plan city growth. The reason they do such a lousy job is that those planning the city have no desire or means to make the changes that occur; they simply try to tell others how they want it done. That situation seldom works. But some people are so intent on controlling their world that they will ignore the desires of others.... that somehow sounds familiar....
TheRedneck
[edit on 9-8-2008 by TheRedneck]
TheRedNeck, Yes, obviously animals are being overbred to feed overbred humans. You are unaware of the problem with the hog farms in the Carolinas after the flooding from the hurricanes?
You are talking about the problem itself - factory farms. These are notoriously inefficient and polluting. Raising animals is not. I think I can speak to that, as I have raised animals for food before (and am about to start doing so again). Just because someone abuses their environment, it does not follow that someone else will do so. I suggest you attack the factory farms instead of all farms.
Sorry about your chocolate bar. I guess you want a single wrapper that may come open on the bottom for others to finger. Would you settle for 2 wrappers?
Actually, I'd rather have a nice fresh tomato or cucumber from my garden. But that's beside the point. The point is that there is no need to surround everything we purchase with layers of non-biodegradable plastic. Do you disagree with that premise?
Yes, it takes a long time for stuff to rot. Evidently we are producing it faster than it can rot, else it would not be a problem. How do you plan to make it rot faster.
As to rotting human feces – see above. 2 years and we would all need composting toilets or some sort of collection bin and of course collectors. Actually this would be a great idea for our present population. It could help solve our depleted soil problem too. There is a guy that has a website on “humanure” that says you can do it in your urban or suburban back yard without an odor problem, just by stacking it with straw or moss. I haven’t had the courage to try it.
Human feces, animal feces, urine, these are all waste that is, in turn, food for plants. There is no need to completely decompose them. I can take the sludge from my septic tank and spread it over my garden lot this fall, till it in, and come spring there will be no more need for fertilizer. I already do this with other animal droppings (like the compost heap below the rabbit hutch). Heck, I pee on the garden whenever I can get away with it. That's the best fertilizer you can get.
Other species have no problem with this cycle of life relationship between animals and plants. Only humans could have come up with this notion that something we personally find offensive can't be worth anything in nature.
This is precisely why you won't find me on the UFO forum. As much as I would like to believe there is intelligent life in the universe, I see precious little of it here, and less in the areas that are 'civilized'. So if there is any, there would be huge warning signs all around our solar system warning them to stay away.
What should be sterilized? The person(s) having and producing defective offspring. Yes, heritable weak eyes would be good to eliminate, don’t you think? If you had inherited really weak eyes, how would you feel about giving them to your children?
I did, thank you very much. Yes, my eyes are pretty bad, and so are my daughter's. That doesn't mean she shouldn't have the chance to live. How dare you take that stance!
Really Redneck, you needn’t get carried away with the “birthmarks” remark. You know full well what I am saying, and just what a debilitating defect is. I would not want a mentally retarded child. Do you think they should reproduce more of themselves? Why do we need such a burden on society?
Actually, I don't think that would necessarily be 'getting carried away', especially if you look at how societal values tend to evolve over time. Who decides what is and is not 'perfect'? The people I mentioned elsewhere have contributed quite a lot to society, despite being 'imperfect'.
Your premise is that perfection alone should be allowed. Mine is that you do not know the definition of perfection as it relates to an individual. None of us do.
Yes, I live. I am healthy and self responsible. I ask nothing from anyone. If I’d had a hair lip or buckteeth or whatever heritable defect, I would feel very guilty and ashamed that I had passed it on to my children.
Every child has a right to a healthy beautiful body.
No, every child has the right to life. You would deprive them of that, in some perverted search for perfection.
So I am selfish because I think that it is cruel to bring defective children into this world?
Yes, you are. You expect, no, demand from those you share this planet with that they somehow live up to your sense of perfection. That is selfish, since you care more for your personal sense of a perfect world than for those who inhabit it.
I have a cousin who is severely retarded. His parents are (were) of normal intelligence. He is now in his 60s with the mind of a six year old. When I visit with my aunt, he talks and acts like a child, albeit a very well-behaved one. He talks about cartoons and old westerns and what he wants to be someday. He smiles a lot, because he is happy. He has never had to worry about not having enough to eat, nor about losing his job, nor about paying bills and taxes. In many ways, I envy the man.
In my world, our present world, he will get to live a happy life. In yours, he would have been killed before he could be born. That is selfishness.
You don’t want your kids to look like you. Well lucky them. They didn’t inherit from you.
Oh, they did. They got my intelligence, and through watching me, developed similar values to mine. As for the looks, well, they got a bit of that, whether I wanted it or not.
If you are offended that is your problem. You are under no obligation to be offended at anything anyone says – ever.
True, it is my problem. But it is also yours, if you choose to offend with intent. What was that remark about being self-responsible?
Yes, what’s the point? The world would have been ok without them. Another would have taken their place. Your suggestion here – an oft used one, is fallacious.
Ah, so you are not only healthy and self-responsible (denial of attempts to offend notwithstanding), but also omnipresent.
Your suggestion is the fallacious one, as you have no way of knowing the outcome of any person not existing. Whether or not any of the people I mentioned would have been 'replaced' is not even arguable, as no one can know that.
Some of them are. Ever here of City Planning? They do a really lousy job tho.
A precious few are. Washington DC was designed by an architect, but the suburbs around it have grown without any one design in mind.
The city planning you refer to is an attempt to plan city growth. The reason they do such a lousy job is that those planning the city have no desire or means to make the changes that occur; they simply try to tell others how they want it done. That situation seldom works. But some people are so intent on controlling their world that they will ignore the desires of others.... that somehow sounds familiar....
TheRedneck
[edit on 9-8-2008 by TheRedneck]
We breed horses to run faster. We breed chickens to lay more eggs. We breed dogs for literally hundreds of different characteristics, and we KNOW it
works. You can't look at the difference between a wolf and a chihuahua and tell me it doesn't. In fact, we use selective breeding to influence or
improve every single species that we control - except our own.
Why is that? Why is there a tidal wave of outrage and disgust when anyone suggests that we use a proven technique to improve our own species?
If we took basic attributes such as good health, no inheritable/genetic diseases, and intelligence and just tried to sway the numbers in favor of people who have these attributes having children and those who don't, not, we could give future generations better health and a higher average intelligence. What is so wrong with that?
It is patently ridiculous to say that something which does not yet exist has any "rights." Perhaps every child conceived has a right to live, but a child which might be born in the future if two people get together and conceive it is only an idea, a possibility. It is nowhere close enough to existence to have any "rights."
Or are you saying, as many do, that every human being has an inalienable right to reproduce? If so, I disagree, and have for as long as I can remember. When a horse carries the lethal HYPP gene, or a particular dog bloodline has hip dysplasia, we understand that they shouldn't reproduce. Why doesn't the same tried-and-true logic apply to humans?
People will sacrifice their lives to give humanity a better future, but they won't choose not to have kids for the same goal? I don't get it.
Why is that? Why is there a tidal wave of outrage and disgust when anyone suggests that we use a proven technique to improve our own species?
If we took basic attributes such as good health, no inheritable/genetic diseases, and intelligence and just tried to sway the numbers in favor of people who have these attributes having children and those who don't, not, we could give future generations better health and a higher average intelligence. What is so wrong with that?
It is patently ridiculous to say that something which does not yet exist has any "rights." Perhaps every child conceived has a right to live, but a child which might be born in the future if two people get together and conceive it is only an idea, a possibility. It is nowhere close enough to existence to have any "rights."
Or are you saying, as many do, that every human being has an inalienable right to reproduce? If so, I disagree, and have for as long as I can remember. When a horse carries the lethal HYPP gene, or a particular dog bloodline has hip dysplasia, we understand that they shouldn't reproduce. Why doesn't the same tried-and-true logic apply to humans?
People will sacrifice their lives to give humanity a better future, but they won't choose not to have kids for the same goal? I don't get it.
Redneck, I wasn’t attacking all farms. I was pointing out the problem associated with the 50 billion population some of you want.
Paper is just fine for wrapping candy bars.
Yes, I do dare (that’s what I do. I say what others dare not think) to take the stance that responsible people do not inflict their problems upon their children. Perhaps you daughter’s matrix of energy would have had a chance to be born elsewhere and have perfect eyes. Wouldn’t she have had a better life that way? If you inherited your weak eyes, you must have suspected that you could pass the defect on.
I am unaware of birth marks being heritable.
For so long as defective people breed, we will have defective children. There are over 4000 + heritable defects in humans. Isn’t it time we did something serious about this. Have you any idea how many people there are in special care homes because there is no way that they can ever care for themselves? Do you think that it is right that they should suffer so because of careless breeding? Do you think that society should be burdended with them? Don’t you think that the services of their caregivers could be better used elsewhere?
Your right to life includes life long suffering. You must not know anyone who has had to live in a defective body. They suffer their whole lives and and many wish were dead.
Is there something wrong with having a vision of a perfect world? Don’t you wish every one did? Why wish for less? Why accept less if you can make it better?
The offence is still your creation. If you like that feeling have at it. Seek and ye shall find. My candid statements were not offensive in and of themselves. They are letters strung together into symbols/words to which we each give meaning according to our experience & expectation. You gave them your own meaning. You must have DECIDED to take them personally, which is entirely your choice. I have noticed that you are pretty outspoken yourself. You don’t mince words or make apologies. So far so good. One more bridge to cross and you will have learned the meaning of self-mastry.
Oh, you mentioned above that this is in the interest of “saving the planet”. I say that if we save humanity, making it more healthy i.e. “perfect” (& fewer in numbers = quality instead of quantity) this will ultimately result in saving the planet.
wrongful life suits
The latest in litigation wrongful life suits
Rather dead than disabled
rather dead than
rather dead II
Your definition of my selfishness sounds very much like defensive fear on your part.
Paper is just fine for wrapping candy bars.
Yes, I do dare (that’s what I do. I say what others dare not think) to take the stance that responsible people do not inflict their problems upon their children. Perhaps you daughter’s matrix of energy would have had a chance to be born elsewhere and have perfect eyes. Wouldn’t she have had a better life that way? If you inherited your weak eyes, you must have suspected that you could pass the defect on.
I am unaware of birth marks being heritable.
For so long as defective people breed, we will have defective children. There are over 4000 + heritable defects in humans. Isn’t it time we did something serious about this. Have you any idea how many people there are in special care homes because there is no way that they can ever care for themselves? Do you think that it is right that they should suffer so because of careless breeding? Do you think that society should be burdended with them? Don’t you think that the services of their caregivers could be better used elsewhere?
Your right to life includes life long suffering. You must not know anyone who has had to live in a defective body. They suffer their whole lives and and many wish were dead.
Is there something wrong with having a vision of a perfect world? Don’t you wish every one did? Why wish for less? Why accept less if you can make it better?
The offence is still your creation. If you like that feeling have at it. Seek and ye shall find. My candid statements were not offensive in and of themselves. They are letters strung together into symbols/words to which we each give meaning according to our experience & expectation. You gave them your own meaning. You must have DECIDED to take them personally, which is entirely your choice. I have noticed that you are pretty outspoken yourself. You don’t mince words or make apologies. So far so good. One more bridge to cross and you will have learned the meaning of self-mastry.
Oh, you mentioned above that this is in the interest of “saving the planet”. I say that if we save humanity, making it more healthy i.e. “perfect” (& fewer in numbers = quality instead of quantity) this will ultimately result in saving the planet.
wrongful life suits
The latest in litigation wrongful life suits
Rather dead than disabled
rather dead than
rather dead II
Your definition of my selfishness sounds very much like defensive fear on your part.
reply to post by Heike
I realize your point, but when selective breeding is done with animals, it is done with the viewpoint that we (as humans) are somehow above the other animals, and therefore it would be permissible for us to selectively breed them. I know this is a debatable issue, and I am not trying to turn this into a human vs. animal debate. I simply wish to point out what I feel is the difference. As humans, it is unconscionable to a majority of the people (at least to those I know) to do to ourselves what is regularly done to other animals. Perhaps this comes from some concern that humans will become on a par with animals.
On the surface, nothing is wrong with that. But delve beneath the surface of such a theoretical world and look at the details. How would this eugenic control be accomplished? By selective sterilization? If so, who would make the decision as to who is allowed to breed and who is not? Who determines what the ultimate population level is? And would the concept of a specified maximum life-span be so far behind? That would be a fair system, and would greatly benefit humanity. The aged would no longer tax a stressed medical industry, and the opportunity to allow more people to have children would be allowed since the population is being regularly thinned out of the older, more useless models.
Ever see Logan's Run?
I never said a child had rights before it was conceived. I am not talking about an idea that may take place somehow. I am talking about the problem with aborting pregnancies when it is discovered that the child will not somehow fit into someone's idea of perfection. What is the perfect height? What is the perfect hair color? Eye color? Disposition to attitude? Now there's you a serious Big Brother scenario. Do you trust our leaders (GWB, Cheney, Pelosi, Kennedy, Obama, Lieberman, Jefferson, Clinton) to determine for you whether or not your child is sufficiently perfect to live? I certainly do not!
This is closer to what I actually believe, and I can honestly say that I see wisdom in that comparison, but again, the devil is in the details. Who chooses?
TheRedneck
We breed horses to run faster. We breed chickens to lay more eggs. We breed dogs for literally hundreds of different characteristics, and we KNOW it works. You can't look at the difference between a wolf and a chihuahua and tell me it doesn't. In fact, we use selective breeding to influence or improve every single species that we control - except our own.
Why is that? Why is there a tidal wave of outrage and disgust when anyone suggests that we use a proven technique to improve our own species?
I realize your point, but when selective breeding is done with animals, it is done with the viewpoint that we (as humans) are somehow above the other animals, and therefore it would be permissible for us to selectively breed them. I know this is a debatable issue, and I am not trying to turn this into a human vs. animal debate. I simply wish to point out what I feel is the difference. As humans, it is unconscionable to a majority of the people (at least to those I know) to do to ourselves what is regularly done to other animals. Perhaps this comes from some concern that humans will become on a par with animals.
If we took basic attributes such as good health, no inheritable/genetic diseases, and intelligence and just tried to sway the numbers in favor of people who have these attributes having children and those who don't, not, we could give future generations better health and a higher average intelligence. What is so wrong with that?
On the surface, nothing is wrong with that. But delve beneath the surface of such a theoretical world and look at the details. How would this eugenic control be accomplished? By selective sterilization? If so, who would make the decision as to who is allowed to breed and who is not? Who determines what the ultimate population level is? And would the concept of a specified maximum life-span be so far behind? That would be a fair system, and would greatly benefit humanity. The aged would no longer tax a stressed medical industry, and the opportunity to allow more people to have children would be allowed since the population is being regularly thinned out of the older, more useless models.
Ever see Logan's Run?
It is patently ridiculous to say that something which does not yet exist has any "rights." Perhaps every child conceived has a right to live, but a child which might be born in the future if two people get together and conceive it is only an idea, a possibility. It is nowhere close enough to existence to have any "rights."
I never said a child had rights before it was conceived. I am not talking about an idea that may take place somehow. I am talking about the problem with aborting pregnancies when it is discovered that the child will not somehow fit into someone's idea of perfection. What is the perfect height? What is the perfect hair color? Eye color? Disposition to attitude? Now there's you a serious Big Brother scenario. Do you trust our leaders (GWB, Cheney, Pelosi, Kennedy, Obama, Lieberman, Jefferson, Clinton) to determine for you whether or not your child is sufficiently perfect to live? I certainly do not!
Or are you saying, as many do, that every human being has an inalienable right to reproduce? If so, I disagree, and have for as long as I can remember. When a horse carries the lethal HYPP gene, or a particular dog bloodline has hip dysplasia, we understand that they shouldn't reproduce. Why doesn't the same tried-and-true logic apply to humans?
This is closer to what I actually believe, and I can honestly say that I see wisdom in that comparison, but again, the devil is in the details. Who chooses?
TheRedneck
reply to post by OhZone
Actually, it sounded like you were. One method of raising pork is found to be toxic; so apparently we cannot raise enough for a larger population?
Now here is where the crux of our disagreement no doubt lies. You see, I don't believe in some 'matrix' that contains a person's energy just waiting to be born into whatever body happens to be on the list. I believe that each child is a genetic mixture of the parents, including what one might call their 'spirit'. I also believe that at some point, they have the ability to overcome that spiritual inheritance and make their own decisions (some religions call this the Age of Maturity).
Under that theory, my daughter simply would not exist if my wife and I had not chosen to have her. But even under yours, there is more to life than physical perfection. There are also the nurturing bonds that form (or do not form) between child and parent. There is a quality of life argument. Would her 'better' parents have expended as much energy into making her a good person? Would they have stressed education as much? Would they have cared for her as much?
In short, which is worse: to be trapped in a less-than-perfect body but have loving caring family and support to help you cope, or to have a perfect body and no one who cares about you?
That was clearly (I thought) an exaggeration to prove a point. Where do you draw the line between perfect and imperfect?
No, I do not. Every life is precious. Sorry if you disagree with this.
I just recounted the tale of one of those people you mention. He is happy and healthy, if not mentally mature. His caregivers (father (deceased), mother and younger brother) have and will happily care for him until his life comes to an end. He will never want for anything. Oh, the horror!
Read my post above for an answer to this. the devil is in the details, and unless you can find a higher power than present humanity to make these choices for people, and one that speaks without human intervention, I simply do not have the life-or-death faith in politicians you apparently do.
I am glad you are pleased with my progress. I have to point out, however, that those symbols contain meanings based on their order as much as the recipient. The symbols are not in themselves offensive, but the meanings can be, and can be in a generic sense as much as a perceived one. Oh, well, I suppose I will be satisfied at my progress. I hope you are such with your version of self-responsibility.
Perhaps that is because there is a fear factor in it. You see, unlike you, I am looking at the details that would be necessary for any such population control to take place. It is those details, handled by a segment of society that has proven itself impotent and/or callous at every possible opportunity, that do indeed scare me. I would presume that they would scare any sane person. Perhaps you haven't considered that; I suggest you do.
TheRedneck
Redneck, I wasn’t attacking all farms. I was pointing out the problem associated with the 50 billion population some of you want.
Actually, it sounded like you were. One method of raising pork is found to be toxic; so apparently we cannot raise enough for a larger population?
Yes, I do dare (that’s what I do. I say what others dare not think) to take the stance that responsible people do not inflict their problems upon their children. Perhaps you daughter’s matrix of energy would have had a chance to be born elsewhere and have perfect eyes. Wouldn’t she have had a better life that way? If you inherited your weak eyes, you must have suspected that you could pass the defect on.
Now here is where the crux of our disagreement no doubt lies. You see, I don't believe in some 'matrix' that contains a person's energy just waiting to be born into whatever body happens to be on the list. I believe that each child is a genetic mixture of the parents, including what one might call their 'spirit'. I also believe that at some point, they have the ability to overcome that spiritual inheritance and make their own decisions (some religions call this the Age of Maturity).
Under that theory, my daughter simply would not exist if my wife and I had not chosen to have her. But even under yours, there is more to life than physical perfection. There are also the nurturing bonds that form (or do not form) between child and parent. There is a quality of life argument. Would her 'better' parents have expended as much energy into making her a good person? Would they have stressed education as much? Would they have cared for her as much?
In short, which is worse: to be trapped in a less-than-perfect body but have loving caring family and support to help you cope, or to have a perfect body and no one who cares about you?
I am unaware of birth marks being heritable.
That was clearly (I thought) an exaggeration to prove a point. Where do you draw the line between perfect and imperfect?
For so long as defective people breed, we will have defective children. There are over 4000 + heritable defects in humans. Isn’t it time we did something serious about this. Have you any idea how many people there are in special care homes because there is no way that they can ever care for themselves? Do you think that it is right that they should suffer so because of careless breeding? Do you think that society should be burdended with them? Don’t you think that the services of their caregivers could be better used elsewhere?
No, I do not. Every life is precious. Sorry if you disagree with this.
Your right to life includes life long suffering. You must not know anyone who has had to live in a defective body. They suffer their whole lives and and many wish were dead.
I just recounted the tale of one of those people you mention. He is happy and healthy, if not mentally mature. His caregivers (father (deceased), mother and younger brother) have and will happily care for him until his life comes to an end. He will never want for anything. Oh, the horror!
Is there something wrong with having a vision of a perfect world? Don’t you wish every one did? Why wish for less? Why accept less if you can make it better?
Read my post above for an answer to this. the devil is in the details, and unless you can find a higher power than present humanity to make these choices for people, and one that speaks without human intervention, I simply do not have the life-or-death faith in politicians you apparently do.
The offence is still your creation. If you like that feeling have at it. Seek and ye shall find. My candid statements were not offensive in and of themselves. They are letters strung together into symbols/words to which we each give meaning according to our experience & expectation. You gave them your own meaning. You must have DECIDED to take them personally, which is entirely your choice. I have noticed that you are pretty outspoken yourself. You don’t mince words or make apologies. So far so good. One more bridge to cross and you will have learned the meaning of self-mastry.
I am glad you are pleased with my progress. I have to point out, however, that those symbols contain meanings based on their order as much as the recipient. The symbols are not in themselves offensive, but the meanings can be, and can be in a generic sense as much as a perceived one. Oh, well, I suppose I will be satisfied at my progress. I hope you are such with your version of self-responsibility.
Your definition of my selfishness sounds very much like defensive fear on your part.
Perhaps that is because there is a fear factor in it. You see, unlike you, I am looking at the details that would be necessary for any such population control to take place. It is those details, handled by a segment of society that has proven itself impotent and/or callous at every possible opportunity, that do indeed scare me. I would presume that they would scare any sane person. Perhaps you haven't considered that; I suggest you do.
TheRedneck
Well, Redneck, I see your points too although at this point I can't get worked up about it as I've never had any kids and never will. Eugenics would
no doubt be terribly abused and cause more harm than good, simply because people just can't be trusted, especially people with any kind of power.
What I don't understand is why people won't make these choices for themselves. My family has heart disease, congenital heart defects, diabetes, cancer, chronic obesity, and alcoholism. I chose not to have any children. If you KNOW you have some genetic disorder or inheritable disease, why wouldn't you just refrain from having children?
I guess we can't expect stupid people to be smart enough to realize they shouldn't have kids, but maybe it could be explained to some of them.
I don't think Eugenics should be externally forced upon the population, I think people, if they truly cared about the human species, would voluntarily do it themselves instead of exercising their "right" to reproduce by adding another half-dozen sickly, snot-nosed brats that they don't bother to raise properly anyway to the world's population. To me, it's just another indication that, in spite of all the big talk to the contrary, most people don't care about anything except their own wants and desires.
And don't take that personally because I'm not even thinking about pointing a finger at you. I'm just talking in general terms.
What I don't understand is why people won't make these choices for themselves. My family has heart disease, congenital heart defects, diabetes, cancer, chronic obesity, and alcoholism. I chose not to have any children. If you KNOW you have some genetic disorder or inheritable disease, why wouldn't you just refrain from having children?
I guess we can't expect stupid people to be smart enough to realize they shouldn't have kids, but maybe it could be explained to some of them.
I don't think Eugenics should be externally forced upon the population, I think people, if they truly cared about the human species, would voluntarily do it themselves instead of exercising their "right" to reproduce by adding another half-dozen sickly, snot-nosed brats that they don't bother to raise properly anyway to the world's population. To me, it's just another indication that, in spite of all the big talk to the contrary, most people don't care about anything except their own wants and desires.
And don't take that personally because I'm not even thinking about pointing a finger at you. I'm just talking in general terms.
Originally posted by Heike
reply to post by StellarX
Your logic and your point of view are good, except for one thing. Your entire position is based on the fallacy that human beings are as you think they should be. Your view of humanity is unrealistic and idealistic, in my opinion. Someday your rose-colored glasses may break, and if I am there when they do I will not even say "I told you so." That is more compassion and empathy than you will get from most people.
Most of the people I know, and have known, would not work if they didn't have to. If a society or a community allows all members to share equally in the resources of the entire community, most of the work will be done by a few people and the rest will do the absolute minimum to get by.
I have worked all my life to get a home of my own and a small piece of land. If I couldn't do that, if I couldn't acquire the comfort, privacy and amenities that I want by working for them, what would be the point? For the "greater good"? Yeah, right. When other people start caring about the greater good I'll start thinking about it. As long as most of the people around me continue to be selfish and greedy, I must have a similar outlook in order to survive.
It's called empathy and it takes a great deal of propaganda and schooling in general to rob people of it.
Quite the opposite. Young children have no empathy at all. You have to teach them to share, teach them that it is wrong to hurt others, teach them to accept not getting everything they want immediately when they want it. As much as you may not like it, selfishness and greed ARE human nature. Humans were selfish and greedy back when they lived in caves and whacked each other with clubs over hunting territories and women, and they are still greedy and selfish today, capitalists or not.
Because more people means more brains and unless misdirected more intelligence is always a good thing as it simply enables more productive output
What intelligence? Where is it? I don't see it. A tiny percentage of the population is responsible for all of the advances of humanity. The rest can barely think their way out of a cardboard box, let alone their reality box. In order for more brains to increase productivity, people have to actually use them. Most people don't.
In a perfect world populated with Mother Teresas, you'd be right. But it's not a perfect world, and Mother Teresa was an exception, not the rule.
I think your views on humanity are screwed up. Everyone I know thinks this way. All of my friends and family think this way. I've only met a hardnosed minority, at best, and they didn't fare well when they started inevitably speaking unfairly towards others in my presence either. The entire misconception of the human race put forth by the elitists doesn't represent the reality. First of all, the vast majority of human beings on this planet are women and children. They're the majority. They represent the human race. Not the capitalists. Thats not sexism, its a reality. They benefit from a system of sharing. But so does the whole planet, cause it's the civilized win/win we need to proceed and advance. Anything else is psychotic terror. For those kept down and misinformed, they are basically traumatized so much from their lives, sometimes they support hateful policies just because so much hardship has happened to them, they feel others should suffer too, like overworked single mothers whose son ends up in prison because they couldn't live a normal family life, and so many hard lives people live. But the solution is to change things, so that the democracy is run from the bottom up in open transparency. Its a crime to lie before a board of directors to influence decisions, people go to jail if caught. But its okay in the biggest business of all, the joint management of our nations properties and our childrens inheritance. Transparency and sharing and development of poorer nations so that they naturally choose smaller families as they start to do well themselves with healthcare. As well, better energy sources.
[edit on 9-8-2008 by mystiq]
reply to post by Heike
I think you have your own answer in your own post:
Yes, people are like that. I say it's a combination of two things. One, people, similar to animals, fight to survive. It's instinctive that our primary concern is for ourselves. Even you (and don't take this personally, because I am actually starting to admire you ) and I would no doubt save ourselves (or at least our families) in the event of a disaster rather than sacrifice our own lives or the lives of our families in order to save someone we did not know. That is not a condemnation of the species, simply an observation. If this were not so, we would have no doubt died out a long time ago.
Two, we live in a society that takes advantage of this human instinct for self-preservation. So it is reinforced throughout life. Some of us may rise above the primitive 'me' mentality to some degree, but these people are regularly taken advantage of by society and therefore taught that the only way to survive is by placing themselves first.
Now, if you want to argue that this is a very poor way for an intelligent species to behave, you'll need a new debate partner. I'll agree with you. I simply don't think we will be able to overcome this in the foreseeable future.
TheRedneck
I think you have your own answer in your own post:
To me, it's just another indication that, in spite of all the big talk to the contrary, most people don't care about anything except their own wants and desires.
Yes, people are like that. I say it's a combination of two things. One, people, similar to animals, fight to survive. It's instinctive that our primary concern is for ourselves. Even you (and don't take this personally, because I am actually starting to admire you ) and I would no doubt save ourselves (or at least our families) in the event of a disaster rather than sacrifice our own lives or the lives of our families in order to save someone we did not know. That is not a condemnation of the species, simply an observation. If this were not so, we would have no doubt died out a long time ago.
Two, we live in a society that takes advantage of this human instinct for self-preservation. So it is reinforced throughout life. Some of us may rise above the primitive 'me' mentality to some degree, but these people are regularly taken advantage of by society and therefore taught that the only way to survive is by placing themselves first.
Now, if you want to argue that this is a very poor way for an intelligent species to behave, you'll need a new debate partner. I'll agree with you. I simply don't think we will be able to overcome this in the foreseeable future.
TheRedneck
Originally posted by Heike
Your logic and your point of view are good, except for one thing. Your entire position is based on the fallacy that human beings are as you think they should be.
In your opinion, yes, but as clearly stated by myself i don't share your typically propagandized view of the world where we must fear our neighbours.
Your view of humanity is unrealistic and idealistic, in my opinion. Someday your rose-colored glasses may break, and if I am there when they do I will not even say "I told you so." That is more compassion and empathy than you will get from most people.
In your opinion, perhaps, but i am a strict adherent to the logic that one finds in the world what you believe you will. While i can agree that there is certainly enough violence and brutality in the world ( most all of which gets covered on the MSM) what you don't see is how the vast majority struggle peacefully to aid each other while bettering their lives.
Most of the people I know, and have known, would not work if they didn't have to.
Which is REALLY obvious if you think about it for more than a few minutes? Why would anyone wish to slave away for another gain? What's so surprising or illogical about that when even in this day and age, with all it's luxuries, people are still not entirely fooled by the system which robs of them of so much of their time?
If a society or a community allows all members to share equally in the resources of the entire community, most of the work will be done by a few people and the rest will do the absolute minimum to get by.
You can have a communal system where people are rewarded according to the share of the burden of work they are willing to carry. Those who do the hardest jobs ( or at least that which no one else wishes to) should obviously gain the most reward for the least hours. It would not be overly complex to devise a system by which critical tasks come highly rewarded ( or at least with great social/authority benefits) and things no one minds doing gaining much less reward. Everyone can contribute as much time as they like ( more arduous/ harder tasks) while we attempt to enforce minimum standards of living to prevent anyone becoming forced to labour against their will.
The great benefit of the currently imposed economic regime is that we can transition to this one which will probably be somewhat easier to having had to erect it at a slower pace. That being said i am a ardent believer in the claim that people do not mind working as much as t hey hate having to do without being able to 'get ahead' and stay ahead.
I have worked all my life to get a home of my own and a small piece of land. If I couldn't do that, if I couldn't acquire the comfort, privacy and amenities that I want by working for them, what would be the point?
The joke about this is that everyone used to have a little piece of land somewhere in the world where they could make a modest ( sometimes very modest) living without much luxury. Since kings and princes/imperialist/capitalist wanted to further enrich themselves they had to drive these people from these modest existences into mines, factories and armies to gain the wealth and power they wanted. As people hate fighting, mining and slaving away in factories you either have to terrorize them, violence or economic means, into doing that or start to create the consumer goods that might pacify them in their few hours of rest. It's not exactly a big secret that people don't want to work and it's not surprising that most would rather sit around surviving than toil away for a few golden trinkets that does not make their lives better.
Funnily/sadly you have worked all your life to get back where we started ( and had to be dragged away from) and yet , interestingly, you think that , comfort, amenities and privacy where not always things we worked for? Don't you understand that the only difference was that you could do it at a more modest pace ( depending on how much grain/food you had accumulated) without being paid starvation wages to perpetually keep workers in virtual slavery? Why do i get the impression that you life to work instead of work to live and should we reasonably expect that reasonable people want to do that?
For the "greater good"? Yeah, right. When other people start caring about the greater good I'll start thinking about it.
Just take notice of what people vote for and you will quickly understand that the excess and abuse you see is not because people may WANT to do it but because it is being rewarded by the current system. People are social creatures and understand quite well that that which is good for group is mostly security for the individual. As democratic struggles everyone indicates people are not only thinking about the greater good but dying and suffering for it.
As long as most of the people around me continue to be selfish and greedy, I must have a similar outlook in order to survive.
As long as you see selfishness and greed instead of desperation and suffering ( what is greed other than suffering and how are the selfish rewarded by their peers?) you will probably continue to be regarded as both by others who also engage in similar discussions online.
Quite the opposite. Young children have no empathy at all.
Because their higher brain functions are not as well developed; young children also walk into stuff , but their not blind, babies can at first not even crawl but will eventually walk and run. The idea that empathy is some kind of module that were bestowed us by god i can and will reject out of hand knowing that it is in fact just the result of the understanding yielded by the comprehension of our commonality; we experience it not because we want to or were raised to but because we are intelligent enough to understand that other people are just like us and experience the world in almost exactly the same way.
You have to teach them to share,
If you leave them alone long enough , to grow up, they will discover the utility of sharing all for themselves; not sure how well it would work if you lock them in a room at five years old to sort it out amongst themselves but i am fairly confident that some guy in white coat would have done it to see what happens. If you want them to always share playthings, especially when there are only one of each or not enough in total, when their young you can obviously teach them the utility earlier on but given the limited faculties they it might still not be so easy to understand.
teach them that it is wrong to hurt others,
But it isn't wrong to hurt others if they are doing it to you now is it? The point of teaching undeveloped brains that it's 'wrong' to hurt others is to provide a reference framework while their own brains are not sufficiently well developed to understand the consequences of their actions. This is obviously not just restricted to pain but to basically everything else given a absence of knowledge and experience from which to draw their own conclusions. In essence i would go so far as to claim that we teach children not so much because they need teaching in ethics ( our example is more than good enough without explanation) but because we can't stand to watch them do things to others we would not do ourselves.
teach them to accept not getting everything they want immediately when they want it.
Like patience is something so easily mastered? The best normally managed at that age is the understanding that authority must be respected as punishment can and will be meted out when it's disobey which is as far as i am concerned just about as much as can be expected with brains as they are then.
As much as you may not like it, selfishness and greed ARE human nature.
And i can but say that according to my experiences and reading you are mistaken. To confuse what people do for reward in our current economic system with whatever their true nature might be is in my opinion mistaken as much as i can understood the root of bias. While self interested behaviour might lead to the selfishness that does the practitioner more harm than good i don't know how we are naturally greedy when the vast majority of people are naturally law abiding citizens who do their best to fit into their societies. It is the few that pursue wealth without regard for other that stand out and are best rewarded by their equally inhumane peers who gain excessive news coverage so as to best affect the illusion that greed is a norm.
Humans were selfish and greedy back when they lived in caves and whacked each other with clubs over hunting territories and women, and they are still greedy and selfish today, capitalists or not.
Since selfishness is by definition excessive( against your best interest) self interest it can no more be used to describe normal interaction than greed can be to explain what drives overall interaction.
What intelligence? Where is it?
The intelligence that allows every human being to survive in his local environment and in fellowship with his community. If you can't see that then your not looking.
Continued
I don't see it. A tiny percentage of the population is responsible for all of the advances of humanity.
Do you know how much common labor it takes to build universities and feed and maintain the 'brilliant' men that spend their lives in contemplation? How much brilliance would be forthcoming from the supposed brilliant if they worked with shovels and the like all day? Yes, it takes a pyramid of organization and massive amounts of labour to result in the brilliance so commonly associated with a 'few good men.
The rest can barely think their way out of a cardboard box, let alone their reality box. In order for more brains to increase productivity, people have to actually use them. Most people don't.
Well it is this exact contempt of your fellows on this planet that disqualifies you from gaining my respect.The majority of people on the planet are making a living and doing their best to affect democracy in their region so they can gain more say in the running of their regions and countries. Since that struggle is still going on , and against great odds, how surprising is it that people barely make a living and never have time to 'better' themselves ( as you would probably put it)? Don't you think workers in Indonesia would not rather work for 6 USD per hour instead of the current 40 odd cents? Do you think they lack self respect or something or does it make more sense to presume that they are just still in the situation Americans were a century ago?
Who you argue that Indonesians are just less able today than Americans were a century ago and if so how did that happen given the vast natural wealth of that country? Could it perhaps be as result of successive occupations by various imperial powers than did their best to exploit that country by keeping the citizens uninformed, terrorized and generally in a state of mere survival? What was the role of the US when they took over from the Japanese occupiers that improved that country for the citizens in general? Is this is really a question of people not using their brains or rather about people in desperate situations using all their energy and brain power towards basic survival?
In a perfect world populated with Mother Teresas, you'd be right. But it's not a perfect world, and Mother Teresa was an exception, not the rule.
In a perfect world each people's and their nations would be allowed to rule themselves and to choose their leaders independent of foreign interventions. Since there are in the world today still 'superpowers' that intervenes in the affairs of other nations for corporate control and gain is it that surprising that so much brain power is diverted from learning and contemplation by being forced to struggle for a daily existence? The world is most certainly not perfect but this is not by accident as made evident by the concerted action of those with wealth and power to keep people occupied with just basic survival.
Stellar
new topics
-
Australian mercenary caught and crying as he is a prisoner of war.
Other Current Events: 2 hours ago -
JILL BIDEN Wants JOE to Punish Democrats Who Forced Him to Leave Office in Disgrace on 1.20.2025.
2024 Elections: 3 hours ago -
Panamanian President-“every square meter” of the Panama Canal belongs to Panama.
New World Order: 4 hours ago -
NYPD arrests migrant who allegedly set woman on fire on subway train, watched her burn to death
Breaking Alternative News: 6 hours ago -
Chef Gerald R. Ford
Food and Cooking: 9 hours ago -
The clotting is not going away latest
Medical Issues & Conspiracies: 9 hours ago -
F-18 shot down over Red Sea....by our own Destroyer?
Other Current Events: 11 hours ago -
California Business Owners Blindsided by Surprise Payroll Taxes
US Political Madness: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
California Business Owners Blindsided by Surprise Payroll Taxes
US Political Madness: 11 hours ago, 20 flags -
The clotting is not going away latest
Medical Issues & Conspiracies: 9 hours ago, 10 flags -
The Effects of Electric Fields and Plasma on Plant Growth
Science & Technology: 17 hours ago, 9 flags -
F-18 shot down over Red Sea....by our own Destroyer?
Other Current Events: 11 hours ago, 7 flags -
Anti-Government Protest in Serbia
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 16 hours ago, 6 flags -
Panamanian President-“every square meter” of the Panama Canal belongs to Panama.
New World Order: 4 hours ago, 6 flags -
NYPD arrests migrant who allegedly set woman on fire on subway train, watched her burn to death
Breaking Alternative News: 6 hours ago, 6 flags -
Australian mercenary caught and crying as he is a prisoner of war.
Other Current Events: 2 hours ago, 5 flags -
JILL BIDEN Wants JOE to Punish Democrats Who Forced Him to Leave Office in Disgrace on 1.20.2025.
2024 Elections: 3 hours ago, 3 flags -
Chef Gerald R. Ford
Food and Cooking: 9 hours ago, 2 flags
active topics
-
The Daily Mail trying to imply “it’s aliens”
Dissecting Disinformation • 12 • : KrustyKrab -
The Effects of Electric Fields and Plasma on Plant Growth
Science & Technology • 8 • : ChaoticOrder -
Australian mercenary caught and crying as he is a prisoner of war.
Other Current Events • 2 • : Cavemannick -
Post A Funny (T&C Friendly) Pic Part IV: The LOL awakens!
General Chit Chat • 7945 • : KrustyKrab -
JILL BIDEN Wants JOE to Punish Democrats Who Forced Him to Leave Office in Disgrace on 1.20.2025.
2024 Elections • 5 • : KrustyKrab -
Panamanian President-“every square meter” of the Panama Canal belongs to Panama.
New World Order • 6 • : BeyondKnowledge3 -
Labour Plotting to Postpone May's Council Elections ?
Regional Politics • 13 • : angelchemuel -
Just spotted an unusual aircraft Melbourne Australia
Aliens and UFOs • 9 • : Cavemannick -
The clotting is not going away latest
Medical Issues & Conspiracies • 10 • : rickymouse -
F-18 shot down over Red Sea....by our own Destroyer?
Other Current Events • 9 • : berbofthegreen