Humans must unite. - Page 2

THX wrote"Theory, please re-read my statement. I am simply pointing out that no matter what we do, good or bad, we are affecting human life. If we do not care for the planet, it will recover -- but without us. The earth was here before we were, and it will be here after we have gone."

There is every chance that human could fix it so that they are the only macro-organism on the planet.
The idea that the earth will be here after we are gone is not necessarily true.
Uniting is not the solution

theory typed "Little Jon your points are valid and i take heed. I'm just getting bored with the amount of wars and murder that happens in the world every day. Its pathetic that some people show little, to no regard for human life.

It just feels as tho we are at a deadlock unable to advance from such primitive habits." -end quote-

You have a big heart , and I appreciate your compassion. I really do. I don't want to discourage you because it is way cool to hear when people care about other people. I have not found there to be a general or global "single" value when it comes to human life. Each of us are bewildered when things that are SO important to us, are of little importance to others. painful sometimes, but always there. dealing with it is a growth point.

People always unite around specific common interests. You will find your crowd in time. I know people right now who say the same things you do. Unfortunately for me, they say that then they read you the list of rules for membership in their club, and suddenly its not so attractive. Be careful as you proceed. Eyes wide open.

TO LittleJohn,

I get it- that is your cynicism about 'saving people'. I feel there are too many people in the world, and there has been for 200 years or more. More if you look at Europe, and other places where 'civilisation' has destroyed the natural environment for a long time.
But what do you care about?
Would it make any difference to you if you knew that humans will not only destroy themselves, but the earth also?

Do you not care about yourself, your family?

…
I would like to reawaken this post. I think we were talking past ourselves.

I can only explain that which I have written, so I will start there. When I spoke of “saving the planet” v. “saving ourselves” -- I was addressing the fact that as much damage as we might do, we do not presently have the power and technology to destroy the sphere that circles the sun we call Earth. Even if we unloaded every nuclear weapon we possess, the mass that makes up this planet would not disappear, though obviously we would. We cannot destroy the planet. We can destroy ourselves. Would this be desirable? Of course would not. Still the planet would circle the sun. Whatever was left would attempt to adjust, and given the proficiency of life, I would expect that some rudimentary life would survive long enough to evolve. Still, not desirable. Still very much and end for us.

Theory wants humans to unite to prevent such a tragedy. However, the post on 30 January: “people like you are the reason mass genocide is the only way to keep this planet alive” contradicts this plea for humans to unite. Genocide is the antithesis of uniting.

Theory and I also had the disagreement about what has been removed from the planet (02 February). Burning fossil fuel does not remove it from the planet. Cutting down a tree does not remove it from the planet. The chemicals, the mass, and the energy remain on the planet in differed form. You do not have the tree, or the fuel, but you have not lost a single atom. Gravity works. It all stays here.

Little John questioned the ultimate validity of uniting for the sake of self-salvation. This is not a minor point. Though I disagree, this is a value determination that is as equality valid for consideration has any other.

Hobbes stated; “I keep wondering for what do we need with all these people?” More correctly stated might be what do we need with so many we? “These people” is a self-reference. So who does not want to not be? Over population is a problem, so who volunteers to go? Not me.

Let’s pick this up again, I see some of the very best Captain Cynic has to offer right here, and we have not reached a consensus.

I really do not think the idea of destroying the 'planet' as such is ever a concern.
We do have the power to destroy all life on earth, and to make that stick for a million years or more.
On the question of population.
We can easily bring down population levels without a single person having to die the achieve that.
It takes a strong political will.
One child per family will do the job, with penalties for having 2 or more.

I agree that population levels are a key component. Over population, even at the level we have now, stresses the environment and its resources. There is a correlation to high levels of populace and poverty. And given our limited resources, increases inflation and decreases the standard of living. It has even been shown that there is a correlation between fatal epidemics and high density populace.

I'm Sold. But your comment that it will take a strong political will is an understatement. I don't think it will happen. Only one country has tried, China. And as repressive as they have been, it still has been met with resistance.

Japan has a decreasing population, not by decree but by personal choice. Now they are worried that the reduced productive populace will not be able to support the aging population. Even America, which as reasonably stable, but increasing population at present, is worried about the fact that the average age is increasing. How can the young support the aging population?

Putin is trying to get Russians to produce more offspring, as he fears economic consequence as well. In those counties that are economically challenged and have no senior safety net, your children are your best defense against poverty in old age. So you are then motivated to have many. Minorities in some countries are still trying to increase their populations as one factor in decreasing the level of minority status. And many cultures still are large family oriented by faith. A basic tenet of Latter Day Saints stresses the family (aka a large family). The Catholic Church is still officially against contraception.

For this to be effective it must be global.

I agree. Necessary. Not likely to happen.

Not to discard the population problem at all -- having read some of my other posts -- you know I am going to point out society's responsibility to provide easy access to education to all people as well.

This is no small matter. If the entire world's population was reduced to just a hundred people, 20 of them would be nearly starving, and 30 of them would be illiterate in their own language.

Education is probably the closest we get to helping the population problem, no doubt.

There certainly is an interesting correlation between poverty and population - BUT not in the way most people think.
Most people think that overpopulation causes poverty. But paradoxically it is the other way round.
Poverty and it's associated limited education is the cause of over population! This id due to the necessity of families having to struggle to make more children as they have no other way to support themselves when they get too old. Poverty also means a higher infant mortality rate. The three factors taken together mean that population stress follows closely on the back of poverty.
In actuality the best demonstrated way to help reduce population pressure has been shown to empower women, buy giving them control of their own reproduction; man can't be trusted.
And that's the big change that is happening right now. Women are getting reproductive control; and are now fast becoming the bread winners as reliance on heavy agriculture is switching to manufacturing which favours women who have smaller hands and a better work ethic.
I know this must sound sexist, but by and large this is almost universally true in most developing countries where Aid intervention is occurring.

I don't think this sexist. The studies that I have read show that financial/educational assistance to the woman of the household yields a far larger return on investment than the same assistance to the man of the household.

It is sexist to assume that this would always, and in all cases be true.
Obviously empowering women does not always work. - and, of course doing so can lead to serious disruption to family structures.

I'm glad to see the thread is still thriving.
Up till now Ive attempted to monitor the discussion and take in all the points until deciding to respond.

First of al "thx" please do not take my anger driven response to the spammed literally. I was merely trying to entice a logical response from somebody. (Not spam) and ended up contradicting what i beleive in, in my hast.

Quote: from rainforest.org
Tragically, the tropical rainforests are being destroyed at an alarming rate. According to Rainforest Action Network, more than an acre-and-a-half is lost every second of every day (refer to the entries below to see, quantitatively, what that translates into). That’s an area more than twice the size of Florida that goes up in smoke every year! "If present rates of destruction continue, half our remaining rainforests will be gone by the year 2025, and by 2060 there will be no rainforests remaining."Every second . . we lose an area the size of two football fields!Every minute . . we lose an area 29 times the size of the Pentagon!Every hour . . . we lose an area 684 times larger than the New Orleans Superdome!Every day . . . we lose an area larger than all five boroughs of New York City!Every week . . . we lose an area twice the size of Rhode Island!Every month . . .we lose an area the size of Belize!Every year . . . we lose an area more than twice the size of Florida!At the very least, "with the destruction of the tropical rainforests, over half the plant and animal species on earth, as well as numerous indigenous cultures will disappear forever."(2) If strong and decisive action is not taken immediately to reverse the destruction of this vital ecosystem, the consequences will be catastrophic. In fact, many scientists agree that the earth could very well become uninhabitable for virtually every living species, including humans!We’ve consulted some knowledgeable experts in the field of tropical rainforest conservation and come up with some sobering facts that will lend credence for taking immediate action to save the last remaining tropical rainforests. And what might happen if we don’t.B I O - D I V E R S I T Y. . . "a typical four-mile square mile patch of rainforest contains as many as 1,500 species of flowering plants, 750 species of trees, 125 mammal species, 400 species of birds, 100 species of reptiles, 60 species of amphibians, and 150 different species of butterflies.". . . "there are more fish species in the Amazon river system than in the entire Atlantic Ocean.". . . "a single rainforest reserve in Peru is home to more species of birds than the entire United States.". . . "at least 1/3 of the planet’s bird species live in the Amazon rainforest.". . ."the Andean mountain range and the Amazon jungle are home to more than half of the world’s species of flora and fauna.". . . "at least 1,650 rainforest plants can be utilized as alternatives to our present fruit and vegetable staples.". . . "37% of all medicines prescribed in the US have active ingredients derived from rainforest plants.". . . "70% of the plant species identified by the US National Cancer Institute as holding anti-cancer properties come from rainforests.". . . "90% of the rainforest plants used by Amazonian Indians as medicines have not been examined by modern science.". . . "of the few rainforest plant species that have been studied by modern medicine, treatments have been found for childhood leukemia, breast cancer, high blood pressure, asthma, and scores of other illnesses.". . . "a hectare (2.471 acres) of rainforest absorbs one ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year.". . . conversely, "the clearing and burning of the world’s rainforest accounts for 20-25% of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by man. It therefore could play a significant role in any so called "greenhouse effect" underway in our atmosphere."THE COST OF RAINFOREST DESTRUCTION. . . "almost half of the world’s original four billion acres of rainforest are now gone. The lost area equals the combined size of Washington, Idaho, California, Nevada and Arizona.". . . "in 1500, there were an estimated six to nine million indigenous people inhabiting the tropical rainforests of Brazil. By 1900, that number had dropped to a million. Today, there are less than 250,000 indigenous people left in Brazil.". . . "man has recently increased nature’s "normal" extinction rate by 10,000%. Most of this increase is taking place in the rainforests.". . . "by conservative estimates, 9,000 species are going extinct each year, most of them from the rainforests.". . . "we are presently experiencing the largest mass extinction since the demise of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago; only this time it’s occurring at a much faster rate."

Its not the fact we are in a closed environment. Its the fact we are constantly changing our environment.
This seems prity retarded to me.

We destroy thousands of lives from humans to insects everyday... why?
Wouldn't an attempt to advance our knowledge of realty be better funding?


The population of the world doesn't really matter when the governments have already invented war.



Just on thought of humans uniting,would an advanced selective breading programme a good idea to attempt the spread up of evolution.

With you, till the last sentence. Selective breeding smacks of eugenics. That was sort of given a bad name back in the period between 1930 - 1950.

Let me re iterate my final statement.

I mean to stunt the growth of population, so only those who pass a test or fit a certain criteria can breed. With a selection programme. Meaning the populace will shrink and we will advance as a species.

Obviously a final resort and a thought i realise stretches a little of topic.