Text 1993, 248 rader
Skriven 2006-06-07 14:10:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2439.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Soylent Green (Re: At
=================================
* * * This message was from Mox Fulder to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <128chs7l3qqke0c@corp.supernews.com>
@REPLY: <L_veg.878$VE1.89@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 19:29:43 +0000 (UTC), Jonathan Biggar <jon@floorboard.com>
wrote:
[...]
> Stein didn't say that.

Let's look at the ridiculous things he did say:

Stein: "The question is, are we running out of resources? Every year 
they seem to find more and more oil, more and more natural gas..."

Fantastic! The Earth must have unlimited reserves of oil and natural 
gas, then. We went to war for nothing. If only we knew! We are swimming in 
oil, we just don't know it yet.

Do you *really* think we are "finding" as much oil as we are consuming? 
Let's look at the facts.

"U.S. proven oil reserves have declined more than 17 percent since 1990, 
with the largest single-year decline (1.6 billion barrels) occurring in 
1991." () "U.S. crude oil production, which averaged 5.4 million bbl/d 
during the first eight months of 2005, is now at 50-year lows."
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Usa/Oil.html

"New oil discoveries made in 1999 were made almost entirely in the Gulf of 
Mexico, and Alaska. (321 million barrels).  All other discoveries were 
extensions of existing oil fields, or new reservoirs discovered in old 
fields. (404 million barrels)."
Source: http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/funda/Sidebar/OilConsumption.html

This is the proverbial drop in the ocean. Do we have more oil than we 
thought? Yes. Enough to make a difference? Don't make me laugh!


Stein: "Wait a second. Wait a minute. That's not true. There's more 
harvestable wood in this country and in most of the world than there was 
30 years ago."

Some people disagree:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Deforestation/deforestation_2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oldgrowth3.jpg


Stein: "What are we running out of?"
Maher: "The things we need to live, FOOL!"

(Clean air, clean water, and so on). This is another important part of the 
equation. You can't just harvest resources indiscriminately. When you
f--- with nature, nature will f--- you up ten times worse, OK?

For example, opening up hundreds of new factories to increase production 
will also increase pollution. This is not a solution.


Stein: "Why is it that the countries that don't have population control 
seem to eat much better than the ones that do?"

Well, you FOOL, maybe the countries that are "well fed" have sufficient 
resources and production for the population they have to maintain, so they 
don't have to limit that population. DUH! If the U.S. had the population 
of China or India, you can bet you ass we would not be "eating well."


Stein: "India is a vastly more prosperous country than China. Are you out 
of your mind?!"

Do I really need to comment on this?


Stein: "The state of Nebraska by themselves can feed [India/China]."

Over a billion people. Really? Of course, with those super-infinite 
resources!


Maher: "So, Ben, do you think it's unlimited, the amount of children this 
planet can support? Do you think it's unlimited?"
Stein: "We are nowhere near the limit."
[everyone talking at once]
Stein: "...and people are better fed than ever."
[everyone talking at once]
Maher: "We have 6 billion people. What is the limit?"
Stein: "I don't know."

So...Stein doesn't know what the limit is, but he's certain we are nowhere 
near it. Sure. Whatever.

Maher: "You don't know?"
Stein: "I don't know, but I know that the more people..."
[everyone talking at once]
Maher: "We'll know when we get there, because we'll be dead."
Stein: "THE MORE PEOPLE THERE ARE, PEOPLE ARE BETTER AND BETTER FED."

Is this "new math"? This is one of the more disgusting generalizations in 
the history of generalizations. Globally, poverty may be declining slowly, 
but this decline is not evenly distributed. In some places, poverty has 
gotten *worse*. Where poverty *is* declining, it's because of better 
resource distribution, better health, education, and so on, *not* because 
they simply have "more people." It's not a question of manpower. It's a 
question of technology and politics.

>  > and that we
> > have "unlimited resources" to support that population,

> Neither did he say that.  His claim is that we aren't on the down side 
> of the curve for resource scarcity.  Scarcity at the moment is caused by 
> lack of exploitation, not by unavailability of resources to exploit.

Incorrect. He did say "we are nowhere near the limit [of the number of 
people the planet can sustain]."

[...]
> It is nothing other than moronic to keep making categorical claims 
> without actually backing them up.

Maybe you should stop doing it, then. I have backed up my claims. I 
don't see you doing the same.

[...]
> We're paying more than $3 for gas due to a combination of three factors:

> 1)  taxes on gasoline
> 2)  regulations on gasoline refining and formulations that disrupt and 
> fragment the market
> 3)  environmentalist know-nothings that won't let us increase our daily 
> supply of oil production.  If we'd started drilling in ANWAR 10 years 
> ago, when Congress first authorized it and Clinton vetoed it, we'd have 
> more than 1 million barrels of oil per day added to our current 
> production.  That's upwards of 30% of our daily use.  *That* alone would 
> drop the price of oil back to where we'd see gas under $2.

Those evil environmentalists. Obviously, it's their fault!

Do you understand what the word "refuge" means? You'd fuck up the 
environment for nothing. "Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil 
development would only slightly reduce America's dependence on imports and 
would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an 
analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/

Leave Alaska the fuck alone.

> >>Wrong.  More people = more labor = more ability to exploit resources of 
> >>*any* variety.
> > 
> > Only if you want to use child labor, and force people to work until they 
> > die.

> Wrong.  You're simply making absurd claims, which still indicates that 
> you aren't willing to have an open mind on this subject.

Look who's talking. Calling it "absurd claims" doesn't prove them wrong. 
You are not providing any counterargument.

> >> > India has a population of one billion, with a "B"--half of them are
> >> > below the poverty line, and illiterate.
> > 
> > 
> >>You're ignoring the *great* strides that India has taken in the last 50 
> >>years or so to raise their population out of poverty.
> > 
> > 
> > Good for them. Maybe in another 50 years they will only be 40% illiterate.

> I see.  In the face of contradictory information, your response is to 
> belittle it, not counter with anything factual.

First of all, there is no contradiction here. India's population is 
*still* awfully poor, illiterate, and so on. Thus, simply increasing the 
population, as you claim, does not solve the problem.

Secondly, as I already mentioned, their progress is not based on more 
manpower, but better technology, better use of the technology, education, 
and so on. You can't increase the literacy rate simply by having more 
children.

[...]
> It was all the response your ranting deserved.  You're appealing to FUD, 
> not the intellect.

I gave you more substantial arguments and facts than you can handle.


> >> > It's simple: More people consume more resources and produce more waste.
> > 
> >>And more people *produce* more resources to support their consumption. 
> > 
> > WRONG. When you say "more people," you are thinking "more productive 
> > adults," and you are IGNORING the fact that "more people" ALSO means more 
> > children and more elderly people, who DO NOT PRODUCE, but CONSUME 
> > resources.

> What basis do you have to make that claim?  Since the population is 

BLEEPING *LOGIC* and *REASON*. I *know* that very small children are not 
exceptionally productive. On the contrary, they require constant care, so 
they DRAIN resources. The same applies to the elderly. Only healthy 
adults are in a position to be productive.

What basis do you have to deny such obvious facts?

> growing, and not dying from mass starvation, it's pretty clear that the 
> vast majority of adults are capable of enough labor to supply their 
> children and their elderly too.

Wrong! The population is growing because women in poor countries have 10 
children, and 8 of them DIE FROM STARVATION. That leaves you 2 more 
children. Thus, the population grows. (Ten and eight are arbitrary 
numbers in this case, you still should be able to get the point).

As for the elderly, the life expectancy in those countries is not great.

> You're still throwing up wild claims without any basis in fact.

You are confusing me with you.

> >>And waste isn't that forever, it's just a resource waiting for a 
> >>rational to recycle it.
> > 
> > Indeed, radioactive waste will be harmless in another 10,000 years.

> Big flippin' deal.  All of the radioactive waste we've produced so far 
> could be piled away somewhere in the desert in a couple of 
> football-sized fields and forgotten forever.  You've managed to pick the 
> *one* type of waste that actually causes the smallest amount of problems.

The point was that waste (and pollution) does not magically disappear, 
and it's not easily recyclable. The point stands.

[...]
> There you go again, demonstrating that you have no concept of what 
> you're talking about, and no willingness to educate yourself.

Is there an echo in this group?

-- 
20060606 2000
This .sig is not available at the moment. Leave your message after the beep.
                                                                               
                                               
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)