Text 2072, 356 rader
Skriven 2006-06-07 23:25:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2518.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Soylent Green (Re: At
=================================
* * * This message was from Jonathan Biggar to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <CfFhg.40908$fb2.30038@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
@REPLY: <128chs7l3qqke0c@corp.supernews.com>
Mox Fulder wrote:
 > 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.

Sure, set up a strawman and Stein looks stupid.  Actually deal with his
statement and he doesn't, you do.  Stein didn't claim that those
resources are limitless.  His claim is that we aren't close to running
out.  There's a big difference, and an honest examination would see that.

 > 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

Clearly you don't understand what "proven reserves" means.  It means oil
that has been discovered, determined as to the capacity, and *legally*
ready to exploit.  ANWAR, for example, is not a "proven reserve",
because it can't be legally extracted.

 > "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

So?  Who cares where the new reserves are found, or their nature.  If
they exist, and can be exploited, it's a new resource.

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

Sure, some people with a vested interest in fear-mongering disagree.
Who'd a thunk that?

 > 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?

Wow, such a forceful arugment, surrounded by a veritable cloud of hard
facts.  Not.

That's what passes for rebuttal from the environmental
catastrophe-monger crowd.


 > 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."

On the contrary, the countries that are doing well are the ones with the
most economic *freedom*.  China and India have problems because their
people are not free to do what is necessary to make a living.

 > Stein: "India is a vastly more prosperous country than China. Are you
 >  out of your mind?!"
 >
 > Do I really need to comment on this?

Right.  Just dismiss it without though.

 > Stein: "The state of Nebraska by themselves can feed [India/China]."
 >
 > Over a billion people. Really? Of course, with those super-infinite
 > resources!

It's the same old refrain with you isn't it?  You use ridicule, not facts.

 > 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.

Stein is more honest with that answer than you are.

 > 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.

Funny thing about math and facts:  they tend to disprove arguments made
from emotion, like yours.  But since you can't counter them, you stick
with ridicule.

 > 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.

In that, you're correct.  Poverty is caused by *politics*, not by a lack
of resources.

 >>> 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]."

That's *exactly* what I said.  Try reading it for a change, rather than
just replying with the same old, same old.

 > [...]
 >
 >> 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.

Backed up your claims with *what*?

 > [...]
 >
 >> 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!

So sorry that accurately placing blame offends you.

 > Do you understand what the word "refuge" means?

Yes, it's a place where we should put environmental fear-mongers like
you so that they can't mess up life for everybody else.

 > You'd fuck up the environment for nothing.

Ah, more fear mongering.  We'd need to use .01% of ANWAR's land space.
The proposition that that would "fuck up the enviroment" is simply
ridiculous.

 > "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.

Why don't we let the Alaskans decide?  Unlike you and your sterile urban
evironmentalist buddies, they live there.

 >>>> 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.

I'm not providing a counterarguent because you *didn't* provide an
argument in the first place.  You just claimed something and now it's
supposed to be my job to prove it untrue when you never supported it in
the first place?

 >> 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.

They're improving, something that you seem to be desperate to avoid
acknowledging.

 > Thus, simply increasing the population, as you claim, does not solve
 > the problem.

Correct on that point.  India's (and CHina's) problem is lack of
freedom, not resources.  India's making great strides to fix that
problem.  China is doing the same, but far slower.

 > 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.

Now you're trying to turn the whole argument on its head.  Stein's
point, and mine, is that "overpopulation" isn't the problem.  We aren't
claiming that breeding more people *solves* the problem, we're claiming
that breeding more people doesn't *cause* the problem, other things
(namely potitics) do.

Once you finally take time to understand that important distinction, and
stop hyperventilating over a strawman, maybe we can have a rational
discussion about this.

 > [...]
 >
 >> 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.

Oh, really?

 >>>>> 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*.

Translation:  "Because I said so, so there!"

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.

Small children don't remain small long.  They become adults and stay
productive *far* more of their lives than they spend either being small
children or elderly.  You're argument is the fallacy of pointing at
little Johnny and saying "see, he can't support himself", while ignoring
the larger number of adults around him that support themselves *and*
Johnny *and* Johnny's great-grandma too.


 > What basis do you have to deny such obvious facts?

Because they aren't 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.

They only have 10 because 8 of them die early.  If they didn't die 
early, they wouldn't *have* 10.

And where exactly* do you get those numbers from?  Oh, right, from your 
imagination!

 > 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).

No, I don't get the point when you use made-up numbers.

 >> You're still throwing up wild claims without any basis in fact.
 >
 >
 > You are confusing me with you.

Hardly.

 >>>> 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.

What point?  An exaggeration with no basis in fact?  I don't think so.

-- 
Jon Biggar
Floorboard Software
jon@floorboard.com
jon@biggar.org
                                                                     
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)