# 7,000,000,000



## Stone (Mar 20, 2012)

The short sightedness of our 'leaders' never ceases to amaze me. Their one and only solution to any and every problem is growth. economy down....growth, unemployment up....growth, you name it, their hot tip.....more growth. When is someone (world leader) going to have the guts to say: ''There's just too many [email protected]^^%* people and we need to stop!!''

Growth is the disease not the cure. If we don't stop growing we will end up living like rats. (7 billion and counting)

( Sorry, just listened to another long winded speech about growth from our esteemed treasurer )


----------



## Ray (Mar 20, 2012)

Damn! You and I are on the same wavelength.

"Alternative" energy systems - intended to "save" our asses - DON'T.

Everything is an energy balance. Altamont Pass in California, falls on the ridge that separates the cool, moist coastal area from the arid interior.. The cool, dense air passing over the ridge is the ideal force for driving windmills, so thousands have been erected, generating megawatt after megawatt of power.

unfortunately, nobody bothered to think about the fact that the trapping of the energy by the windmills has extracted all of the energy out of the air stream, and that moist air is no longer being delivered to the valley beyond. What used to be reasonably rich agricultural land is now a desert.

When you turn on the lights of your car, you actually get less gas mileage than you do if you don't have the lights on. The decrease may be infinitesimal therefore unknown-or at least undetected-but it is real.

We erect millions of square meters of solar cells. At solar flux is no longer reaching the earth, even if it is a desert environment, but do we have any idea what that is doing to the ecology of the earth?.

The simple fact is that our entire ecology is a giant energy balance, and we're doing everything we can to throw it off kilter.

Population control really is the only cure to our problems.


----------



## SlipperFan (Mar 20, 2012)

Ray said:


> Damn! You and I are on the same wavelength....



That makes three of us.


----------



## Lanmark (Mar 20, 2012)

Four


----------



## Hera (Mar 20, 2012)

Ditto. I talk with my kids about this all the time. There will eventually be a maximum capacitry. Have we already reached it?


----------



## Stone (Mar 20, 2012)

Ray said:


> > Population control really is the only cure to our problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start with 1 child per couple world wide. No ifs or buts (from now on that is---I don't think we should start culling just yet:rollhappy:


----------



## Stone (Mar 20, 2012)

Hera said:


> Ditto. I talk with my kids about this all the time. There will eventually be a maximum capacitry. Have we already reached it?



Yes we reached it a long time ago I think, we are over the hill and sliding down the other side. On the other hand humans are capable of living and surviving like cockroaches if they have to.( if you call that living )


----------



## Kevin (Mar 20, 2012)

Stone: I agree too. Problem is, it really doesn't matter, because we have already gone too far in destroying the planet. Any bit of 'help' we try to give is futile. Sorry to say it, but unfortunately it is true.


----------



## tocarmar (Mar 20, 2012)

Stone said:


> Ray said:
> 
> 
> > Let's start with 1 child per couple world wide. No ifs or buts (from now on that is---I don't think we should start culling just yet:rollhappy:
> ...


----------



## gnathaniel (Mar 20, 2012)

I don't entirely disagree with you all but I don't think it's so simple. Human evolution creates and is driven by our modification of ecological factors affecting carrying capacity (eg the Green Revolution). Increased local carrying capacity creates opportunity for higher population and higher cultural density. Science and innovation are to some extent a function of cultural density and in turn drive further advances in ecological techs. Because carrying capacity of human ecologies is modified by technology it doesn't necessarily get 'spent' at a fixed rate (or at all) relative to population growth. By the same token, bad stewardship can decrease net carrying capacity even if population also decreases, so just getting rid of people won't solve our problems. Does any of this make sense?


----------



## Rick (Mar 21, 2012)

There's several aspects to carrying capacity. Food, shelter, waste products, psychology/behavior. 

Not everyone is made to live elbow to elbow and be happy about it.

You can pack a bunch of rats in a cage and give them unlimited food, but they will end up drowning in there own waste, or going crazy and killing themselves. So which carrying capacity are you concerned with?

Humans are supposed to be smarter than the rest of God's creatures, but I'm still looking for a sign that we are (besides are ability to fly to the moon, or build a REALLY BIG bomb).

So insurance isn't supposed to pay for birth control, but will pay for viagra:sob::sob::sob:

I'm still waiting for that sign of true intelligence.


----------



## Rick (Mar 21, 2012)

Ray said:


> We erect millions of square meters of solar cells. At solar flux is no longer reaching the earth, even if it is a desert environment, but do we have any idea what that is doing to the ecology of the earth?.
> 
> Population control really is the only cure to our problems.



You know there's been great proposals to put solar panels on top of warehouse roofs in industrial sectors. There's no "ecology" to speak of, no endangered species, and the grid to hook up to is just a few feet away. No need to run a giant corridor for hundreds of miles from the desert.

Problem is someone else already owns the rooftops, and the utilities loose their monopoly (and profit) on power production/sales when they don't own the source of production.

Big oil is no better. There are 500,000 wells in the continental US and 50,000 in the Gulf. Most of them are capped, and only pumped when the price of oil gets about $120 per barrel. Drilling and capping will never bring down the price of oil if you don't actually pull any out of the ground. But drilling is a taxpayer subsidized activity, so that's why you hear the lie about "drill baby drill".


----------



## biothanasis (Mar 21, 2012)

I think the right word to describe what we need is : maturation... 
Growth is another thing and it does not mean / lead to better things...!

I think that we are where we are because everyone of us just thought of themselves and only... almost noone cares for the fellow human being or "roomate" creature and only cares how to please their own desires, wishes, needs...

Who did ever thanked mother earth, the home of us all, for letting us live here (we take it for granded, but the only sure thing in our life is that we all going to die one day...lol...nothing else is certain), for suffering and bearing all of our immature acts...who ever tried to do something in favour of her (even reduce their garbage for a day, knowing it is done in favour earth herself).... All we do is punching holes, scratching off & altering her "skin" surace (aka landscapes) indiscrimitatelly...bla bla bla... All we think of her is as a garbage can...throwing more and more of our garbage, either material or mental...

Who did ever felt thankful even for a whole day about earth? I didn't... 

It is all about I, I, I, I or we, we, we, we...!!! There is no us.... 

But things are changing....there seems to be a will for change, but everyone is reluctant to make the step.... we need a trigger... or someone that will pull the trigger.... we will have to wait...lol...

Oh, and please do not talk about science and tech...these are tools...!!! It is us who should change, not the tools.....!!! OMG!!!


----------



## Stone (Mar 21, 2012)

gnathaniel said:


> I don't entirely disagree with you all but I don't think it's so simple. Human evolution creates and is driven by our modification of ecological factors affecting carrying capacity (eg the Green Revolution). Increased local carrying capacity creates opportunity for higher population and higher cultural density. Science and innovation are to some extent a function of cultural density and in turn drive further advances in ecological techs. Because carrying capacity of human ecologies is modified by technology it doesn't necessarily get 'spent' at a fixed rate (or at all) relative to population growth. By the same token, bad stewardship can decrease net carrying capacity even if population also decreases, so just getting rid of people won't solve our problems. Does any of this make sense?



I see no technology that will be able to deal with the coming demand for resouces from China and India just to name two. Everyone there is going to want a new car and a plasma TV and everything else the West can offer and no one really has the right to deny it.
If this happens in the next 20 years or so, what sort of pressure will be put on an evironment already on the brink of collapse? The sea is running out of fish NOW. How will tech remedy that? No more fishing?, well we know that won't happen. Indonesian fishermen are constantly entering Oz waters and taking their chance. No law will stop it. 
Tech is not keeping up with the population explosion. In fact in many ways I think its hindering the natural order of things. Take the on-going African famine. Some people in Africa and elsewhere are saying the very reason for the never-ending starvation there, is because of well-intentioned humanitarian assistance from the west. ie: they're getting just enough food stay alive and procreate and produce the next generation of starving kids. So are we helping them or perpetuating the problem?
The first Australians lived and thrived in harmony with their environment for more than 40.000 years. What we need is someone to design a system where we can live and enjoy life for the next 40.000. Not much to ask?


----------



## Stone (Mar 21, 2012)

One more thing before I stop dribbling. Another (modern?) way to look at it:
The Earth will be destroyed by the Sun in the next 10 billion years??. All of Earth's life and history will be gone. So does it really matter if it ends now or then in the great scheme of things? Every man for himself? :evil::evil::evil:


----------



## biothanasis (Mar 21, 2012)

:rollhappy::rollhappy::rollhappy:


----------



## Lanmark (Mar 21, 2012)

My parents seem relieved that their time on earth is short (they are very old now), and this is how I am beginning to feel as well. Get me the heck outta here! This place has become the Planet of the Humans. It isn't pretty, and I hardly recognize it anymore. :sob:


----------



## Ray (Mar 21, 2012)

Rick said:


> You know there's been great proposals to put solar panels on top of warehouse roofs in industrial sectors. There's no "ecology" to speak of, no endangered species, and the grid to hook up to is just a few feet away. No need to run a giant corridor for hundreds of miles from the desert.



THAT is where the solar arrays SHOULD be.

By the way, I am NOT the one who suggested limiting offspring, as Tom's (apparently poorly edited) "quote" suggests.


----------



## Lanmark (Mar 21, 2012)

I'm proud to say I have created no offspring, and I shall not do so in the future. I've had my hands full helping to raise my late sister's five children over the past nine years. Five are more than enough, too many really, and I am pleased with how they've turned out for the most part. Two are in graduate school, one in community college, and two are in high school now, one of whom will graduate this spring. None of them have procreated yet. I'm cautiously hopeful.


----------



## gnathaniel (Mar 21, 2012)

Stone said:


> I see no technology that will be able to deal with the coming demand for resouces from China and India just to name two. Everyone there is going to want a new car and a plasma TV and everything else the West can offer and no one really has the right to deny it.
> If this happens in the next 20 years or so, what sort of pressure will be put on an evironment already on the brink of collapse? The sea is running out of fish NOW. How will tech remedy that? No more fishing?, well we know that won't happen. Indonesian fishermen are constantly entering Oz waters and taking their chance. No law will stop it.
> Tech is not keeping up with the population explosion. In fact in many ways I think its hindering the natural order of things. Take the on-going African famine. Some people in Africa and elsewhere are saying the very reason for the never-ending starvation there, is because of well-intentioned humanitarian assistance from the west. ie: they're getting just enough food stay alive and procreate and produce the next generation of starving kids. So are we helping them or perpetuating the problem?
> The first Australians lived and thrived in harmony with their environment for more than 40.000 years. What we need is someone to design a system where we can live and enjoy life for the next 40.000. Not much to ask?



Well, the thing about technological evolution is that it potentially alters our abilities/modes of interaction in ways transcendent to our 'original' biology, and likewise in ways transcendent to current technological states. Which means that we won't necessarily see change coming simply because it's outside of what we already recognize as possible or likely.

You're right that unsupported food inputs to a human ecology can lead to nasty boom and bust cycles, but this is as true of New York City or Sydney as it is of Somalia. The difference is that these developed places have the social and organizational structures (technologies) in place to coordinate and sustain their own food inputs from outside. There are a lot of geopolitical reasons why certain regions do or don't have such structures in place, so suggesting that letting people starve for want of this is somehow more 'natural' than continuing to feed them or helping to develop sustainability structures isn't entirely accurate IMHO.

I also take exception to the idea that Australian aborigines, or any indigenous people, lived in 'harmony' with their surroundings to any great extent. Any human population causes ecological change/disruption/destruction when it first enters an area, as does any other invasive terraformer or top predator. The best that can be said is that some societies live in relative equilibrium with their broader ecologies; these are typically not equilibria of choice but rather of necessity. Once techs are gained that allow transcendence or expansion of some of the basic ecological constraints eg local food availability, things almost always re-equilibriate unless there are sociocultural techs constraining this in some way. 

@biothanasis: I'm not talking about technology in the narrow sense of gadgets and gizmos, but in the broad sense of any human tool (physical, conceptual, whatever) not intrinsically present in all humans from birth. This includes language, art, religion, sociopolitics, in addition to computers, GMO, etc. Our biology is so irrevocably intertwined and grafted with technology at this point that anything you say is impossible for technology to achieve is implicitly also humanly impossible, though we may have human capacities (eg making babies) that aren't YET possible via technological means. Technology (ie the ability, by any means, to graft and modify capacities of self and other) is what makes us human.

Lest anyone mistake me for an unalloyed technology Pollyanna, I'm not. I don't think we necessarily WILL solve our current problems through better technology, just that we CAN and MIGHT. Ecological carrying capacity isn't a fixed value anymore than human techno capacity is, and I think talking as if population control will solve everything (or even anything) is not only simplistic but also quickly gets into inhumane territory. 

You all feel free to disagree with me now, I gotta get back to work...


----------



## gnathaniel (Mar 21, 2012)

Ray said:


> THAT is where the solar arrays SHOULD be.



Amen to that, Rick and Ray! We need to start doing things a lot smarter rather than just bigger.


----------



## NYEric (Mar 21, 2012)

Stone said:


> I see no technology that will be able to deal with the coming demand for resouces from China..



The Glorious People's Democratic Republic is generally dismayed at the comments mentioned here. We have already convinced our members to adopt a limited child per family resolution. Additionally we are working with our cousins to the south, west, and north to cooperatively utilize the natural resources available while researching technology which will limit our controlled population's impact on our environment!


----------



## Rick (Mar 21, 2012)

gnathaniel said:


> Amen to that, Rick and Ray! We need to start doing things a lot smarter rather than just bigger.



Unfortunuately greed generally trumps smarts. Present day market capitalism is really designed to squash inovation and competition.


----------



## biothanasis (Mar 21, 2012)

nathaniel, you talk about technology as synonym of culture / civilization or in the very end equal to ecology / biology / behaviour etc, but I do not know if it is true / valid...! But perhaps you could be right... Thanks for showing me another perspective...  

Rick you said it all in the first sentence....


----------



## Stone (Mar 21, 2012)

gnathaniel said:


> > Well, the thing about technological evolution is that it potentially alters our abilities/modes of interaction in ways transcendent to our 'original' biology,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Stone (Mar 21, 2012)

NYEric said:


> The Glorious People's Democratic Republic is generally dismayed at the comments mentioned here. We have already convinced our members to adopt a limited child per family resolution. Additionally we are working with our cousins to the south, west, and north to cooperatively utilize the natural resources available while researching technology which will limit our controlled population's impact on our environment!



What are you doing in Africa??


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Mar 21, 2012)

Population control is not a one size fits all solution. The technologically developed countries have limited population growth, in many cases negative population growth. The only thing keeping the US population sustained is immigration. Japan, on the other hand, without immigration, is facing a very real problem. Their population growth is so low that the population is skewed....lots of old folks, very few young folks. On the other hand, Africa is a total disaster, and India is also very problematical. Oh....and lets put an end to the myth that I see popping up everywhere: Viagra is not covered by insurance. I have friends who have good coverage, but are diabetic. The only way that they can have any resemblance of a decent sex life with their spouses is with that little blue pill....at $20 a pop!


----------



## Lanmark (Mar 21, 2012)

Eric Muehlbauer said:


> Oh....and lets put an end to the myth that I see popping up everywhere: Viagra is not covered by insurance. I have friends who have good coverage, but are diabetic. The only way that they can have any resemblance of a decent sex life with their spouses is with that little blue pill....at $20 a pop!



My insurance covers my Viagra almost in full. I'd pay less than $5 for a one month supply if I needed it.


----------



## gnathaniel (Mar 21, 2012)

Stone said:


> Yes, but it is our original biology that does not change and is subject to the vageries of the natural world. The planet can only sustain a finite number of beings, and that must include ALL species not just the human animal.



Actually, there's a large and growing amount of scientific evidence that technology/culture/behavior DO change fundamentals of our biology. Easy example: sexual selection modifies genetic inheritance in populations, obviously in pretty enormous ways over time. Since in humans culture plays a role in mate selection, culture is clearly a force in human genetic evolution. Straying further into territory of Things I Barely (Or Maybe Don't) Understand, new advances in epigenetics seem to indicate that environmental factors like what we eat play a role in gene expression and inheritance. And this doesn't even get into symbiosis or genetic manipulation...



Stone said:


> I don't remember suggesting allowing people to starve in order to solve this particular problem and I don't claim to have a solution, but I think it's important to point out that the current order of things is not working and some effort should be made to arrive at a solution. It's all very well to illustrate the differences in geopolitical situations and say ''that's for the too hard basket'', the status quo remains decade after decade. The same images I saw when I was 12 are still there today. Surley another approach needs to be adopted and I believe strict population control should and will be a part of the solution.



Well, I think you said that food aid in Africa upsets the 'natural order' of things, which to me implies that you might think people starving to death is more natural than feeding them (which, as you rightly pointed out, often perpetuates nasty boom-bust cycles). Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you said... I certainly don't think we should throw up our hands and accept the status quo. My point about geopolitical situation was that there's very little 'natural' these days about people starving in one place and thriving elsewhere, it's all pretty much due to human (mis)management in one way or another. I'm not exactly sure what we're arguing about, I suspect we'd actually agree substantially on what to do about perpetual famine... 



Stone said:


> Call it harmony or unity or what you will. My point is that they lived in a sustained manner over a huge expance of time compared with we modern people which with our ''tech'', have managed to arrive at this situation within a matter of a few hundred years. If you extrapolate this direction into the future, how much time before total catastrophy? another 50-100- 200 years? Not a very enviable record! We can no longer just sit back and hope that technology will save us from ruin. In the short term at least, it won't. We need a more immediate stop-gap until we can take stock.
> The starting point is realizing that it was technology that allowed us to become way out of balance with the natural world and we cannot continue in the same manner. I also believe that religion had and continues to play a large part in our descent, but that's a whole other can of worms



I won't call it harmony or unity at all, I prefer 'equilibrium' or 'disequilibrium' as they're more precise and value neutral. Many people over-romanticize aboriginal peoples for the dubious virtue of not totally wiping themselves out. There are plenty of examples of radical ecological change when people come into new areas; in some cases this leads to human population collapse and in some not. You're right that technology won't save us if we sit back and do nothing, though, technology's value is in the rapidity with which it allows us to evolve. Use of technology can lead to imbalance but not all imbalance is harmful. 

And I'd be interested in discussing religion but I'm afraid I might offend some folks. :evil:



Stone said:


> Taking that point to it's logical conclusion suggests NOT controlling population will lead to increasing prosperity and that more is better. So is there no limit? Should we keep multiplying?



I don't agree that what you quoted implies that. What I meant is that population control is an over-simplistic and ethically problematic way to address current ecological problems. I DO happen to think that a certain amount of population density is useful and probably necessary for many cultural achievements including scientific advances. I also agree that unchecked population growth leads to ecological problems if all else stays constant within the ecosystem in question. Isn't that last bit pretty much what you were saying in your original post?


----------



## NYEric (Mar 22, 2012)

Stone said:


> What are you doing in Africa??


The Glorius People's Democratic Republic is extending the hand of peaceful cooperation and population control to our allies in the Southern Continent. Cooperatively, we will help with the distribution of the mineral wealth of our allies in the Southern Continent.


----------



## Stone (Mar 22, 2012)

gnathaniel said:


> > Actually, there's a large and growing amount of scientific evidence that technology/culture/behavior DO change fundamentals of our biology. Easy example: sexual selection modifies genetic inheritance in populations, obviously in pretty enormous ways over time. Since in humans culture plays a role in mate selection, culture is clearly a force in human genetic evolution. Straying further into territory of Things I Barely (Or Maybe Don't) Understand, new advances in epigenetics seem to indicate that environmental factors like what we eat play a role in gene expression and inheritance. And this doesn't even get into symbiosis or genetic manipulation...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## NYEric (Mar 22, 2012)

Lanmark said:


> My insurance covers my Viagra almost in full. I'd pay less than $5 for a one month supply if I needed it.



Funny, my Viagra comes with an insurance policy! :evil:


----------



## Rick (Mar 22, 2012)

NYEric said:


> Funny, my Viagra comes with an insurance policy! :evil:



Is that funny or SCARY you beast??!!


----------



## cnycharles (Mar 22, 2012)

there were words posted here about technology advance equaling society/civilization, but that's a fallacy. most likely, from what little hasn't been destroyed in former libraries, people of much older times in many places were much more civilized and had much more knowledge of the world and our surroundings than today. the only problem is that we have the periodic megalomaniac here and there that wants everything for themselves, and sticks their foot into everything. it appears that there generally can be equanimity in population with food supply, and there always have been ups and downs with food supplies and populations, but again we have warlords who want nothing but to stir up and destroy any slight competition, which always destroys an established society and often the food supply/distribution. it is viewed in many circles that it wasn't the neanderthals who were the 'cavemen' who went around clubbing their neighbors, it was the ones who supposedly are the master race we are today who can't keep themselves still a moment to realize they are driving themselves towards a cliff. the neanderthals were likely much more peaceful and thoughtful. progress and scientific discovery aren't the end all to meet all; until someone comes up with a 'breakthrough' that teaches people how to use new tech peacefully and productively, it will always be used against somebody in a negative way. the asian emperor years ago whose scientists discovered dynamite, and 'put them away' sort of had the right idea (except for causing the terminal condition of the scientists), because he knew it would be used for destruction

religion isn't the cause of present and past/future problems. individuals with evil in their heart, seeing the potential to use some societal system for their own gain, are the problem. human's hearts are found wanting


----------



## SlipperFan (Mar 22, 2012)

Yea? What about religions that forbid any birth control except the "rhythm" method? I see that as big problem of the past present and future.

Then there's the religion-based rhetoric of the current Republlican candidates in the US.


----------



## Stone (Mar 22, 2012)

SlipperFan said:


> Yea? What about religions that forbid any birth control except the "rhythm" method? I see that as big problem of the past present and future.
> 
> Then there's the religion-based rhetoric of the current Republlican candidates in the US.



You and I should be running the world Dot, not the riff raff currently doing it :rollhappy::rollhappy:
There was an English comedy where a militant green seized power and said ''The first order of business--I will be banning the motor car. From now on we can look farward to the toot toot toot of the steam engine'':rollhappy:


----------



## cnycharles (Mar 22, 2012)

SlipperFan said:


> Yea? What about religions that forbid any birth control except the "rhythm" method? I see that as big problem of the past present and future.



so how long has the above been part of the human situation, in terms of our total existence? probably a very short period of time. also I highly doubt that many religions support this, or many individual cells in the religion that this view comes from. again, a very small part from a much larger whole in the greater terms of our whole human existence. who cares what this or that party has to say on the news? neither side has any real answers and they only speak to raise ratings. it's more important to deal with issues in your own neighborhood and effect positive change than to follow the stats quo and blame this or that party, which is generally a waste of time. blaming/being negative only suits those who want strife, not being positive/working towards a workable solution.


----------



## Lanmark (Mar 22, 2012)

cnycharles said:


> so how long has the above been part of the human situation, in terms of our total existence? probably a very short period of time. also I highly doubt that many religions support this, or many individual cells in the religion that this view comes from. again, a very small part from a much larger whole in the greater terms of our whole human existence. who cares what this or that party has to say on the news? neither side has any real answers and they only speak to raise ratings. it's more important to deal with issues in your own neighborhood and effect positive change than to follow the stats quo and blame this or that party, which is generally a waste of time. blaming/being negative only suits those who want strife, not being positive/working towards a workable solution.



The Catholic Church supports only the "rhythm" method of birth control. I'd say the Catholic Church is a rather big church with rather strong worldwide influences at play.

This is not about blame or wasting time. It's about demanding some truth for a change. It's about setting a high standard of social responsibility for everyone. It's about not being a submissive lamb while the big hungry lion waltzes in to rape and then devour everyone in its path. It takes _real_ courage to stand up and cry foul in the face of the lion. It takes _real_ courage to call a lie a lie. There's absolutely nothing about doing any of these things which precludes a person's abilities to be a positive influence in the community and work toward practicable solutions. Positive changes can only be achieved when pacifism and activism are tempered with truth, knowledge, and justice and are backed by a lot of hands-on hard work. It takes a balanced approach to achieve balance and success in the world.

It's also important to realize that simply writing off all politics and all discussion and debate of politics -- by saying, "Who cares?" and by implying that dissension is "generally a waste of time" -- is, in effect, encouraging people to give up their hard-won freedoms of voting, publicly expressing their opinions, and having representation within the government, which in the USA, by the way, is a government _of_ the people, _by_ the people and _for_ the people. I, for one, refuse to give up my voice, my freedoms and my privileges. Too many places on this planet do not afford these freedoms and privileges to its citizens. These are _not_ gifts to be taken lightly nor ignored. These are tools which, when wisely implemented, can bring about true and lasting change for the better.


----------



## SlipperFan (Mar 23, 2012)

Stone said:


> You and I should be running the world Dot, not the riff raff currently doing it :rollhappy::rollhappy:
> There was an English comedy where a militant green seized power and said ''The first order of business--I will be banning the motor car. From now on we can look farward to the toot toot toot of the steam engine'':rollhappy:


Very English! :rollhappy:


cnycharles said:


> so how long has the above been part of the human situation, in terms of our total existence? probably a very short period of time. also I highly doubt that many religions support this, or many individual cells in the religion that this view comes from. again, a very small part from a much larger whole in the greater terms of our whole human existence. who cares what this or that party has to say on the news? neither side has any real answers and they only speak to raise ratings. it's more important to deal with issues in your own neighborhood and effect positive change than to follow the stats quo and blame this or that party, which is generally a waste of time. blaming/being negative only suits those who want strife, not being positive/working towards a workable solution.



I'd say 2000 years is quite a long time, seeing the amount of influence that religion has had on human history.

People should care about what the candidates are saying. Our democracy depends on an informed electorate. Ignorance is the underlying cause of why we are where we are, in terms of the governmental stalemate of the last two years. If we don't know what the candidates are saying, then who do we get our information from? Rush Limbaugh? Fox News?

Thanks, Mark.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Mar 23, 2012)

While religion is an easy target, its not the religion, but the actions of its believers. While much is made (in the US) of the official stance of the Catholic Church against birth control, the reality is that most (US) Catholics do not share their church's stance. They may support their church, but they also support access to birth control, the practice of birth control, and, yes, they use it themselves. The Catholic countries of Europe are experiencing low population increases, frequently negative population growth. Other Catholic countries vary in their use of birth control...but one thing quickly becomes clear, and it overrides all religion: Education!!!!!!! An educated populace practices birth control, regardless of its religion. Education enables the full exercise of free will! Ensure a good education, and people will figure out how to reconcile their religion with their conscience, and act accordingly.


----------



## Stone (Mar 23, 2012)

I'm itching to have a say on religion but maybe this is the wrong forum. But I will say: It's 2012, time people open their eyesoke:


----------



## Lanmark (Mar 23, 2012)

Eric Muehlbauer said:


> While religion is an easy target, its not the religion, but the actions of its believers. While much is made (in the US) of the official stance of the Catholic Church against birth control, the reality is that most (US) Catholics do not share their church's stance. They may support their church, but they also support access to birth control, the practice of birth control, and, yes, they use it themselves. The Catholic countries of Europe are experiencing low population increases, frequently negative population growth. Other Catholic countries vary in their use of birth control...but one thing quickly becomes clear, and it overrides all religion: Education!!!!!!! An educated populace practices birth control, regardless of its religion. Education enables the full exercise of free will! Ensure a good education, and people will figure out how to reconcile their religion with their conscience, and act accordingly.



Trust me...there are millions upon millions of _uneducated_ Catholics on this planet, and most of them _do_ follow what the Church instructs with ignorant faith. I _do_ blame the Church, because the Church _could_ fess up and say, "Okay, we screwed up on this one. We had no idea what the hell we were talking about. You can go ahead and use birth control, in fact, please use it, everyone, please!"

Sure, I agree, let's educate everyone, but it's high time for the Church to stand up with a big "Mea culpa" too. This infallability sh_t is for the birds! 

Now don't get me started on the rest of the religions of the world. Tonight they all look to me like they need new orifices ripped "where the sun don't shine." :evil: It's no wonder this planet is so messed up and overflowing with environmentally-reckless Homines sapientes. Billions of minds are filled with misinformation and outright lies and are corrupted with superstition and a sense of divine entitlement. It's enough to destroy any planet!


----------



## Berthold (Sep 19, 2018)

Presently all 5 seconds a baby dies in this world, terrible.
Presently all 400 milliseconds a baby is born on this planet, more terrible.

Much luck to all of them.


----------



## Heather (Sep 19, 2018)

Why is this old thing getting dredged up.


----------



## Berthold (Sep 20, 2018)

Heather said:


> Why is this old thing getting dredged up.


Due to new data available at present time.


----------

