Say Anything Blog

The really cool bit is that the good man doesn’t see that he’s calling most of the world “Lebensunwertes Leben” and emulating Herr Schicklgruber. (Hitler)

He also gives away his bias when he says he’s aware of no challenges to the “ecological footprint” methodology--evidently not even aware that you can’t add a barrel of oil to a cow to a pint of gin and come up with any meaningful measurement.  He thinks the opposition must be “scientific” when it’s basic logic that exposes the whole exercise as inane.

The precepts of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam represent the quintessential perversion of the human mind. They must be abandoned and the notion of the sanctity of human life must be subjugated to the greater sanctity of all life on Earth.

This was also pulled from the article.  I don’t agree with any of his “solutions” but I do support his analysis.  I do feel the world is currently overpopulated, and unsustainable.  I wrote about this here.

Humans need to realize that we are a part of a community of life, instead of its master.  The native americans had a saying:

The land does not belong to people, people belong to the land.

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams

Troy: Being anti-religion doesn’t make you wise; just bigoted.
You may “feel” the world is overpopulated, but unless you appoint yourself “Dictator for Life”, your feelings don’t count with the rest of us.
By the way, Thomas Malthus has been refuted long ago.
Who determines what “the greater sanctity of all life on Earth” means?

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Who determines what “the greater sanctity of all life on Earth” means?

God

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams

And this wacko is God’s Messenger, after bashing religion?  Ah doan theenk so!

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Robert108:

Troy: Being anti-religion doesn’t make you wise; just bigoted.

Exactly so.  You don’t have to be an Einstein to be a cynic.  You do have to be an Einstein to have the ability to rethink “what we know” and come up with novel ideas.

Shorter form: Lefties mistake the cynicism of small minds for the skepticism of great minds.

Troy_Pineri said, I do feel the world is currently overpopulated, and unsustainable.

I find this incredibly ignorant because wealth and resources are virtually unlimited.

Take a look up at the sky. That sun you see in the daytime throws out enough energy to support many more people. The moon, the red planet of Mars, and the stars are places where we could expand.

As for the land we occupy - we’re only limited by our imagination as to how we can increase the use of it.

But don’t let me convince you to have kids Troy. I agree with you in that the world would be better off without your offspring.

By the way, I’m not sure Troy was anti-religion here.  Perhaps he can clarify.

What is particularly hilarious about the material he quoted (whatever he thinks about it), the original author’s commentary is a complete perversion of Judeo-Christian beliefs. 

The idea of being a “good stewart of the land” is very much in keeping with Christianity.  It isn’t found so much in the United States, though that isn’t the fault of Christianity, but of its followers. 

On the other hand, if you go to Australia, you will find that it is the religious right is highly environmentally conscious.  Being a good stewart of the land does not mean that you don’t use the land for your needs.  It just means ensuring that the land is available for future generations to use as well.  Here is a link I found that discusses this trend, which I first heard about on NPR.

One can also argue that it is environmental wackos who give the movement a bad name, preventing a more wide-spread ecological consciousness in the United States.  In that case, I suggest that we start by sterilizing the wackos, since they are a bigger part of the problem than the solution.

I don’t have a serious problem with sterilizing people, as long as they do it willingly. A program like Project Prevention is doing a positive thing.

People can sterilize themselves willingly now anyway.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Dave, perhaps you can explain how a government-run and endorsed program can become “voluntary.” Sorry, but when you start using armed men funded by the public, it gets pretty hard to claim that it’s “voluntary” in any meaningful sense of the word.

The constitution will have to be changed for this to happen because our posterity is protected by it as well—except for abortion of course.  But then, the same argument for abortion could be made against forced infertility—a woman’s right to choose.  If a woman’s body is her property so that not even her own baby has the right to occupy it until birth, then the gov’t can have no right to tamper with a woman’s body either, right?

Carrick:

One can also argue that it is environmental wackos who give the movement a bad name, preventing a more wide-spread ecological consciousness in the United States.  In that case, I suggest that we start by sterilizing the wackos, since they are a bigger part of the problem than the solution.

wealth and resources are virtually unlimited.

I find this statement to be ignorant.

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams

Thomas Malthus would agree with you Troy.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Ditto Ned Ludd.  The truth is, our demand economic system functions to supply whatever demand exists, and in this way, utilizes whatever resources are necessary to do so, like silicon, for instance(computer chips), one of the most abundant materials in the universe.  In supplying that demand, our system also produces wealth.  I’m sorry you are so ignorant not to know that, Troy, but many of us are not so ignorant.
As some resources become more scarce, the system automatically adjusts via the price mechanism, and other resources come into play, allowing the supply of the old resources to recover. In the same vein, resources that used to be scarce are discovered in greater supply(sometimes by the use of new technology) than previously thought.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

R108,

Another lefty wedded to static analysis.  Pity!  Still, what can you expect from folks whose idea of dynamic is John Kerry!?

I understand what you are saying… but what is currently developing is a tight supply of many critical resources at the same time that are dependent on the other to increase supply to meet the demand.

The first resource is fresh water.  Fresh water is becoming a tight resource.  There are new sources and new technologies etc.  The greatest source is the ocean, but required desalinization plants which build require energy and metals and to operate require large amounts of energy.

A second resource is metals.  You will argue that environmental restrictions, and labor are the reasons for underinvestment in this industry. Well you are probably right. However there is still a shortfall in mining output and huge drag of at least 10 years before new mines will become operational.  New mines require energy, metals and water.

Third is energy.  Energy has also been underinvested for many of the same reasons as mining.  The fact is the market is tighter.  Energy capabilities can be expanded with technology etc ect, but require metals and water.

So I agree with you when you say:

As some resources become more scarce, the system automatically adjusts via the price mechanism, and other resources come into play, allowing the supply of the old resources to recover. In the same vein, resources that used to be scarce are discovered in greater supply(sometimes by the use of new technology) than previously thought.

But I also believe that are our current standard of living and population is unsustainable for some of the reasons I have mentioned above.

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams

I understand what you are saying… but what is currently developing is a tight supply of many critical resources at the same time that are dependent on the other to increase supply to meet the demand.

Troy, I think you are earnest, and I respect that.  The truth is, if allowed to in a free market, supply does increase to meet increased demand, and it also decreases when demand decreases in any segment of the economy.  I think what confuses you here is that, even in our country, supply is not always free to meet demand, due to restriction for political purposes. 
The energy market is handicapped by the fact that it is mostly a govt controlled monopoly.  This is the root of the problem.  Without politically-motivated environmental restrictions, we could have lots of clean energy; the technology would develop even more rapidly without the political restrictions.  The govt engages in both price-fixing and supply restriction, which prevent the energy market from responding properly.  Your other two examples are similar, though not identical down to the last detail.

But I also believe that are our current standard of living and population is unsustainable for some of the reasons I have mentioned above.

That conclusion is based on your premises above, and so may not be as you have been told it is.  Those who act in a fear-based manner are always proved to be wrong:

“Man will never be able to fly.”
“Automobile travel is only for the wealthy.”
“No aircraft will ever be able to fly past the speed of sound, there is a “sound barrier” up there.”
“Computers are so large, and use so much energy, they will only ever be available to the govt and the military.”
“We will never be able to escape the Earth’s gravitational field.”
“No private individual will ever want, or have a use for, a CD burner.”
“No personal computer will ever need a hard drive.”
“There is a limit to how many transistors that can be put on one chip.”

And so on, and so forth.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

supply does increase to meet increased demand, and it also decreases when demand decreases in any segment of the economy.

I agree, I would state that the demand will decrease because a short supply will make resources unaffordable.  Things that we take for commonplace will be luxuries in the future. Or we can “solve” our energy, water, food, land, etc shortfalls but it will come at the expense of the environment, and further mass extinctions of other species of plants and animals. 

I would like to argue that this is not fear based.  I agree that nothing is impossible, but everything does have a cost.  Flying is great!  The fact that automobiles are affordable to everyone is a great accomplishment, so is going to the moon.

But is it necessary?  It is up to each person to decide.  R108 I am guessing that you are older than me so you have seen a lot of progress in your life.  The moon mission accomplished the birth of the computer, and the internet.  Will technology advancement always be there? Are you happier than your parents or grandparents who never had a computer?  or used a CD burner?  These things are nice yes, I use them, but I could be happy without them as well.

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams

Things that we take for commonplace will be luxuries in the future. Or we can “solve” our energy, water, food, land, etc shortfalls but it will come at the expense of the environment, and further mass extinctions of other species of plants and animals.

You’ve been misled Troy.  Progress has amounted to more people living more wealthy lives.

You say our technology is unsustainable.  What is unsustainable would be living a dirty poverty striken existance because we turned our backs to technology.

What would be the status of the world if we lived our existance with the technology of a hundred years ago.  It’d be awful.  Disease, animal waste, burning coal and no forests left on Earth.

The next 100 years will bring that much progress again which will make the planet cleaner and healthier for billions more people.

There’s been idiots like Thomas Malthus around ever since the industrial revoltuion.  They’ve been wrong in the past and they are wrong today.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

They are being respected around the world for their opinion.

Oh to be held in the favor of world opinion!

Ellen,

Exactly what is the benefit of world opinion?

Troy_Pineri said, I find this statement to be ignorant.

Why? We’ve got all the energy we can currently use and then some. We are only limited by our imagination and drive.

The first resource is fresh water.  Fresh water is becoming a tight resource.

The only limitation on fresh water is our own self imposed restrictions. The technology is advancing at a rapid pace, so there’s no excuse. It’s not quite right to claim that fresh water is becoming a “tight resource”.

The only resource we are lacking on the fresh water bit is freedom (check out Africa) and common sense restrictions (check out the rapidly dropping water tables in eastern China).

But I also believe that are our current standard of living and population is unsustainable for some of the reasons I have mentioned above.

The base resources aren’t a problem. It’s a freedom problem that humanity self imposes on itself.

Or we can “solve” our energy, water, food, land, etc shortfalls but it will come at the expense of the environment, and further mass extinctions of other species of plants and animals.

You’re lacking imagination again. Why is it a given that we can meet our resource needs, but only at the expense of the environment?

I agree that nothing is impossible, but everything does have a cost.

Most of the time, as time goes on - things cost less because the initial investment is paid off or getting paid off with time.

R108 I am guessing that you are older than me so you have seen a lot of progress in your life.

In my short life (I’m only 27), I’ve seen technology grow by leaps and bounds. You know what else? The environment is a hell of a lot cleaner. Rivers, particulates in the air, etc.

The assumed environmental “cost” hasn’t been materializing. As we have grown bigger (over a third of this nation’s population is new since I’ve been born) and wealthier, we have grown cleaner.

Are you happier than your parents or grandparents who never had a computer?

I’m happier with all of the medical advances and never going without food. I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but here in America - even the poor are fat. Maybe we’re not happier, but we are certainly a hell of a lot more comfortable than those who came before us.

I agree, I would state that the demand will decrease because a short supply will make resources unaffordable.

Troy: You really don’t understand the law of supply and demand.  Demand is essentially infinite, and wealth is created by supplying that demand.  There is also the priority of demand; we all might want flying cars, but we don’t want them enough to spend good money on them; we have other priorities for that money.  Demand is the independent variable, supply the dependent variable, and price is the resultant.  The problem with socialism is that it exerts control by jiggering with prices through taxation, or by restricting supply through regulation.  This is why socialist economies tend to stagnation.  Because of their need to control, they can’t allow supply to increase to meet demand, and allow the prices to be set by that relationship.  It is out of their control, it would be free people making free choices, and they can’t stand that.  In this country, they try to control through propaganda and scareology, and they have successfully brainwashed you, apparently.  None of your nightmare scenarios will exist unless the socialists gain control.

As far as all your “happiness” questions are concerned, it is apparent that on a cost/benefit level, the answer is “yes”.  If those things made us unhappy, we wouldn’t buy them, and since we are free to choose what we buy and don’t buy, the people vote with their dollars for those things.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Troy, davey, if you both believe that reducing the population is the morally correct and superior course, why don’t you go first?

I have no problem with forced sterilization. Starting with all those calling for it, and their children. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

As for Troy’s contention that Earth is over populated, I notice he does not offer to help alleviate said problem by ending his own life. Oh, no! Some one else needs to die inorder to make his life more comfortable. Whats the deal, Troy? Do you need room to expand? Just going to kill off a couple billion brown and yellow people so you can live in luxury? How many times have you read Mien Kampf?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

To Troy and Dave: Save the Planet; Kill Yourself!

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Rather than killing humans who are already alive, it would make more sense to prevent humans who don’t already exist from coming into existence. I realize the majority of you enjoy inflicting suffering on others, but we should try to do this in a way that involves as little pain as possible.

Your are the one who claims infanticide/euthanasia is the morally superior philosophy. Prove it. Martyr your life for Mother Gaia.

We will whole heartedly support you.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2hotel9: I will. When I become terminally ill and am in pain, I will end my life painlessly. Same thing if it happens to my child.

Ending my life right now runs contrary to my ethic. Most 7-year-olds can understand this--not you.

You have no ethics, you morph and camoflage your situational ethics crap as much as you can. You could get a job writting flack for the DNC. They like your fluid veiw of,,,well, eavrything.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Lets introduce a sterilizing agent into the world’s supply of caviar. Problem solved. Eat up.

Dave: I fully support your right to die, but not to murder your child.  That’s just sick.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Bongo: Save the planet; kill yourself.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Bongo: Save the planet; kill yourself.

NICE COMEBACK! Go ahead, eat my caviar. It tastes great!

2hotel9:

You have no ethics, you morph and camoflage your situational ethics crap as much as you can.

Can you provide some examples of my inconsistency on this issue?

Er, rather: You can not provide any examples of my inconsistency on this issue, because my views are completely consistent.

Much better. You can only make empty accusations, wild assertions with no evidence to back them up. This is boring and predictable. If you have evidence of my inconsistency on the infanticide issue, provide it. Very simple.

Yay, yay! Lets play link-tag cause davey wants to obfuscate his stupidity.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

What’s “link tag”? From your comments, I’m guessing it’s when people provide evidence to support their claims. If you don’t want to do that, that’s fine--I know how much you hate basic logic.