View Poll Results: In your opinion, which is the greatest threat to the planet/

Voters
52. You may not vote on this poll
  • Global Warming

    8 15.38%
  • Human overpopulation

    27 51.92%
  • Planet-killing meteor

    9 17.31%
  • Death of the Sun

    8 15.38%
Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 111

Thread: Greatest threat to this planet.

  1. #71
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,513

    Re: Greatest threat to this planet.

    Clearly, the greatest threat is fleas.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Greatest threat to this planet.

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    I can see why you'd say so, but IMO a population that remained steady at a sustainable level would be a better indicator of success.
    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    Well, it's a success in the sense that we've overcome the natural dangers and limitations of our environment. I agree, it's not as healthy in the long run for our species or the planet, if we don't find some eco-friendly equilibrium. It seems the technological intelligence of our brain has developed much faster than our emotional reasoning, or we'd easily see this problem and moves towards a fix.
    Eh. The way I see it, you can either have stability, or you can have progress. Of the two, I'd much rather have progress.

    Would you consider a hunter-gatherer tribe which has maintained a "stable" population of twenty persons or less for the last ten thousand years - while never advancing above a stone age level technology in that entire length of time - to be "successful?"

    In a sense, I suppose you could. However, I wouldn't say that they can hold a candle to what the rest of the world has accomplished in that same period of time.

    Likewise, would you consider humanity to have been "successful" if it managed to attain "ecological equilibrium" at a 21st century level of technology, but never took the next step beyond that necessary to become a Type II or Type III civilization on the Kardashev Scale? Would you consider such a version of humanity to be more "successful" than one which had depleted the Earth's resources, but found the motivation to become a truly space faring race in doing so?

    The Earth is nice. Don't get me wrong. However, it's hardly sacrosanct. It is ultimately a resource to be utilized like any other.

    As I already noted with regard to the super volcanoes mentioned earlier in this thread, there is also a very nearly 100% chance that it will wind up being the death of us sooner or later if we do not take proactive measures to ensure the survival of our species.

    No. I think I actually have to take the opposite stance of the environuts here. The sooner we liberate ourselves from the confines of this planet, the better.

    If that causes pain, discomfort, and destruction along the way, so be it. Nothing worth doing is free of cost.
    Last edited by Gathomas88; 08-05-14 at 04:47 PM.

  3. #73
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,186
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Greatest threat to this planet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    Eh. The way I see it, you can either have stability, or you can have progress. Of the two, I'd much rather have progress.

    Would you consider a hunter-gatherer tribe which has maintained a "stable" population of twenty persons or less for the last ten thousand years - while never advancing above a stone age level technology in that entire length of time - to be "successful?"

    In a sense, I suppose you could. However, I wouldn't say that they can hold a candle to what the rest of the world has accomplished in that same period of time.

    Likewise, would you consider humanity to have been "successful" if it managed to attain "ecological equilibrium" at a 21st century level of technology, but never took the next step beyond that necessary to become a Type II or Type III civilization on the Kardashev Scale? Would you consider such a version of humanity to be more "successful" than one which had depleted the Earth's resources, but found the motivation to become a truly space faring race in doing so?

    The Earth is nice. Don't get me wrong. However, it's hardly sacrosanct. It is ultimately a resource to be utilized like any other.

    As I already noted with regard to the super volcanoes mentioned earlier in this thread, there is also a very nearly 100% chance that it will wind up being the death of us sooner or later if we do not take proactive measures to ensure the survival of our species.

    No. I think I actually have to take the opposite stance of the environuts here. The sooner we liberate ourselves from the confines of this planet, the better.

    If that causes pain, discomfort, and destruction along the way, so be it. Nothing worth doing is free of cost.

    There can't be much progress without some level of stability.

    And the purpose of trying to reach some sort of "ecological equilibrium" is not to save the beauty of the natural system, but rather to not let it destroy us, before we can completely control its effects on us.

    Type II or Type III civilizations are just a relative scale, not exact science or even high probabilities. What may actually be possible or evolve out of today's civilization could be something of a mix or redux of the past.

    If we don't eventually have an off world presence to some sustainable level, it's only a matter of time before some cataclysm wipes us out, super volcano, asteroid, solar event, etc.

    I'm not a fan of "tree hugging" bananas either. My only purpose for not unbalancing nature too much is for our survival.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  4. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Greatest threat to this planet.

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    There can't be much progress without some level of stability.

    And the purpose of trying to reach some sort of "ecological equilibrium" is not to save the beauty of the natural system, but rather to not let it destroy us, before we can completely control its effects on us.

    Type II or Type III civilizations are just a relative scale, not exact science or even high probabilities. What may actually be possible or evolve out of today's civilization could be something of a mix or redux of the past.

    If we don't eventually have an off world presence to some sustainable level, it's only a matter of time before some cataclysm wipes us out, super volcano, asteroid, solar event, etc.

    I'm not a fan of "tree hugging" bananas either. My only purpose for not unbalancing nature too much is for our survival.
    That was frankly in response to Sangha's initial post as much as your's.

    I agree that we should not go out of our way to try and destroy our planet's natural order if it can be avoided. I was simply responding to the general attitude (so commonly held by the modern Left) that "stability" and "equilibrium" should be held to trump material progress, and that the "planet" is somehow more important than humanity.

    It's a rather regressive and "Hobbit" minded philosophy, IMO, and one which I find to be extremely annoying on the whole.

    If it comes down to planet vs progress, I'm very much on the side of progress. lol

  5. #75
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,952

    Re: Greatest threat to this planet.

    The sun isn't going to burn out for a while, so my bet is on a planet-killing meteor. Humans can die off, the planet would still exist if there was global warming or overpopulation to the point of extinction (somehow).
    Last edited by digsbe; 08-05-14 at 05:12 PM.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  6. #76
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Greatest threat to this planet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    Eh. The way I see it, you can either have stability, or you can have progress. Of the two, I'd much rather have progress.

    Would you consider a hunter-gatherer tribe which has maintained a "stable" population of twenty persons or less for the last ten thousand years - while never advancing above a stone age level technology in that entire length of time - to be "successful?"
    Thanks for falling into the trap

    20 people is not a sustainable population for any organism. In order to be truly sustainable, you need a certain amount of genetic diversity and 20 doesn't cut it.

    And when I used the word "stable" it was in reference to population and nothing else, so your contrasting it with "progress" is a red herring.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  7. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Greatest threat to this planet.

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Thanks for falling into the trap

    20 people is not a sustainable population for any organism. In order to be truly sustainable, you need a certain amount of genetic diversity and 20 doesn't cut it.

    And when I used the word "stable" it was in reference to population and nothing else, so your contrasting it with "progress" is a red herring.
    There has never been a "stable" society in the sense you describe which has also managed to be technologically advanced. The closest we have to such a thing, are hunter-gatherer tribes who have spent the last ten thousand years or more living in the stone age.

    For all intents and purposes, "stability" is "stagnation." That was exactly my point.

    Progress might very well be messy, but it is progress all the same.

  8. #78
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Greatest threat to this planet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    There has never been a "stable" society in the sense you describe which has also managed to be technologically advanced. The closest we have to such a thing, are hunter-gatherer tribes who have spent the last ten thousand years or more living in the stone age.

    For all intents and purposes, "stability" is "stagnation." That was exactly my point.

    Progress might very well be messy, but it is progress all the same.
    No, there hasn't ever been a stable population on the planet. However, progress is not synonymous with increasing population. There have been times when technology progressed after declines in population. In fact, technology has progressed irrespective to changes in population in either direction.

    IOW, your point is a fiction.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  9. #79
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Greatest threat to this planet.

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    No, there hasn't ever been a stable population on the planet. However, progress is not synonymous with increasing population. There have been times when technology progressed after declines in population. In fact, technology has progressed irrespective to changes in population in either direction.

    IOW, your point is a fiction.
    The entirety of human history apparently disagrees.



    It's a simple numbers game. More people, means more workers, more fighters, more thinkers, and more aggregate demand for all of the things such people produce and provide. It also means new challenges for societies to overcome and adapt.

    The crises created by population decline might serve a role as well. However, historically speaking, they only do so insofar as societies are capable of recovering from them and continuing the long-term trend towards growth.

    The only possible outcome "stability" could ever provide is a massive slowing of overall progress, if not outright stagnation. Whether that occurs at a stone age level or a modern one is irrelevant.

    If you want to claim otherwise, the burden of proof is going to be on you.
    Last edited by Gathomas88; 08-05-14 at 06:20 PM.

  10. #80
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Greatest threat to this planet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    The entirety of human history apparently disagrees.
    Really?

    Because I see three declines in population in that chart
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •