I want to murder these people. Options

[JRockTTU]

every second 3 people are added to the world. most of those are in undeveloped countries like africa, india and south america. these countries havent been able to maintain their old population numbers and this is putting a very big strain on the economy, food, and the land they live on.

the population of the earth (6billion as of 1999) should DOUBLE by 2050. never before has anything been so increasing in numbers that its putting a stranglehold on the environment. america itself has a net gain of 1 person every 10 seconds.

theres been in increased atmospheric CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by 30% first started being noticed around the time of the industrial revolution (coincidence?). over 50% of terrestrial nitrogen fixations is caused by human activity (farming, fossil fuels)

about 20% of the bird species have become extinct in the last 200 years almost all because of humans
22% of fisheries are overexploited or depleted, 44% or more are at limit of exploitation. this is destroying the coast line, literally causing some of the extinctions of the worlds largest food resource.

we've already transformed or degraded 39.50% of the earths entire land surface (agriculture and urban) - and thats not a total percentage of the land humans live on just the percentage we've turned totally uninhabitable. these leads into the problem of shrinking cropland. most of the earths surface you just cant grow a lot of stuff on. now you cant grow adequate stuff on even more

water shortages. freshwater is only 3% of the earths water. acquifer rates are emptying so fast its already caused mass famine where they are needed most. the only water thats easily usable by humans is ground freshwater which is only .3% of the water on the earth. the average family of 4 in america uses about 335 gallons of water a day
and most of the water we use is waste. it literally doesnt get recycled back into the land. our irrigation systems are mostly outdated - just 1 reason for the loss

because of global warming which in its definition is the rise of avg. global temp. due to human activities, the earths temp may rise 2.4-10.4 degrees F by the end of this century making it the hottest period since the dinosaurs were alive (back then the earth was so hot because of massive volcanic activity)

the natural extinction rate of species on earth is 2-10 species per year. due to human activity the extinction rate is 1,000-10,000 times higher. most of the medicines we use today come from animals and plants most susceptible to mass extinctions due to the fact they live in rainforests and jungles.

death rates are increasing but unfortunately so are birth rates. some theorists say the emergence of aids, bird flu and the like are the earth "fighting back" so to speak. battling back for its resources and space. for example everyone hears about AIDS in Africa but actually the highest concentration of AIDS in the world is in India (4 million adults alone). AIDS numbers are raising largely in Asia and America.

TEXAS gets its water mostly from the Ogalla acquifer. we in lubbock especially get our water from this source. it covers 11% of texas. 3.3 billion acres. it would cover all 50 states with about 6 feet of water. BUT unfortunately it would take 6,000 years to refill. there are 170k wells in texas in the acquifer, 50k in NW texas alone. BUT the water level is at drastically low levels. levels that would warrant water restrictions (and lubbock has recently argued about implementing them - aside from the recent one due to a water main break). there simply wont be enough water in the acquifer for lubbock within the next 50 years. choices? lubbock purchasing water from states farther north along the acquifer where levels are still usable, ... thats really the only realistic one at the moment because desalination plants are still hugely inefficient to maintain a population and agriculture. some states have already been forced to "buy" water from other states.

the earth simply doesnt have the resources to maintain this population much less one that is supposed to double in such a short time. once a species meets its carrying capacity placed by the environment they live in and its resources there is little they can do about it except for famine, mass extinctions, epidemics. before 2050 we are going to be exceeding ours.

TLDR

[Divergent Realit...]

every second 3 people are added to the world. most of those are in undeveloped countries like africa, india and south america. these countries havent been able to maintain their old population numbers and this is putting a very big strain on the economy, food, and the land they live on.

the population of the earth (6billion as of 1999) should DOUBLE by 2050. never before has anything been so increasing in numbers that its putting a stranglehold on the environment. america itself has a net gain of 1 person every 10 seconds.

theres been in increased atmospheric CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by 30% first started being noticed around the time of the industrial revolution (coincidence?). over 50% of terrestrial nitrogen fixations is caused by human activity (farming, fossil fuels)

about 20% of the bird species have become extinct in the last 200 years almost all because of humans
22% of fisheries are overexploited or depleted, 44% or more are at limit of exploitation. this is destroying the coast line, literally causing some of the extinctions of the worlds largest food resource.

we've already transformed or degraded 39.50% of the earths entire land surface (agriculture and urban) - and thats not a total percentage of the land humans live on just the percentage we've turned totally uninhabitable. these leads into the problem of shrinking cropland. most of the earths surface you just cant grow a lot of stuff on. now you cant grow adequate stuff on even more

water shortages. freshwater is only 3% of the earths water. acquifer rates are emptying so fast its already caused mass famine where they are needed most. the only water thats easily usable by humans is ground freshwater which is only .3% of the water on the earth. the average family of 4 in america uses about 335 gallons of water a day
and most of the water we use is waste. it literally doesnt get recycled back into the land. our irrigation systems are mostly outdated - just 1 reason for the loss

because of global warming which in its definition is the rise of avg. global temp. due to human activities, the earths temp may rise 2.4-10.4 degrees F by the end of this century making it the hottest period since the dinosaurs were alive (back then the earth was so hot because of massive volcanic activity)

the natural extinction rate of species on earth is 2-10 species per year. due to human activity the extinction rate is 1,000-10,000 times higher. most of the medicines we use today come from animals and plants most susceptible to mass extinctions due to the fact they live in rainforests and jungles.

death rates are increasing but unfortunately so are birth rates. some theorists say the emergence of aids, bird flu and the like are the earth "fighting back" so to speak. battling back for its resources and space. for example everyone hears about AIDS in Africa but actually the highest concentration of AIDS in the world is in India (4 million adults alone). AIDS numbers are raising largely in Asia and America.

TEXAS gets its water mostly from the Ogalla acquifer. we in lubbock especially get our water from this source. it covers 11% of texas. 3.3 billion acres. it would cover all 50 states with about 6 feet of water. BUT unfortunately it would take 6,000 years to refill. there are 170k wells in texas in the acquifer, 50k in NW texas alone. BUT the water level is at drastically low levels. levels that would warrant water restrictions (and lubbock has recently argued about implementing them - aside from the recent one due to a water main break). there simply wont be enough water in the acquifer for lubbock within the next 50 years. choices? lubbock purchasing water from states farther north along the acquifer where levels are still usable, ... thats really the only realistic one at the moment because desalination plants are still hugely inefficient to maintain a population and agriculture. some states have already been forced to "buy" water from other states.

the earth simply doesnt have the resources to maintain this population much less one that is supposed to double in such a short time. once a species meets its carrying capacity placed by the environment they live in and its resources there is little they can do about it except for famine, mass extinctions, epidemics. before 2050 we are going to be exceeding ours.

where is the bibliography?

[impala454]

yeah i think that about kills the thread

[impala454]

...after it killed everything for eons.
But hey, let's do said event in man-made fashion!
SCIENCE BE DAMNED!

one of those events will happen before we destroy the earth by driving SUVs

[Oasis]

common to treehuggers maybe

Don't worry, I still drive a truck, dip Cope, and listen to Pat Green. Yee haw!

Don't call me a tree hugger.

Yes, environmentalism is a political issue. I misworded that. It shouldn't be a partisan issue though. Helping out the world shouldn't be a bitchfest between Republicans and Democrats

[impala454]

TREEHUGGIN BUBBA


hah

[Dogmeat]

every second 3 people are added to the world. most of those are in undeveloped countries like africa, india
the earth simply doesnt have the resources to maintain this population much less one that is supposed to double in such a short time. once a species meets its carrying capacity placed by the environment they live in and its resources there is little they can do about it except for famine, mass extinctions, epidemics. before 2050 we are going to be exceeding ours.

Which is exactly why I maintain the single most important thing the government could possibly spend money on is space exploration.

what sucks is, the number of stupid people grows even more exponentially than the number of smart people as population grows.

Hence, it's become harder and harder for the %5 (and shrinking) of smart people in this world to keep the other %95 of idiots afloat, so to speak.

The single most important goal humanity should have as a species, regardless of relegion or demograpic or whatever, is to blast off into space and get off this planet and spread ourselves out over new worlds, so we don't die out.

Even if you are relegious.

"God only helps those who helps themselves."

Apply that to our entire species, and you see why we need off this rock.

[Inferia]

hehe, if Christianity did not shovel it's beliefs onto other people in this country then people wouldn't have place my hand on a bible in court, marriage would be a civil union, "In God we trust" would not be printed on the money we spend, seven out of nine supreme court justices are of Christian domination, and so on. I'm not saying this is bad or good, perhaps Christians don't have to "shove" anything down anyone's throat, perhaps it's because they simply rule as a majority. And perhaps anyone who tries to change anything as a minority have to try harder, and in essence appear to be "shoving" something down someone's throat.

[impala454]

So, do you believe in God because the penny in your pocket says "In God We Trust"? If this is "shoving Christianity down your throat" you're a crying whining baby.

and wtf is wrong with supreme court judges practicing a religion? and how do they shove Christianity down your throat?

you guys use Christians as your scapegoat for everything. it's freakin sad.

[Inferia]

no, but it is a representation of the beliefs of this country. It won't change what I believe in, but it is in the laws I abide by.

Look, I don't really like regulating stupid stuff in order to appear more environmentally conscience. i.e. plastic bags banning in San Fran. It's not about taking one less shower to save water, or walk one more mile to save gas, or using paper instead of plastic because paper supposedly pollutes less than plastic. But I do, however, believe that global climate change is happening, and we making our dent on this earth. I think there should be government regulations on the amount of pollutants we put into the atmosphere by making more efficient automobiles, factories, etc, but scientifically. Taking one less shower will not save the earth, bringing in canvas bags to grocery shop while driving there in a car will not save the earth.

Lets try this, the amount of energy it takes to make and recycle a plastic bag is much less than it would take to make and recycle a paper bag. So why the heck are plastic bags evil while paper is good? Plastic is a complicated matter, it is one more modern than a paper bag, which makes people thinks it means more pollution. In a sense that it is if you use the none recyclable type of plastic. But in reality, if we use a linear polymer such as PP or HDPE it is easily melted and can be reformed much readily than paper would. So why in the world is paper so good? Paper degrades much easier than plastic ever would if you were to just throw it away, but here's the catch, if we just throw it in the trash, it would never degrade anyway since the trash in this country are packed so tightly that the microorganisms that would do the biodegrading will not survive in the heat. So what is the answer to this problem? Assuming if everyone recycled, plastic is probably better in the sense that it is cheaper and more energy efficient to make than paper, and assuming if no one recycled, plastic is still "better" in the same sense. But then we get into the other slippery slope of the effect of plastic bag on other forms of the environment, as in natural habitats and stuff. If you throw away a paper bag in a forest it will degrade much faster than a plastic one (I think the numbers are 1 year to 1000 years), but what percentage of plastic bags are floating around in our forests? I'm not sure. And this will go for many of the other environment problems. There is no easy solution, but there are solutions where we can help improve the environment, which I don't think anyone can say they are against the environment.

And lets try another example, if we take plastic cups, paper cups, Styrofoam cups, and ceramic mugs, you'd think ceramic mugs would be the most environmentally conscience, considering they are reusable, probably can last you a lifetime or more. But realistically speaking, in this country, not many people use one mug in all of their lives. The energy that it takes to produce one mug is equal to close to hundreds of thousands of the other 3 types of cups. Then should we be careless about the number of plastic, paper, styrofoam cups we use? I'm not sure. Are these figures all correct? I can't remember, but my point being, what appears "wrong" doesn't mean it's actually wrong, and what appears to be "the right thing"may be more damaging than the "wrong thing". I don't believe we are using this earth effectively, energetically speaking and "environmentally" speaking. I do believe in numbers and figures, and I do believe in finding alternatives to current methods if they are more energy and enivornmentally effective, because it would be kinda idiotic to think that we're can't be any better than what we're doing right now.

[impala454]

considering something like 80% of the population of our country believes in Christianity, I'd say it's a perfectly valid representation. but then again I don't really give a crap what it says on my money. I just see no reason to go change things because some overly sensitive people get butt hurt about it being on there.

Where is Christianity in the laws that you abide by?

[James]

LOL @ Impala's fanatacism.

Lang, great points.

[Spectatrix]

considering something like 80% of the population of our country believes in Christianity, I'd say it's a perfectly valid representation. but then again I don't really give a crap what it says on my money. I just see no reason to go change things because some overly sensitive people get butt hurt about it being on there.

Where is Christianity in the laws that you abide by?

80% Christian, 5% other religions, 15% atheist/agnostic, but only about 54% of Americans actually belong to a church/synagogue/temple/etc.

Gay marriage is prohibited in large part because of pressure from religious conservatives. It's not a purely religious issue, but the prohibition is driven largely by the religious right. We shouldn't have civil "marriage" at all, the term should be "civil union" or similar across the board, but that's a semantics issue.

"Don't ask, don't tell" is due to the social stigma of being openly gay, again largely driven by religion.

All that having been said, I personally don't give a flip about "In God We Trust" being on my money or "one nation, under God" being in the pledge of allegiance. If I really wanted to, I could cross out "God" on my bills and write in "Bob" and I don't feel any more pressured to recite the pledge than I did to recite the Lord's Prayer at a wedding I recently attended. *shrugs*

[blaarg]

This topic is heading towards re-post territory:

http://www.techsans.net/forums/index.php?s...igion&st=15

all we need is to end it with a "discussion" on Iraq and we have done a techsans "full circle"

[Spectatrix]

This topic is heading towards re-post territory:

http://www.techsans.net/forums/index.php?s...igion&st=15

all we need is to end it with a "discussion" on Iraq and we have done a techsans "full circle"

I blame Impala.

numtimesimpalacalledasshole++