Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 15

 

2013-05-10 17:13:19
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4247
i'm not talking about cow farts. i'm talking about industrial waste. i'm talking about the inefficiency of growing grain to feed animals that we don't need to be breeding/holding in such quantity, anyway. never once did i mention 'greenhouse gases' or 'global warming'.

and a country has to run a massive export/surplus every year in order to have a large meat industry? uuuh okay then. i guess i'll go tell the british beef industry that their whole industry is a sham.
2013-05-10 17:14:47
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5351|London, England

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i'm not talking about cow farts. i'm talking about industrial waste. i'm talking about the inefficiency of growing grain to feed animals that we don't need to be breeding/holding in such quantity, anyway. never once did i mention 'greenhouse gases' or 'global warming'.

and a country has to run a massive export/surplus every year in order to have a large meat industry? uuuh okay then. i guess i'll go tell the british beef industry that their whole industry is a sham.
No, but it means that we have the capacity for plenty and our diet reflects it. Food is cheap.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2013-05-10 17:19:07
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4247
not so great when you want to start producing anything in such surplus that isn't meat-oriented, though. especially when that meat-rich diet has given you a series of national health problems that are the disgrace of the western world's 'advanced health' and education. there is clearly a cost to all this meat being promoted and consumed. a cost that suits the meat industry and its lobbyists, but doesn't suit the bovine consumer. it is neither healthy nor environmentally friendly nor all that sustainable. "capacity for plenty" is a very tendentious claim.
2013-05-10 17:27:42
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5351|London, England

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

not so great when you want to start producing anything in such surplus that isn't meat-oriented, though. especially when that meat-rich diet has given you a series of national health problems that are the disgrace of the western world's 'advanced health' and education. there is clearly a cost to all this meat being promoted and consumed. a cost that suits the meat industry and its lobbyists, but doesn't suit the bovine consumer. it is neither healthy nor environmentally friendly nor all that sustainable. "capacity for plenty" is a very tendentious claim.
It's completely sustainable, that's a non-issue. People eat meat because it's available and tasty. Veggies tend to be comparably priced to meat, and frankly, who in their right mind wants to live on salad? Vegetarianism is for vain women (and men) who would otherwise be anorexic or bulimic, or for those over-sensitive types that cry when they think of an animal being killed. Eat less meat? Sure, like EM said, it's about portion control, and a lot of people fail at that.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2013-05-10 17:28:25
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|4188|Oklahoma

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

because the meat industry is one of the primary causes of industrial waste, serious chemical pollution, and environmental destruction.
.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i think you need to read a fucking book. the meat industry - especially in america - is responsible for huge amounts of pollution and industry concern. there are literally hundreds of studies on this point. there is even an 'industrial pollution handbook' for the industry that has a whole section on meat and poultry pollution.
.
......what the fuck are you on about??????

I knew you were going to go there.  "There" being this absolutely uneducated precipice that the meat industry is some giant pollution machine.  You are so incredibly wrong it's insane.  The only pollution I can think of would be some sort of pollution by product of the packing industry.  I can tell you from first hand experience that the food industry I participated in (breeding-->gestation-->birthing-->growing to weight) is the most efficient industry I have ever seen and the pollution is near non-existent.
2013-05-10 17:32:11
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5351|London, England

Extra Medium wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

because the meat industry is one of the primary causes of industrial waste, serious chemical pollution, and environmental destruction.
.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i think you need to read a fucking book. the meat industry - especially in america - is responsible for huge amounts of pollution and industry concern. there are literally hundreds of studies on this point. there is even an 'industrial pollution handbook' for the industry that has a whole section on meat and poultry pollution.
.
......what the fuck are you on about??????

I knew you were going to go there.  "There" being this absolutely uneducated precipice that the meat industry is some giant pollution machine.  You are so incredibly wrong it's insane.  The only pollution I can think of would be some sort of pollution by product of the packing industry.  I can tell you from first hand experience that the food industry I participated in (breeding-->gestation-->birthing-->growing to weight) is the most efficient industry I have ever seen and the pollution is near non-existent.
Pig shit is a pretty big problem in places like NC. Send the pigs to the feeding pens and the shit they produce ends up in stagnant pig-shit-lakes. Something about pig shit makes it bad for agriculture to be spread as manure so it just sits there. Cow dung doesn't have that problem. The methane that is produced when the crap decomposes is a greenhouse gas as it's carbon based so it's sort of a problem, a small one compared to transportation emissions, but a problem anyway.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2013-05-10 17:38:28
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4247

Extra Medium wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

because the meat industry is one of the primary causes of industrial waste, serious chemical pollution, and environmental destruction.
.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i think you need to read a fucking book. the meat industry - especially in america - is responsible for huge amounts of pollution and industry concern. there are literally hundreds of studies on this point. there is even an 'industrial pollution handbook' for the industry that has a whole section on meat and poultry pollution.
.
......what the fuck are you on about??????

I knew you were going to go there.  "There" being this absolutely uneducated precipice that the meat industry is some giant pollution machine.  You are so incredibly wrong it's insane.  The only pollution I can think of would be some sort of pollution by product of the packing industry.  I can tell you from first hand experience that the food industry I participated in (breeding-->gestation-->birthing-->growing to weight) is the most efficient industry I have ever seen and the pollution is near non-existent.
right so you reared and birthed some pigs, and now you know about the industrial meat industries' waste. i lived near an abattoir during my childhood (i referred to it earlier), and i can tell you that the slaughtering and processing of meat on a large scale produces a lot of nasty shit. the industry isn't well-regulated.
2013-05-10 17:48:33
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|4188|Oklahoma

Jay wrote:

Extra Medium wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

because the meat industry is one of the primary causes of industrial waste, serious chemical pollution, and environmental destruction.
.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i think you need to read a fucking book. the meat industry - especially in america - is responsible for huge amounts of pollution and industry concern. there are literally hundreds of studies on this point. there is even an 'industrial pollution handbook' for the industry that has a whole section on meat and poultry pollution.
.
......what the fuck are you on about??????

I knew you were going to go there.  "There" being this absolutely uneducated precipice that the meat industry is some giant pollution machine.  You are so incredibly wrong it's insane.  The only pollution I can think of would be some sort of pollution by product of the packing industry.  I can tell you from first hand experience that the food industry I participated in (breeding-->gestation-->birthing-->growing to weight) is the most efficient industry I have ever seen and the pollution is near non-existent.
Pig shit is a pretty big problem in places like NC. Send the pigs to the feeding pens and the shit they produce ends up in stagnant pig-shit-lakes. Something about pig shit makes it bad for agriculture to be spread as manure so it just sits there. Cow dung doesn't have that problem. The methane that is produced when the crap decomposes is a greenhouse gas as it's carbon based so it's sort of a problem, a small one compared to transportation emissions, but a problem anyway.
Funny you mention pig shit.  My family owned a Tyson hog farm when I was growing up that had 1,000 head of swine.  I grew up working in this "industrial pollution" generating operation.  You are so far gone from the facts and are so absolutely ignorant about how it works it's laughable.

1.  The "stagnant lake of pig shit" is called a lagoon.  It is specifically built to EPA standards, frequently inspected by EPA auditors and is built to be twice as large as the farm will need so that it has 0 chance of overflowing.  On top of that, it has multiple layers of material underneath to prevent ground saturation and water table contamination.  Here is the best part, it's built with an internal pumping system hooked up to an irrigation system.

2.  Due to composting, solid waste sinks to the bottom and is destroyed over time, much like a septic tank does.  The liquid portion is over time diluted by rainwater and by water coming from the barns (i.e. washing).  Thus, the solid portion of the lagoon never exceeds 10% and the waste is sufficiently diluted to be used as fertilizer.

3.  The "waste" is pumped through the irrigation system to fertilize nearby farmland that produce among other things GRAINS.  Tyson then buys the grains to feed the pigs in their barns.  See a cycle emerging here?

4.  Did I mention the EPA?  Yeah, they have people to audit these farms constantly.  I failed to mention the Dept of Agriculture who also frequently inspects the farms to ensure they are being properly run, maintained and managed.


Again I ask.  What industrial waste?  Literally none of the products or by-products are disposed of.  None.  They are either reused or hauled away to be used in other products (i.e. dead pigs go to make dog food and the such).  You read a book, probably written by someone who doesn't like the meat industry, and clearly don't have a foot in the door when it comes to real life facts.
2013-05-10 17:50:08
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5351|London, England
Our meat packing industry is probably the third most heavily regulated industry in America behind banking and health care. Upton Sinclair's legacy: not a socialist revolution or people giving a crap about the workers he wrote about, but the USDA being spawned because rich people were sickened at the thought of eating said workers thumb.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2013-05-10 17:50:08
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|4188|Oklahoma

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Extra Medium wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

because the meat industry is one of the primary causes of industrial waste, serious chemical pollution, and environmental destruction.
.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i think you need to read a fucking book. the meat industry - especially in america - is responsible for huge amounts of pollution and industry concern. there are literally hundreds of studies on this point. there is even an 'industrial pollution handbook' for the industry that has a whole section on meat and poultry pollution.
.
......what the fuck are you on about??????

I knew you were going to go there.  "There" being this absolutely uneducated precipice that the meat industry is some giant pollution machine.  You are so incredibly wrong it's insane.  The only pollution I can think of would be some sort of pollution by product of the packing industry.  I can tell you from first hand experience that the food industry I participated in (breeding-->gestation-->birthing-->growing to weight) is the most efficient industry I have ever seen and the pollution is near non-existent.
right so you reared and birthed some pigs, and now you know about the industrial meat industries' waste. i lived near an abattoir during my childhood (i referred to it earlier), and i can tell you that the slaughtering and processing of meat on a large scale produces a lot of nasty shit. the industry isn't well-regulated.
No, that means the industry isn't well regulated in Tea and Crumpet land.  Here in Merica, it is.  Very well actually.  I'd say if you wanted to pick a fight with the meat industry FISHING probably does the most harm.
2013-05-10 17:55:01
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4247
i'd say 90% of the literature and studies i have read on the topic are mostly focused on american big agri/meat industry. that's because over here ours has european state regulations and all sorts of pesky socialist interfering. over there your example is much worse because of the fact the meat industry has a huge bargaining chip within the 'liberal free-market' arrangement. it seems to get away with a lot more. it's not only PETA and crazy dumbshit vegan organizations that train their sights on the american food industry, either: most academic studies use america as the location for their case-studies. not sure what you're talking about with "tea and crumpet land". one minute you americans are gloating you're the only ones with a large and surplus-creating meat industry; the next you're trying to say our little and pathetic industries are the ones creating all the problems. lots of concrete facts floating around, here...
2013-05-10 17:58:32
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4247

Jay wrote:

Our meat packing industry is probably the third most heavily regulated industry in America behind banking and health care. Upton Sinclair's legacy: not a socialist revolution or people giving a crap about the workers he wrote about, but the USDA being spawned because rich people were sickened at the thought of eating said workers thumb.
upton sinclair's legacy is people not caring about the workers? you haven't read 'the jungle' then, have you? pretty sure the early 20th century progressive movement and unions took a major cue from sinclair's work.
2013-05-10 17:59:21
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|4188|Oklahoma

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i'd say 90% of the literature and studies i have read on the topic are mostly focused on american big agri/meat industry. that's because over here ours has european state regulations and all sorts of pesky socialist interfering. over there your example is much worse because of the fact the meat industry has a huge bargaining chip within the 'liberal free-market' arrangement. it seems to get away with a lot more. it's not only PETA and crazy dumbshit vegan organizations that train their sights on the american food industry, either: most academic studies use america as the location for their case-studies. not sure what you're talking about with "tea and crumpet land". one minute you americans are gloating you're the only ones with a large and surplus-creating meat industry; the next you're trying to say our little and pathetic industries are the ones creating all the problems. lots of concrete facts floating around, here...
Yeah, I am saying its your factories causing the problems.  You said you seen it yourself.  I'm telling you we don't see it here.  Obviously our factories and industries are held to higher standard than yours.
2013-05-10 18:01:48
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4247

Extra Medium wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i'd say 90% of the literature and studies i have read on the topic are mostly focused on american big agri/meat industry. that's because over here ours has european state regulations and all sorts of pesky socialist interfering. over there your example is much worse because of the fact the meat industry has a huge bargaining chip within the 'liberal free-market' arrangement. it seems to get away with a lot more. it's not only PETA and crazy dumbshit vegan organizations that train their sights on the american food industry, either: most academic studies use america as the location for their case-studies. not sure what you're talking about with "tea and crumpet land". one minute you americans are gloating you're the only ones with a large and surplus-creating meat industry; the next you're trying to say our little and pathetic industries are the ones creating all the problems. lots of concrete facts floating around, here...
Yeah, I am saying its your factories causing the problems.  You said you seen it yourself.  I'm telling you we don't see it here.  Obviously our factories and industries are held to higher standard than yours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmen … production

ok. america is true paradise.
2013-05-10 18:02:27
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5351|London, England

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Jay wrote:

Our meat packing industry is probably the third most heavily regulated industry in America behind banking and health care. Upton Sinclair's legacy: not a socialist revolution or people giving a crap about the workers he wrote about, but the USDA being spawned because rich people were sickened at the thought of eating said workers thumb.
upton sinclair's legacy is people not caring about the workers? you haven't read 'the jungle' then, have you? pretty sure the early 20th century progressive movement and unions took a major cue from sinclair's work.
I've read it, and the reaction he got from the book was completely different from his intent. People of his day read his book, ignored the socialist manifesto and demanded regulation of the meat packing industry so that they could feel safe that what they were eating was untainted. The improvement in conditions for workers was a completely secondary byproduct.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2013-05-10 18:06:12
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4247

Jay wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Jay wrote:

Our meat packing industry is probably the third most heavily regulated industry in America behind banking and health care. Upton Sinclair's legacy: not a socialist revolution or people giving a crap about the workers he wrote about, but the USDA being spawned because rich people were sickened at the thought of eating said workers thumb.
upton sinclair's legacy is people not caring about the workers? you haven't read 'the jungle' then, have you? pretty sure the early 20th century progressive movement and unions took a major cue from sinclair's work.
I've read it, and the reaction he got from the book was completely different from his intent. People of his day read his book, ignored the socialist manifesto and demanded regulation of the meat packing industry so that they could feel safe that what they were eating was untainted. The improvement in conditions for workers was a completely secondary byproduct.
but he already spent time in socialist/worker's unions, especially in the mid-west, and was already helping those movements and to foment worker's organization. i wouldn't say it was a by-product at all. the ending of the book ends with an allusion to marx, and workers movements took the book seriously. and what about 'oil!'?
2013-05-10 18:06:49
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|4188|Oklahoma

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Extra Medium wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i'd say 90% of the literature and studies i have read on the topic are mostly focused on american big agri/meat industry. that's because over here ours has european state regulations and all sorts of pesky socialist interfering. over there your example is much worse because of the fact the meat industry has a huge bargaining chip within the 'liberal free-market' arrangement. it seems to get away with a lot more. it's not only PETA and crazy dumbshit vegan organizations that train their sights on the american food industry, either: most academic studies use america as the location for their case-studies. not sure what you're talking about with "tea and crumpet land". one minute you americans are gloating you're the only ones with a large and surplus-creating meat industry; the next you're trying to say our little and pathetic industries are the ones creating all the problems. lots of concrete facts floating around, here...
Yeah, I am saying its your factories causing the problems.  You said you seen it yourself.  I'm telling you we don't see it here.  Obviously our factories and industries are held to higher standard than yours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmen … production

ok. america is true paradise.
Granted I quickly skimmed over it but I fail to see anything in that wikipedia article that says OMG FUCKING POLLUTION!  Most of sounds like environmental effects that would seem to be expected of a bunch of anything running around.  1 cow on a 1 acre field will have a negative environmental impact if you look close enough for it.


Real question here is who does it better.  Your factories or ours.  I think ours.





ALSO.  You cite wikipedia as some sort of fucking source?  Hypocrite.
2013-05-10 18:07:55
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5992|...

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

yeah the urban rooftop/window-sill garden thing is quite blue sky thinking. i agree that may be a little optimistic. however saying that people who live in rural areas should keep vegetable patches is hardly an "impossibility". the problem with americans is they're too used to hopping in an SUV and driving 5 miles down a 4-lane freeway just to get a pint of milk. everything is so spaced out, ex-urban, concrete sprawl. everything requires huge natural and energy resources. what's that statistic about the average american adult consuming 6x (?) more daily than the developing world? to say that encouraging a little self-sufficiency is "impossible" is putting your fingers in your ears and la-la-la'ing a problem that is going to cause huge problems in a generation or two.
reasonable but that too is very optimistic if you believe that it will solve or contribute to solving the problem. There's the worldwide urbanization trend; metropolitan populations incapable of that sort of basic self sufficiency are already far larger than their rural counterparts and ever increasing. Then there's the problem of the developing world itself - more people being born and reaching higher living standards at staggering rates. In this China is probably the biggest "threat" with a projected estimate of 1 billion people living in their cities by 2030-2040. We simply don't have enough space on the planet for farming/livestock cultivation to provide for this population anywhere near the same living standards to which we have become accustomed in the western world.

Probably, the unethical treatment of livestock (and nature by the way as more of it will be burned down for agricultural production (mainly to feed livestock)) will only become more widespread as the demand for goods will skyrocket in the fast developing economies of the world. There's simply going to be too many people at some point - we started the millenium with 6 billion and now barely a decade on there's already 7. That's the real problem.

edit; bolded the part to which I'm responding

Last edited by Shocking (2013-05-10 18:08:42)

inane little opines
2013-05-10 18:10:46
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4247

Extra Medium wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Extra Medium wrote:

Yeah, I am saying its your factories causing the problems.  You said you seen it yourself.  I'm telling you we don't see it here.  Obviously our factories and industries are held to higher standard than yours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmen … production

ok. america is true paradise.
Granted I quickly skimmed over it but I fail to see anything in that wikipedia article that says OMG FUCKING POLLUTION!  Most of sounds like environmental effects that would seem to be expected of a bunch of anything running around.  1 cow on a 1 acre field will have a negative environmental impact if you look close enough for it.


Real question here is who does it better.  Your factories or ours.  I think ours.





ALSO.  You cite wikipedia as some sort of fucking source?  Hypocrite.
no i'm not citing wikipedia as a source. it was a quick link for you to gloss over. which you clearly did. "i didn't even read it, but...". would you prefer me to link you a 10,000 word academic study? seeing as a few paragraphs of easily-formatted and simply-worded wikipedia are too much for you. so why are you attacking my 'source'? i'm just providing simple links for you to broach the subject. something you are singularly failing to do.

and yes! let's compare. "we do factory farming of animals better than you!" you rednecks will turn anything into a point of pride. congratulations: your beef industry produces a bigger surplus than the little old UK, 'tea and crumpet land'. you also have an obesity epidemic that sees a QUARTER of your adult population classed as 'clinically obese'. that's okay though, you've got a private healthcare system that you "just do better" as well, to take care of all your self-incurred heart/blood problems. go freedom! you stupid fucking yokel. that high-in-beef national diet you've got going on is really treating you well, isn't it? bunch of people in assisted scooters trucking their fat asses into wendys.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-10 18:14:23)

2013-05-10 18:12:47
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4247

Shocking wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

yeah the urban rooftop/window-sill garden thing is quite blue sky thinking. i agree that may be a little optimistic. however saying that people who live in rural areas should keep vegetable patches is hardly an "impossibility". the problem with americans is they're too used to hopping in an SUV and driving 5 miles down a 4-lane freeway just to get a pint of milk. everything is so spaced out, ex-urban, concrete sprawl. everything requires huge natural and energy resources. what's that statistic about the average american adult consuming 6x (?) more daily than the developing world? to say that encouraging a little self-sufficiency is "impossible" is putting your fingers in your ears and la-la-la'ing a problem that is going to cause huge problems in a generation or two.
reasonable but that too is very optimistic if you believe that it will solve or contribute to solving the problem. There's the worldwide urbanization trend; metropolitan populations incapable of that sort of basic self sufficiency are already far larger than their rural counterparts and ever increasing. Then there's the problem of the developing world itself - more people being born and reaching higher living standards at staggering rates. In this China is probably the biggest "threat" with a projected estimate of 1 billion people living in their cities by 2030-2040. We simply don't have enough space on the planet for farming/livestock cultivation to provide for this population anywhere near the same living standards to which we have become accustomed in the western world.

Probably, the unethical treatment of livestock (and nature by the way as more of it will be burned down for agricultural production (mainly to feed livestock)) will only become more widespread as the demand for goods will skyrocket in the fast developing economies of the world. There's simply going to be too many people at some point - we started the millenium with 6 billion and now barely a decade on there's already 7. That's the real problem.

edit; bolded the part to which I'm responding
i mentioned the population pyramid problem and the environmental/ecological constraints that are the wider containing issues. i know what you are talking about. if you think me suggesting people grow some vegetables is my utopian 'solution', you are taking me for a fool and only insulting yourself. as this thread aptly demonstrates, though, people get uppity enough when you try to suggest their diet is inconsiderate or unethical, or perhaps contributing to a wider structural 'problem'. try getting onto the subject of people having too many babies, or 'wanting too much' in general. if you can't even encourage someone to grow a fucking tomato plant, then good luck telling them they need to rehaul their entire lifestyle.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-10 18:14:43)

2013-05-10 18:16:38
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|4188|Oklahoma
It's funny as I did this last night and the forum filled up with crickets, but lets have a voice debate on this.  The word and context twisting that's happening is just out of control.  I'd bet that no one here would simply because it's a lot harder to twist words and context and harder to produce on the spot reports that neither one of us expect the other to read.  An argument falls apart rather quickly when speaking rather than typing.
2013-05-10 18:18:54
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5992|...
I did say 'if', that was page 3 in the discussion or so and I wasn't sure if the population problems were already touched on. Reality is that there's no way people can be convinced en masse to settle for less without there being some very evident & immediate threat to provide the proper motivation.

I'm just wondering if we'll live to witness our impending doom by the middle of this century or if it will all end up being completely avoidable and that the scare will be seen as comical in retrospect a la thomas malthus and his prediction of global food shortage.

Last edited by Shocking (2013-05-10 18:24:18)

inane little opines
2013-05-10 18:25:28
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4247

Shocking wrote:

I did say 'if', that was page 3 in the discussion or so and I wasn't sure if the population problems were already touched on. Reality is that there's no way people can be convinced en masse to settle for less without there being some very evident & immediate threat to provide the proper motivation.

I'm just wondering if we'll live to witness our impending doom by the middle of this century or if it will all end up being completely avoidable and that the scare will be seen as comical in retrospect a la thomas malthus and his prediction of global food shortage.
the real reality is that we are so hesitant to change and so stuck in our technology progress-traps that we'll probably more conceivably write-off the earth and expand star-wards before we ever learn to turn our original societies/settlements into self-sustaining eco-domes. we'll just keep on spreading outwards, like a plague of locusts (fat obese locusts in bum-bags, with american flag t-shirts, hooting about liberty and choice and the invisible hand).
2013-05-10 18:27:19
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4247

Extra Medium wrote:

It's funny as I did this last night and the forum filled up with crickets, but lets have a voice debate on this.  The word and context twisting that's happening is just out of control.  I'd bet that no one here would simply because it's a lot harder to twist words and context and harder to produce on the spot reports that neither one of us expect the other to read.  An argument falls apart rather quickly when speaking rather than typing.
the fuck is a 'voice debate'? you mean you want to call me on the phone or something? that's a pretty bizarre request. people tend to prefer the written word for 'debates' where possible, because you can, you know, flesh-out your ideas... provide full, reasoned analysis... cite your sources, and expound upon them in detail. it's funny you talk about "twisting words", when really most speech debates come down to tricks of rhetoric and forces of social persuasion/impressing.

i'm also willing to bet, being modest here, that i'm a better 'orator' than you. i was taught rhetoric at school, going to the old-fashioned sort of toff school, and my intending career involves, you know, lecturing people.

 

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 15

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard