Mark of the breast is HERE - G20
-
breast???
-
Mark of the breasts. If this thread was intended to be anything then serious.. topic has failed it. lol
-
xtreyier has brought up some fabulous points especially about the survivability of Man down the years. We have eyes to see for ourselves the miracles that scienctific breakthroughs and technological advancement have brought for us. To assume that the only way we can survive in future is to cut our population is just insane. The continuous pushing of scientific frontiers should be what we base on future on. Science has provided answers to many of the constraints people of the 19th and 20th century faced. In the 21st century be sure that this would continue to be our trend. Mankind has evolved much over the last millions of years but what has not change is the instinct to survive. Whilst in the past it constitutes hunting and making fire, today its about exploration and discovery to push our living boundaries to the maxmimum.
The problem of overfishing is not an issue of overpopulation but a economic problem known as the tragedy of the commons resulting from exploitation of a common resource. What we need is not a smaller population but a clearer distinction of property rights. If someone owns the fishing areas, then it is in their interests to protect it. I.e. problem solved.
-
xtreyier has brought up some fabulous points especially about the survivability of Man down the years.
It is rare for people here to openly praise another forum member.
Not bad.
-
Originally posted by speakup-:
xtreyier has brought up some fabulous points especially about the survivability of Man down the years. We have eyes to see for ourselves the miracles that scienctific breakthroughs and technological advancement have brought for us. To assume that the only way we can survive in future is to cut our population is just insane. The continuous pushing of scientific frontiers should be what we base on future on. Science has provided answers to many of the constraints people of the 19th and 20th century faced. In the 21st century be sure that this would continue to be our trend. Mankind has evolved much over the last millions of years but what has not change is the instinct to survive. Whilst in the past it constitutes hunting and making fire, today its about exploration and discovery to push our living boundaries to the maxmimum.
The problem of overfishing is not an issue of overpopulation but a economic problem known as the tragedy of the commons resulting from exploitation of a common resource. What we need is not a smaller population but a clearer distinction of property rights. If someone owns the fishing areas, then it is in their interests to protect it. I.e. problem solved.
The advances for the past 2 centuries has been based on the discovery of abundant energy which allows humans to use mechanical means to replace human/horse power, moving from animal based economies to mechanial based manufacturing.
First it was wood, then coal and finally petroleum, superior to coal because it is discovered in liquid form, requiring only pumps to extract rather than the hassle of coal mines.
EROEI, or Energy Returned Upon Energy Invested lies at the core of all advances in human civilisation and population. Human population and civilisation grew each time it made a discovery of a new form of stored energy starting from agriculture to our current fossil fuel based economy.
There has been categorically no technological discovery made that could replace the EROEI of current fossil fuels. Even now, it is already costing more to extract 1 unit of energy.
Singapore gained independence in a period where oil discoveries were at its most abundant. Just 1 unit of energy was required to pump 100 units of energy worth of oil out of the ground.
This fueled world trade and industrial production, playing a much bigger role in Singapore's economy than anything LKY and the PAP could have done. They merely exploited the trend, not create Singapore's economy out of nothing.
As the human population increases, so does the consumption of resources as well as the resources neccessary to upkeep the infrastructure to fuel that consumption (Transportation of food, water and minerals)
We have to control our consumption as well our population here and now before it increases to the point where it is just too expensive or scarce to upkeep. Our natural instinct to procreate and consume has made it possible for us to advance this far but like cancer the human race is now experiencing uncontrolled growth free of our past population control mechanisms like disease and high infant mortality rates.
Overfishing IS a result of overpopulation simply because with a growing population there would be more people to consume fish. With increased demand, so would the fishing fleets expand to fuel that demand.
How is the average Somali fisherman suppose to defend their waters against the huge EU fishing fleets, whose ships far outclass the small trawler the Somalis have? The core reason to why the Somalis are resorting to piracy is because their livehood has been destroyed by the European industrial trawlers, eager to fuel the fish hungry world population.
Like xtreyier i can tell you're not stupid. However you suffer from a lack of perspective despite the enormous amount of information you absorb. You simply cannot see something from more than 1 direction.
-
Seriously, i would like to know what sort of books and articles you read because you consistently demonstrate a lack of common sense on the information you bring out.
Of course Singapore cannot support 3.5 million people on 700 sq km because every single thing we use is imported. 2/3 of our land is being used for water catchments and still we haven't not hit full water self sufficiency yet.
And do not forget, we are not using the water for any large scale agriculture, using it only for domestic consumption and industrial uses. Agriculture is the main consumer of water, using up to 70% of the world's available freshwater supply.
We are not producing our own food, THAT is why we can achieve water self sufficiency. Do i need to point out why not producing our own food is an important part of the equation you're missing?
Science and Technology is indeed catching up but the human brain has not changed much in that period. We can still addicted to consumption and displays of wealth, while our traditional population control mechanisms have been removed by technology. An aging population has never happened as a problem before in history.
Having crops that can be harvested 5-6 times a year also means it would be sucking up nutrients from the soil at that rate as well. Organic fertilizer cannot replace the nutrients fast enough and at that rate of harvest there is no time for crop cycles to be planned to allow the soil to replenish itself.
So we are forced to use anhydrous ammonia to allow the soil to replenish nitrogen in the soil. That is how desert could be turned into arable land, because of artifical fertilizers which are made from fossil fuels. Do not forget too, that Israel has been laying claims to water that the Palestinians have been using, the cracks have already started
Deslination still requires fossil fuels to generate the energy to pump sea water into the plants, as well as distribution from the sea based plants to the general public.
Cheap energy or its current form - fossil fuels drive every single technology we are using now. To believe that it is unlimited or abundant in an amount we cannot drain would be folly of the highest degree.
We still do not know whether we've crossed the critical threshold point for overpopulation, because the result would only be evident after a few years, even decades when demand slowly exceeds production rate or force production to adopt destructive short term measures to feed the demand.
We need to control it here and now, we simply cannot wait until the problems manifest itself or wait for technology to provide the answer. Even technology requires abundant energy in order for it to be deployable on any useable scale.
Our infrastructure and whole financial economy is based on the assumption that extraction rate/production rate is only going to increase. And our population is controlled only by the assumption that the infrastructure continues to function like it's supposed to.
What happens when that rate can no longer be increased but the population continues to? We can't cut population like we do on oil production.
-
It would seem, and i would indulgently use that word 'seem' you are intelligent to muster up a few phrases to prove intelligence. However, you do have a propensity to muddle up and complicate situations that are clear cut when place upon the pedestal of priority.
Simply put, you are confused and know not where your priorities and what that which is important lay in.
Condensing your confusing wall of text, and trying to determine what point you are trying to put across, i can only observe that you believed planet's Earth resources are running out, or will run out. That is your right as a personal belief and a solace which you find comfort in, just as a village idiot or a frog in the well find solace in his environment.
For all the claim of 'overfishing', 70% of Earth's surface is covered with water. For every fish that is a presumed statistical evidence of 'over-fishing', billions of other fishes in our seas get to grow to old age, which is a crime to humanity.
For all the crocodile tears for Somali fishermen, no individual has a right to starve billions of others just so that they may maintain their selfish nomadic way of life.
For all the 'drying up' of our planet's resources, the leaders of the african continent are committing crimes against humanity with their lack of capability, coupled with corrupt self interest, to harvest that continent which could feed several trillions more in world population many times over.
True science makes no assumptions. It is a fact. To an agriculture specialist, the improved rice strains can either or cannot yield significant more harvests.
But as mentioned, you have the right to remain in your well. There are others in the world who are concerned, but do not share your fears and instead contributing to the advancement of science and tech beyond what we know today. There is so much more that we have yet to know. There is a greater world out there than the well you live in.
-
LOL BREASTS WTH LOL remind mi of a friend .. He's suspose to write beasts in his comp he go write breast then teacher read out to the whole class OMG
-
HAHAHahaa...Hhahahhahahha...Uncle over dosed with medicines liao...breast hahahaha...last time said Pap is solid..now got breast mark..hahahah...hahahahahaha bang bang!!!
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
It would seem, and i would indulgently use that word 'seem' you are intelligent to muster up a few phrases to prove intelligence. However, you do have a propensity to muddle up and complicate situations that are clear cut when place upon the pedestal of priority.
Simply put, you are confused and know not where your priorities and what that which is important lay in.
Condensing your confusing wall of text, and trying to determine what point you are trying to put across, i can only observe that you believed planet's Earth resources are running out, or will run out. That is your right as a personal belief and a solace which you find comfort in, just as a village idiot or a frog in the well find solace in his environment.
For all the claim of 'overfishing', 70% of Earth's surface is covered with water. For every fish that is a presumed statistical evidence of 'over-fishing', billions of other fishes in our seas get to grow to old age, which is a crime to humanity.
For all the crocodile tears for Somali fishermen, no individual has a right to starve billions of others just so that they may maintain their selfish nomadic way of life.
For all the 'drying up' of our planet's resources, the leaders of the african continent are committing crimes against humanity with their lack of capability, coupled with corrupt self interest, to harvest that continent which could feed several trillions more in world population many times over.
True science makes no assumptions. It is a fact. To an agriculture specialist, the improved rice strains can either or cannot yield significant more harvests.
But as mentioned, you have the right to remain in your well. There are others in the world who are concerned, but do not share your fears and instead contributing to the advancement of science and tech beyond what we know today. There is so much more that we have yet to know. There is a greater world out there than the well you live in.
..........Like i said, i would like to know where you are getting your information from because you are making assumptions and have given no numbers on how you derive your conclusions.Science is a fact driven school of thought, not faith based. You have already assumed that your knowledge of science is driven by no assumption, with no flaws when you refuse to describe where you're getting your conclusions from.
I don't deny there is a greater world beyond my current knowledge, but basing it on the assumption that there is more is far more destructive than assuming we have less.
-
"I don't deny there is a greater world beyond my current knowledge" - Stevenson101.
That's enough for me. It would do you well to read up more widely and stick to non-fiction works.
The point you are arguing about Earth's resources being dried up or 'over-used' is akin to arguing that our Sun will die out in a billion years time. This a natural extinction level event and may be no hope for survival, BUT only if we start doing something about it today such as spending more on science and tech to avert such tragedy, even though we may not live long enough to watch it happen, we do still have a responsibility to the next generation.
It does not take a leap of faith to believe that tech hurdles can be overcomed. IBM refused to believe that home computers can be possible. Gates proved him wrong. Time and time again, history had PROVEN we can make the impossible, possible. Only village idiots still believe that when a ship sails far into the horizon, it will drop into space.
Dreaming about it is of no use, it will only be a fantasy. BUT billions had been spent in research and development, this is no pipe dream to make the impossible, possible.
Fossilized fuels are dangerous to use, more dangerous than nuclear energy, because we may run out of it but more critically, it endangers our atmosphere causing extinction levels of our doing. Mankind's progress might triumph over natural events, but our doom may happen due to our own human doing.
From what i had observered in your posts, you are proposing limiting human growth. THE question is - who decides whom gets to live and who gets to die? Ultra -orthodox religious leaders? Misguided academics such as your kind? Dictators on a whim of fancy?
It is the fundamental right of every human being to live and procreate, for it is as natural as the sun that rises each morning. As long as a human is capable of earning a living, he has the right to procreate and be part of civilisation, and he that does not marry, is still a valuble precious live that can contribute to the furtherance of our civilisation.
There is enough resources within our planet to feed 6 billion and more IF we manage such resources efficiently and fearlessly, in sharing, in order to progress and give meaning to life itself. Take into account too, humans are not immortal and will die out eventually individually. There is no need to 'starve' or create genocide against fellow human beings.
Therefore your arguments are without a shred of thought to humanity at large and what you are proposing tantamounts to genocide of a massive scale, of the likes mankind had never seen before!
-
Overfishing IS a result of overpopulation simply because with a growing population there would be more people to consume fish. With increased demand, so would the fishing fleets expand to fuel that demand.
How is the average Somali fisherman suppose to defend their waters against the huge EU fishing fleets, whose ships far outclass the small trawler the Somalis have? The core reason to why the Somalis are resorting to piracy is because their livehood has been destroyed by the European industrial trawlers, eager to fuel the fish hungry world population.
I have explained about the lack of the fine distinction of property rights. This is something that can be solved if a world governing body can allocate the rights of fishing in the area to the Somali government and let them sell the 'right to fish' in those waters. This would be similar to the cap-and-trade policy employed by the EU in terms of combating global warming. Clean air, just like the ocean fish does not belong to anyone. When there is a failure to clearly define what belongs to who, the price of exploiting that resource is zero (ignoring the cost of fishing vessels and such) and hence result in a case of overexploitation which is what i call the tragedy of the commons.
Although counter-intuitive, i dare proclaim that recycling does in fact kills more trees than it saves. Why? Because when people use less paper (lets just focus on paper in thsi instance), demand for paper falls, logging companies go out of business or see a fall in sales, there is a lesser need to grow trees to replenish their chain of supply. The problem has never been overconsumption, it is always the problem of who is in charge of this commodity that is being exploited? When there is an absence of ownership, there is a lack of incentive to protect and replenish what is being exploited. Studies in Africa has shown that when a species of tigers popular among hunters are put in the charge of these very people that hunt them, not only do the tigers do not face extinction that they initially did, but their population grew. When you have ownership, you have an incentive to ensure the survival of whatever belongs to you, whether a forest, the ocean fish, or the population of tigers. Any sensible person would not kill all his farm chickens for sale at one go, but rather preserve a certain number to ensure continuous renewal and long term viability.
Your idea of population outpacing our resources is starkly Malthusian. Malthus, who is known as the prophet of doom, once wrote a paper on the doom of mankind. To Malthus Mankind would soon face doomsday as he believed that while populations grew geometrically, resources (particularly food which is the focal point in his study) only grew arithmatically. What Malthus overlooked was the fact that technology grew at rates faster than he predicted. It may be true that our resources can run low, but technology helps us overcome that. Simply put while the homo erectus required an entire year of wood collecting to provide tens of hours of light, we can do so with a fraction of that amount of fuel. Technological advancements have been so good at overcoming the problem of shortage with much higher efficiency, that i believe it is possible for us to bank our faith on science to push these physical boundaries.
In fact technological advancement would be predicted to accelerate in the coming years based on a theory established by an economist after Malthus who used a single equation to illustrate the relationship between technological advancement and human population. Backed by empirical data it has been proven that technological innovations (T) is directly proportional to the entire human population (H) that is to say T=kH whereby k is an arbituary constant. Technology has prolonged human life but i believe its not to its detriment but rather increases the quality of life (disease and sickness aside). It is true that the days of mass famines and malaria ,which has claimed numerous lives in the past and believed by you as a form of population control, has passed. And faced with the problem of global warming people are fearing the worse for our earth. The issue at hand should not be to worry, but to use the tools we have (science) to continue creating possibliities to ensure the survival of our species.