441–450 of 455 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Singapore is doing fine at high population density.
Singapore is very developed. Overpopulation is more a problem for densely populated developing places - Bangladesh, Victorian London, South American shanty towns et cetera.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're adorable. And you're bad at this. > If Charlie holds to different laws of logic than Bill...whose brain is right? If they're using different forms of logic, then they're both right according to the form they're using, but they can't be compared to each other unless they're using the same kind of logic. > Your view is that laws are just conventions of thought. Those aren't laws, then. It's not my view, it's s…
> If they're using different forms of logic, then they're both right according to the form they're using, Absurd. Knowledge is impossible if both are right. You're bad at this. > but they can't be compared to each other unless they're using the same kind of logic. Says who? Your conventions? What if my "conventions" of logic say the can be compared if they're different systems of logic? You're imposing a "law" of "yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If they're using different forms of logic, then they're both right according to the form they're using, Absurd. Knowledge is impossible if both are right. You're bad at this. > but they can't be compared to each other unless they're using the same kind of logic. Says who? Your conventions? What if my "conventions" of logic say the can be compared if they're different systems of logic? You're imposing a "law" of "yo…
You're denying that different forms of logic exist, so we're done.
I'm telling you that you can't know anything or say something is rational or irrational with conventions of logic.
I'm also pointing out your treating laws of logic like laws (yay! I commend you for treating them like laws), but you are coming from a worldview that doesn't allow for laws (boo! inconsistency!).
This is where materialists bow out because they don't want to dig too deeply into their presuppositions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every part of the curve faces that sort of instability. The number of crops actually growing isn't particularly higher than the number needed to sustain the population, and we can't just spin up enough food for billions of people even if we do have plenty of land to do it on. With humanity, "carrying capacity" is unlikely to be food-limited.
The large number of overweight Americans is a huge pool of excess food and takes a lot of extra daily calories to maintain. As is the large number of livestock being produced and all that corn ethanol etc. The top of the curve removes that as we can't pay for the inefficiency's of livestock or the extra daily calories to be overweight and feed 50+ billion people.
Human population is expected to level off at 10-13 billion based on factors relating to social organization, not the 50+ billion that could theoretically be fed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's like saying "Lenin and Stalin did some bad stuff, but it doesn't invalidate the basic idea of Marxism" (which Marxist True Believers still assert). After seeing too many examples of it working out badly and none at all of it working well, we regard the idea as invalid. In practice, eugenics seems to move from "some genetic makeups are more fit for the current environment than others, and we should strive for t…
> That's like saying "Lenin and Stalin did some bad stuff, but it doesn't invalidate the basic idea of Marxism" (which Marxist True Believers still assert). Because it doesn't. I will assert that even though I'm not a Marxist True Believer. > After seeing too many examples of it working out badly and none at all of it working well, we regard the idea as invalid. And that's just plain stupidity, which is exactly what…
You don't want to do that after one failed attempt. You probably don't want to do so after two or three. But after enough attempts, you probably have a basis for saying that, no matter how good the theory sounds, it won't work in practice next time either. And if each time it fails produces large amounts of human suffering, there comes a time to quit trying the same stuff that has worked out badly over and over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Africa and India to play ball. The wealthy West limiting its procreation doesn't buy much for the Earth when somewhere else, poor families are pumping out children by the dozens.
The westerners are consuming far more resources per family of 4 than the African family of 10
I'm starting to think it's in our best interest to start building nuclear reactors pro bono all over Africa - you don't want them all to rise their standards of living by burning coal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The large number of overweight Americans is a huge pool of excess food and takes a lot of extra daily calories to maintain. As is the large number of livestock being produced and all that corn ethanol etc. The top of the curve removes that as we can't pay for the inefficiency's of livestock or the extra daily calories to be overweight and feed 50+ billion people.
"carrying capacity" is set by a lot more factors than just food. Human population is expected to level off at 10-13 billion based on factors relating to social organization, not the 50+ billion that could theoretically be fed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"carrying capacity" is set by a lot more factors than just food. Human population is expected to level off at 10-13 billion based on factors relating to social organization, not the 50+ billion that could theoretically be fed.
Replace food with water, land, etc and you get the same instabilitys. Social factors at the limits can easily lead to war, revolution, and or the breakdown of society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Some tried giving Arab countries democracy and it turned out they never really wanted it Does the presence of terrorists in developed countries prove "we" don't want democracy either? Because I didn't see the people (of the middle east) choosing, I saw the same thugs and warlords of the past continuing to make the decision for them.
Are you implying that all those middle-eastern countries were failed states, ruled by hordes of warlords? For instance, I vaguely remember Iraq being a pretty fine country; for decades, a lot of engineers from my country went there, and we had a pretty good economic cooperation. Then the US came and bombed the living shit out of it. As for Africa, isn't most of the mess the result of Europe coming there, destroying t…
And theocracies and kingdoms are slave states by definition, so most of what was around them is the same or worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're denying that different forms of logic exist, so we're done.
Ummm, no. I don't deny different forms of logic. I'm telling you that you can't know anything or say something is rational or irrational with conventions of logic. I'm also pointing out your treating laws of logic like laws (yay! I commend you for treating them like laws), but you are coming from a worldview that doesn't allow for laws (boo! inconsistency!). This is where materialists bow out because they don't want…
Stawman, that point is not in dispute.
> but you are coming from a worldview that doesn't allow for laws (boo! inconsistency!).
No I'm not. Your notion that materialism doesn't allow logic is simply wrong. You don't know what materialism is and I'm tired of repeating myself on that point why you continue to skirt the issue and ignore that.
> This is where materialists bow out because they don't want to dig too deeply into their presuppositions.
No, they bow out because you're clearly irrational and unable to engage in meaningful conversation because you don't address points being made to you. You just ignore them and keep saying the same non-sense that's being challenged.