4 ms·

Our life expectancy doesn't go up by fucking the place up and mismanaging sustainable living. Just because I care about other species and the planet that live o

Our life expectancy doesn't go up by fucking the place up and mismanaging sustainable living. Just because I care about other species and the planet that live on (you know, it's not easy to find a planet that can sustain life) doesn't mean I'm a left-wing liberal. FYI, I'm independent. There's 7 billion of us and growing. We can take care of ourselves and our life spans are nearing 80-90 years, animals that took billions of years to evolve into their current species are being wiped out because we have selfish attitudes. We're draining the water tables and fucking over the oceans. Aside from the medical advances to help ourselves, we're screwing EVERYONE and EVERYTHING on this planet. "But what about us humans?" What about us? Being on every continent other than Antarctica isn't enough? Also, we lost 160 million people in wars just in the 20th century alone. At least Koalas & Gorillas won't send your family to a concentration camp, invade your country, slaughter your citizens, get drunk and slam into your family van, rape and kill, or fuck your children. Frankly, I'd rather help the animals keep their habitat than help humanity grow it's population. At least animals don't ask for taxes or welfare. Animals won't rob you at gun point. Leave them in their forest and they'll be happy and leave you alone. Being a human and being more intelligent than other species doesn't entitle you to being a total dick and fucking the place up for everyone. There's more to life than cheap gas, car culture, and shopping malls.

downandout 13y ago
Frankly, I'd rather help the animals keep their habitat than help humanity grow it's population. That was the point of my comment - eco-ideologists generally hate humans, and given the chance are more than willing to inconvenience other humans (rarely themselves) in order to satisfy their world view. Fortunately for the rest of us, that opportunity rarely comes.
- qu4z-2 13y ago
  I'm against inconveniencing existing humans for the benefit of the environment, but arguing that trying to reduce human population increase is "hating humans" is like arguing that pro-choicers "hate babies". I mean, sure, let's look out for the humans that are already around. But I don't feel much obligation to destroy huge swathes of beautiful landscapes just so we can have more people. Quality of life over quantity of life, etc.
- ChrisNorstrom 13y ago
  Ok then, what should the cut off be for making it acceptable to inconvenience other humans for the sake of sustainability? How many droughts should we go through? How low and polluted should the water supply get? How shitty does life have to get for all of us before it's ok to ask everyone to make some changes that may be "inconvenient". If you don't inconvenience 314 million Americans right now in 2013, you're going to screw 500 million Americans a few decades from now, and even more a few centuries from now. I'm not asking for eugenics and one child policies. And no I'm not in favor of bio-fuels. They've done more environmental damage than they've helped, and they mess with the pricing of the food. It's not about ideas that sound nice and make people happy, it's about solutions that actually work and are realistic. I'm asking for common sense sustainable strategies. Rethinking water rights (just because you bought some land doesn't mean you own the ground water and can pump out massive amounts of water thus lowering the water table for everyone else), ending zoning policies that favor single family homes and push out apartment complexes, stop subsidizing home ownership, expand conservation areas and create new ones, investing in a smart grid, map out and setting cyclical conservation areas that are reserved for future use, filtering storm drains, allow cities to be able to mandate mpg policies (they currently cannot).
  - brc 13y ago
    >I'm not asking for eugenics and one child policies. These are the only proven solutions to population control. You are either for allowing people to have kids as they decide, or you are not. There is no middle ground here. As a human I don't favor any type of population control of any type because denying people the right to reproduce is one of the cruelest things you can do. The alternative is to just let the population ebb and flow naturally. It might double, it might halve, we don't know. The truth is that quality of life has been improving for centuries and will probably continue to do so.
    - ChrisNorstrom 13y ago
      >These are the only proven solutions to population control. NOT true. Statistically the more educated a group becomes + the higher the standard of living the lower the groups birth rate. Jews and Japanese are the prime example. Higher educatation alone correlates with lower birth rates. The birth rate for African American's alone has fallen 60% in 10 years. Much in part due to increased education in the form of college scholarships and grants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/97facts/edu2birt.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/97facts/edu2birt.htm http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/pop994.doc.htm http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/pop994.doc.htm http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/correlation-between-fertility-and-female-education http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/correlation-b... Simply put. Educating humanity allows it to naturally direct itself back towards sustainable levels without drastic and extreme eugenics or one child policies.

downandout 13y ago

Frankly, I'd rather help the animals keep their habitat than help humanity grow it's population. That was the point of my comment - eco-ideologists generally hate humans, and given the chance are more than willing to inconvenience other humans (rarely themselves) in order to satisfy their world view. Fortunately for the rest of us, that opportunity rarely comes.

qu4z-2 13y ago
I'm against inconveniencing existing humans for the benefit of the environment, but arguing that trying to reduce human population increase is "hating humans" is like arguing that pro-choicers "hate babies". I mean, sure, let's look out for the humans that are already around. But I don't feel much obligation to destroy huge swathes of beautiful landscapes just so we can have more people. Quality of life over quantity of life, etc.
ChrisNorstrom 13y ago
Ok then, what should the cut off be for making it acceptable to inconvenience other humans for the sake of sustainability? How many droughts should we go through? How low and polluted should the water supply get? How shitty does life have to get for all of us before it's ok to ask everyone to make some changes that may be "inconvenient". If you don't inconvenience 314 million Americans right now in 2013, you're going to screw 500 million Americans a few decades from now, and even more a few centuries from now. I'm not asking for eugenics and one child policies. And no I'm not in favor of bio-fuels. They've done more environmental damage than they've helped, and they mess with the pricing of the food. It's not about ideas that sound nice and make people happy, it's about solutions that actually work and are realistic. I'm asking for common sense sustainable strategies. Rethinking water rights (just because you bought some land doesn't mean you own the ground water and can pump out massive amounts of water thus lowering the water table for everyone else), ending zoning policies that favor single family homes and push out apartment complexes, stop subsidizing home ownership, expand conservation areas and create new ones, investing in a smart grid, map out and setting cyclical conservation areas that are reserved for future use, filtering storm drains, allow cities to be able to mandate mpg policies (they currently cannot).
- brc 13y ago
  >I'm not asking for eugenics and one child policies. These are the only proven solutions to population control. You are either for allowing people to have kids as they decide, or you are not. There is no middle ground here. As a human I don't favor any type of population control of any type because denying people the right to reproduce is one of the cruelest things you can do. The alternative is to just let the population ebb and flow naturally. It might double, it might halve, we don't know. The truth is that quality of life has been improving for centuries and will probably continue to do so.
  - ChrisNorstrom 13y ago
    >These are the only proven solutions to population control. NOT true. Statistically the more educated a group becomes + the higher the standard of living the lower the groups birth rate. Jews and Japanese are the prime example. Higher educatation alone correlates with lower birth rates. The birth rate for African American's alone has fallen 60% in 10 years. Much in part due to increased education in the form of college scholarships and grants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/97facts/edu2birt.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/97facts/edu2birt.htm http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/pop994.doc.htm http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/pop994.doc.htm http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/correlation-between-fertility-and-female-education http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/correlation-b... Simply put. Educating humanity allows it to naturally direct itself back towards sustainable levels without drastic and extreme eugenics or one child policies.