South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

August 18, 2019, 02:50:00 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Overpopulation

 (Read 8455 times)
Description: Earth steadily heading for a loud and crowded planet
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
jasongerm
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



« on: January 11, 2012, 11:26:55 AM »

Young girls are falling pregnant to gain grants. Orphanages cannot cope. Modern medicine will keep malnurished people alive to continue feeding on imported aid - once the aid dries up, so do the people. The planet just passed the 7 billion mark. Economies are dependent on growth.

First to lose out is nature. Once we have covered our planet with shanty towns and farms, we'll start killing each other for resources. I'm sure the super rich will be fine though.

Solutions: education and family planning...?

When last were you completely alone in a silent place with no trace of human interferance?

I think we are suffering from a crowded psycosis already.

There is nowhere to escape to anymore and we have to find sanctuary in our own minds...usually chemically induced sanctuary.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on over population!
Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2012, 12:39:30 PM »

I'd love to hear your thoughts on over population!


Here
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2012, 14:42:20 PM »

 
Perhaps the Chinese strategy of limiting women to a single birth is the way to go, enforced by compulsory sterilization following the birth of the child.

Implementing the Chinese model would be extremely hard in a democracy.  I foresee that a political party that implements a similar policy would lose the next election and the project would fail.  The only way one might get support from the electorate is by a prolonged campaign promoting the concept and perhaps even discrediting and socially rejecting parents with too many children.

One would further require international cooperation.  The UN has idealistic targets for limiting population growth, but I am not aware of any detailed implementation plan.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2012, 15:34:29 PM »

Economies are dependent on growth.

Economic growth, which shouldn't necessarily be linked to population growth.

Quote
First to lose out is nature.

First to lose out is us. Once we're gone nature will shake us off like a bad cold. Planet earth will be fine, our CO2 will get removed over a couple of aeons and all will be hunky dory. We survived an ice age using nothing but stone tools, what we're doing pales in comparison, but there will be casualties...

Quote
Solutions: education and family planning...?

(Wo)Man likes to fantasize that we are above nature. We are not. Nature will kill us off with extreme prejudice until there's an equilibrium again. Would that be such a bad thing? We are the sickness and mass-death is the actual cure.

Quote
I'd love to hear your thoughts on over population!

It's stupid and irresponsible, much like anything else mankind as a collective has done, and probably unavoidable.
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2012, 16:49:20 PM »

When last were you completely alone in a silent place with no trace of human interference?
There was that one sceptics in the pub meeting ....

We need a solution for the third world - if it's still PC to use that term. Europe and its ilk, with its reported negative growth rates, seem to have the problem sorted.

The mechanics of the solution could not be simpler - the Chinese legal restrictions have been mentioned. Instead of child grants, the government could pay a one off R2,000 incentive for getting sterilized prior to having kids. Or we could chuck some libido decreasing additive in the water, along with the fluoride. CuSO4 wannit?  Even those immensely popular traditional circumcision rituals can be subtly modified to kill two stones with one bird. Imagine starting a new tradition where a man is revered in society for his willingness to become a genetic cul de sac.

Political pussyfooting around the issue will no doubt lead to agony in the not to distant future. But sadly, I suspect that family planning, both personal and official, is far from our leader's list of priorities. Speaking for myself, if I was a statesman with say - oh, I don't know - 20-odd kids, I would be to blooming embarrassed to demand any form of reproductive restraint from my people.

At the end of the day, we are fighting sex drive and culture, ironically the very things that helped seal our existence as a modern species. Education, as always, is the only real answer.

Rigil

Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1531



WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2012, 18:19:44 PM »

I think it is more the standard of living than education that helped Europe. A good education goes a long way in ensuring a good income but to just try and teach people about the evils of overpopulation is not going to do it.
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2012, 18:28:36 PM »

I think it is more the standard of living than education that helped Europe.

Can you elaborate a bit, Tweefo? Is it to do with people attaining a riper age?

Rigil
 
Logged
Superman
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2012, 18:45:30 PM »

Watched an interesting story on the news this morning. Basically a Third of Japanese not interested in sex.

Well, I heard about this before and this topic reminded me about it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8257400/Third-of-young-Japanese-men-not-interested-in-sex.html

Perhaps as people become more wealthier and educated we naturally will want less children 'cause we have more to do.
So the solution would be to raise the living standard of humans.  Tongue The best solution I think.


Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2112



« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2012, 07:40:29 AM »

I never wanted kids, even as a young girl the whole idea was just too horrible to contemplate, after I fell pregnant and had my eldest I visited my Gynea and requested to be sterilised, he point blank refused, I visited around 3 others in order to have it done and all of them told me that they consider it unethical to sterilise a woman under the age of 26 who did not at least have two children already.

Five years later, to my horror, I found myself pregnant again, I threatened my gynea with a lawsuit if he did not sterilise me during the ceasar that was planned.  He did, halfhardedly though, he unly severed one tube, which leaves me still very much fertile.  Bastards.

The medical profession will need to buy in on the population control "ethics".
Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1531



WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2012, 08:03:49 AM »

I think it is more the standard of living than education that helped Europe.

Can you elaborate a bit, Tweefo? Is it to do with people attaining a riper age?

Rigil
 
Richer families tend to be smaller.
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 12, 2012, 08:14:54 AM »

i have had loads of flack for this point of view, but here goes; all infants are sterilized.  When you want to breed, you apply to get pregnant.  If you are psychologically, financially able, then you can have two sprogs.  if not.  agga shame.
i dont even care that the rich are goign to bribe to get with child.  and the poor will bitch.  i dont want kids. the world is full.
Logged
Superman
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


« Reply #11 on: January 12, 2012, 08:35:28 AM »

Perhaps government could encourage homosexuality. Angel More gays less children. We could have a slogan: Be Gay for Gaia. Being gay is the result of nature AND nurture so upping the nurture part should help.

Ultimately when you see a gay couple in the street now you know we are doing our part for the environment.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2012, 08:48:23 AM by Superman, Reason: Spelling and Grammar » Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 12, 2012, 08:39:06 AM »

According to this the highest rates of population growth are the basket cases (Zimbabwe takes first prize) with the rich, western nations coming in the middle with population growth rates of between 0 and 1%.  Interesting that the former soviet republics have very low growth rates as well as some countries where AIDS has been a serious problem (like us).
Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 12, 2012, 08:43:15 AM »

Perhaps government could encourage homosexuality. Angel More gays less children. We could have a slogan: Be gay for Gaia. Being gay is the result of nature AND nurture so upping the nurture part should help.

Ultimately when you see a gay couple in the street now you now we are doing our part for the environment.
Anthony Burgess wrote a novel about just such a society.  Being straight was socially unacceptable so straights had to sneak around shagging each other surreptitiously whilst pretending to have gay relationships.  I think it was called '1985'.
Logged
Superman
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


« Reply #14 on: January 12, 2012, 09:10:28 AM »

Anthony Burgess wrote a novel about just such a society.  Being straight was socially unacceptable so straights had to sneak around shagging each other surreptitiously whilst pretending to have gay relationships.  I think it was called '1985'.

I never said anything about making straight socially unacceptable. Are you putting words in my mouth. I hate that when people on forums do that. Words mean things.

Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 12, 2012, 09:13:03 AM »

Anthony Burgess wrote a novel about just such a society.  Being straight was socially unacceptable so straights had to sneak around shagging each other surreptitiously whilst pretending to have gay relationships.  I think it was called '1985'.

I never said anything about making straight socially unacceptable. Are you putting words in my mouth. I hate that when people on forums do that. Words mean things.


For cough.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



« Reply #16 on: January 12, 2012, 09:33:16 AM »

Perhaps government could encourage homosexuality. Angel

How would this be different from past governments "encouraging" people to be straight?
Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2112



« Reply #17 on: January 12, 2012, 09:35:04 AM »

Anthony Burgess wrote a novel about just such a society.  Being straight was socially unacceptable so straights had to sneak around shagging each other surreptitiously whilst pretending to have gay relationships.  I think it was called '1985'.

I never said anything about making straight socially unacceptable. Are you putting words in my mouth. I hate that when people on forums do that. Words mean things.



Neither did he, he was referring us to a book, which I might just go hunt down as it sounds interesting.

Sensitive much?  WTF!!
Logged
Superman
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


« Reply #18 on: January 12, 2012, 09:52:55 AM »

How would this be different from past governments "encouraging" people to be straight?

I also never said that government should initiate any force. Now you are implying it.
If I am coming across as sensitive sorry. Sometimes not everybody on forums are sincere.

It was ultimately a good natured humorous post but I suppose if I took it seriously it would be something like an advertising campaign. I know it is non-objectivist but I was not really being serious and *you all know it*
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #19 on: January 12, 2012, 12:36:55 PM »

I think it is more the standard of living than education that helped Europe.

Can you elaborate a bit, Tweefo? Is it to do with people attaining a riper age?

Rigil
 
Richer families tend to be smaller.

No. Smaller families tend to be richer. Tongue
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #20 on: January 12, 2012, 12:41:27 PM »

i have had loads of flack for this point of view, but here goes; all infants are sterilized.  When you want to breed, you apply to get pregnant.

Hey GCG - thanks for introducing me to a brand new experience: agreeing with you 100% !
 Evil

Rigil
« Last Edit: January 12, 2012, 13:18:54 PM by Rigil Kent » Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #21 on: January 12, 2012, 13:11:44 PM »

I also never said that government should initiate any force. Now you are implying it.
Or he is asking you how you would implement it?
Quote
If I am coming across as sensitive sorry. Sometimes not everybody on forums are sincere.
You are I'm afraid. St0nes responded to you with a comment about a book he has read and you took the premise for the book as him commenting negatively on your post.
Quote
It was ultimately a good natured humorous post but I suppose if I took it seriously it would be something like an advertising campaign. I know it is non-objectivist but I was not really being serious and *you all know it*
You took two posts written in responses to you in a way it wasn't obviously intended. It may be you.
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 12, 2012, 13:20:58 PM »

jesus. why is everyone taking this so literal.  really?

i do like the idea of gays being green.  i think, in fact, i might design a logo around that....
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #23 on: January 12, 2012, 13:24:25 PM »

i might design a logo around that....
How about a rainbow-striped banner done only in shades of green? Wink

Rigil
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #24 on: January 12, 2012, 13:30:06 PM »

jesus. why is everyone taking this so literal.  really?
I didn't take superman's original post as literal at all. Why he even used  Angel <--- this.

I just don't think either st0nes or boogieM took him literally either or were necessarily negative toward him or his post.
Quote
i do like the idea of gays being green.  i think, in fact, i might design a logo around that....
green gays?
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #25 on: January 12, 2012, 13:33:34 PM »

there we go:
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #26 on: January 12, 2012, 13:34:24 PM »

lol
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #27 on: January 12, 2012, 13:53:33 PM »

Lovvit!
Logged
Superman
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


« Reply #28 on: January 12, 2012, 14:58:19 PM »

You are I'm afraid. St0nes responded to you with a comment about a book he has read and you took the premise for the book as him commenting negatively on your post.

Ok, I was been sensitive. I am very sorry.
And that did not hurt too much saying that.

@GCG Lovely banner. I also like it. Thank you. Cheesy  
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #29 on: January 12, 2012, 16:42:15 PM »

It never hurts as must as some people think, to admit we were wrong or made a mistake. I'm still here after all  Cheesy
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #30 on: January 12, 2012, 17:11:47 PM »

It never hurts as must as some people think, to admit we were wrong or made a mistake. I'm still here after all  Cheesy
You mean old Telly accepted you apologies?  Evil Evil
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



« Reply #31 on: January 12, 2012, 17:26:57 PM »

Quote
I just don't think either st0nes or boogieM took him literally either or were necessarily negative toward him or his post.

I didn't think he literally meant "lets do it", no. And I'm not trying to slate you superman. It's ironic to me that you talk about being misunderstood on a forum, as an effect of misunderstanding us.  Cheesy

I am skeptical and do question stuff as a first reaction though, because it seems that he believes this is a good idea, even though we already know the results of trying to change people's sexual orientation, subtly or otherwise.
Logged
Superman
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


« Reply #32 on: January 12, 2012, 18:42:43 PM »

it seems that he believes this is a good idea, even though we already know the results of trying to change people's sexual orientation, subtly or otherwise.

@BoogieMonster, I am answering you now since I find this post entertaining. Even a bit of disagreement can be entertaining if you don't take it too far and it becomes a fight. I don't want a fight.

1.) I am not talking about changing anybody's sexuality.
2.) Sexuality is a result of 'nature and nurture' which is the best science today can tell us about sexuality.
3.) Kingsley's Scale (a bit controversial) of sexuality on a sliding scale, I think has some truth to it. As I understand it most people fall mostly in the middle i.e. bisexuality.
4.) I think most straight identified people will realize their capacity for being bisexual if they allowed themselves to experiment.
5.) There will always still be a lot of people that are 100% gay or 100% straight. I would not want to force anything on anybody.

So I am saying if people were more open to the idea they might discover they are bisexual and can have a homosexual relationship. But as you say this is dangerous territory and perhaps not a good idea.
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #33 on: January 12, 2012, 18:59:52 PM »

4.) I think most straight identified people will realize their capacity for being bisexual if they allowed themselves to experiment.

OH, OH! MRS KENT PLEASE COME HAVE A GANDER AT THIS! Cool Cool
Logged
Superman
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


« Reply #34 on: January 12, 2012, 22:19:09 PM »

Cannot sleep so I will add some more to my post.

I would like to introduce you to the rabbit hole of contradictory information.

Been reading the ol' Wikipedia. Here is the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation

Here are two some interesting quotes:

Quote
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated, "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime".[35] The APA also says that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation".[36] "[F]or some ["people"] the focus of sexual interest will shift at various points through the life span..."[37] A community may change over time.[38]


My question to the APA is now is sexuality fixed or fluid? Are they perhaps both? Very confusing isn't it.

Here is another and perhaps more truthful. More down at the bottom.

Quote
The American Psychiatric Association stated:[60]
No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice.


This is the truth as I see it we would need to get more data before we can make a non contradictory theory about sexuality. Of course today people like contradictions.
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #35 on: January 13, 2012, 07:13:23 AM »

You mean old Telly accepted you apologies?  Evil Evil
Not sure if he did - they were sincerely meant however. 
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #36 on: January 13, 2012, 08:36:47 AM »

I am what would be considered bisexual.  but it's a shitty label that i hate, because for some people it translates as an excuse to be promiscious. but i digress.
growing up in a staunch afrikaans household, gay was not even something that existed.  i had a gay aunt who lived with her partner of many years.  there was never any open hostility towards her (that i can remember), and her partner attended family gatherings and the like.  and yet being gay was belittled, degraded, etc.
i had not the foggiest was gay was.  one of my best mates was as gay as the day is long, i had no clue.  my high-school crush turned out to be supergay.  i was clueless.
my first lesbian encounter was with my ex landlady.  uncomfortable at best. 
then i met my first girlfriend.  and i pursued her.  i had no idea what i was feeling, or what it meant, but i was besotted.  i was engaged at the time, so i left him for her.  and within months, i was out and proud. (in sasolburg no less).
when we broke up, i ended up dating an indian man.  i had random flings with women inbetween.  but have had my long-term relationships with men.
point of the story, sexuality is fluid.  if you let yourself not be constrained by peer pressure.  or society.
i grew up straight, because it's all i knew.
when a strong, butch woman came along, i explored that.  i had never thought to put a label on myself.  i hate having to explain to people what i 'am'.  i neither prefer the male or female form.  a gorgeous man can be a doos.  a hot girl can be a bitch.  so i tend to like geeks.  of either gender.  procreation tackle nonwithstanding. 
both gay and straight society boxes you in.  pressurizes you to be one or the either.  both communties are relatively tolerant of the other, but seemingly, the thought of being fluid between the two sides, are allmost deemed a cop-out.  you are a draadsitter.  a lot of gay women wil not touch a 'bisexual' woman.  i cannot vouch for gay men.
straight men love the idea of having their missus with another woman, but would shit bricks if she wanted to see him with another man.  present forum company included.
i think that male/female is relative.  to upbringing, hormone levels, DNA transfer at conception, whatever.  there is no hard-and-fast rules.
many, many shades of gray.
sexuality changes as the individual matures, get wizer. plenty straight, married men, pick up boys for a blowjob on a friday night, their wives oblivious.  is he gay?  maybe.  but he had to conform, so he does.
and just leaves acres of pain.
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #37 on: January 13, 2012, 09:01:43 AM »

Insofar as it is even possible to classify these things, your description reminds me of a condition called pansexuality.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexual

I genuinely like the term. If I had to be anything but straight, I would have fancied being pansexual. It sounds kinda sophisticated and at the same time mysteriously dangerous. The sort of orientation one might expect from art collecting mafiosi.

Rigil
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1826



WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 13, 2012, 10:13:58 AM »

I think it is more the standard of living than education that helped Europe. A good education goes a long way in ensuring a good income but to just try and teach people about the evils of overpopulation is not going to do it.

Indeed: all over the world, the single greatest factor in reducing population growth has been urbanization and the attendant higher standard of living that goes with it (as well as education and empowerment of women). Rather ironically, the people who can most afford larger families are the least likely to have them, and vice versa.

You needn't teach people a thing about the dangers of overpopulation. They won't listen anyway. You need to get them into cities where they have a chance of a career and a high income and a middle class or at least lower middle class living standard. Then most of them automatically have fewer children and you end up with the European and Japanese situation where the population is actually shrinking.

You then need to keep the ecological footprint of those cities as small as possible by high-intensity, industrial-style modern farming.

Thus, once again rather ironically, the greenest policies to follow are precisely the policies that organizations like Greenpeace have been fighting tooth and nail over the past few decades.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3749


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #39 on: January 13, 2012, 10:40:20 AM »

Rather ironically, the people who can most afford larger families are the least likely to have them, and vice versa.
There’s actually an understandable reason for this.  Besides the education aspect, for people living in poverty, it makes sense to have more children because this improves the chances that (1) the family can fend for itself, (2) the family line will persist, and (3) the parents will be well looked after in their old age.  It is, in effect, feudalism in a microcosm:  The more serfs you have, the better your social station.  For the modern middle and upper classes, there is much greater certainty about each of those points.

Thus, once again rather ironically, the greenest policies to follow are precisely the policies that organizations like Greenpeace have been fighting tooth and nail over the past few decades.
… which is another instance illustrating the necessity of a sceptical approach, especially in cases where a minority claims “special knowledge” that is emotionally held and zealously defended when challenged.

'Luthon64
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



« Reply #40 on: January 17, 2012, 15:18:06 PM »

Quote from: Someone
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 1.548 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page April 07, 2019, 04:16:48 AM
Privacy Policy