image stats
date added
previous votes
log in


indent register
indent recover

wtf is this shit?!?!

1 star2 stars3 stars4 stars5 stars
wtf is this shit?!?!

Comments for: wtf is this shit?!?!
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: July 11, 2009 12:28PM

Novus ordo seclorum

new world order
Onyma Report This Comment
Date: July 11, 2009 12:29PM

I tend to agree with his intent, but not the methods. It's a purely scientific view though, it would never become reality. The author of the article is fear-mongering by presenting a purely scientific outlook to an emotional population.

IMO the only way to preserve the future of our species is through a mass population reduction. My preferred method would be to ensure that for one generation every 2 people are permitted only one child. 50% population drop in 1 generation and a 50% easing on our demand for the earth's resources. I think we are WAY past the sweet spot population wise, too many mouths to feed, not enough jobs to employ everyone, a global economy that can't afford to pay out what it requires to take in, too much 'natural space' taken up for housing... it's all on the brink of collapse to me.

Of course you can't implement any of this in a politically correct society but I don't believe even tech is going to be able to make a bright future out of our exponential population growth. Quite frankly I'm pleased I won't be around to see what I think is coming.

Just my 2c smiling

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2009 12:31PM by Onyma.
madmex2000 Report This Comment
Date: July 11, 2009 02:29PM

This planet called earth has been spinning for millions of years.
Man's presence on this rock had been in the last few hundred thousand years.
a brief flash of time for us when compared to everything around us.
But according to you its over populated and cramped and on the brink of destruction from overpolulation or resource scarecity.
What a noble little monkey you are . It must be hard to live on a planet of monkeys not as smart as you.
Listing to your reasoning is like listing to children talk. So nieve and yet so sure of them selves.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: July 11, 2009 02:39PM

Kinda agree with the ideology of the report but certainly not the methodology posed as the way to move forward. It's not too difficult to understand how over population leads to increased levels of consumption and the impact it has in that eventuality upon our planet as a whole.

The scary parts in this "scientists" collaboration on cause and effect vs, solutions sadly all seem to hinge on oppression by socio-political measures that step far aside of science and seem to be based more upon "one world utopian" ideologies that should scare the shit outta anyone capable of sifting through the diatribal hen scratchings and actually see what's behind the subterfuge of "science" to see it's purely more of the "we know what's best for you and don't care one whit for what you think of our ideologies, much less the emotional cost such implementations would bring about or how these factors might effect society in general, and legally or morally ....... our conclusions should be above reproach". Very Hitleresque to say the least.

True scientists typically tend to work outside the confines of socialistic agendas, but this cat certainly doesn't. That alone is enough to give reasonable pause to anyone believing him to be a scientist at all, much less anyone capable of heading a federal office whose intent is to address and regulate scientific activities on the part of our government and society.

Yep, Obamas actual ideas of "change" seem to be becoming more and more apparent and seem to be more far reaching in scope and intent than anything he stumped for in his campaign .... whatta surprise eye rolling

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: July 12, 2009 02:56AM

refresh this a few times

then, divide by......

then, subtract all the horses

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2009 03:00AM by fossil_digger.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: July 12, 2009 03:08AM

Onyma Report This Comment
Date: July 12, 2009 11:11AM

@madmex - were you replying to me? If so I didn't mention one word about the fate of this planet as a whole but spoke specifically of the state of our species on it. This planet's future existence could care less about what we do to it... it's a self renewing ball of rock that will continue to orbit whether we exist or not. It has the potential to go through a dozen more cycles of life before being swallowed into the sun; that's a foregone conclusion.

What I discussed was the future of humans in particular and our foreseeable quality of life on this ball of rock that isn't getting any bigger. To that end there are predictions afoot that we may naturally self limit around 10 billion by the end of the century which would be good. Others predict we may hit that mark by 2050 and still be climbing. The high and low scenarios for long term (year 2300) have us between 35 billion on the high end, to as low as 3 billion if we suffer a severe population crash (disease, food supply collapse, etc.) The reality of course will fall somewhere in the middle.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 13, 2009 06:21AM

War, human nature's solution to overpopulation. Bomb the crap out of North Korea and Iran.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: July 17, 2009 12:54AM

john holdren

this asshole actually said this:
"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock".
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 17, 2009 07:14AM

Still think war is the best method of population control, but we would have to change or policy on war. We would need to keep the countries we defeat in the war instead of giving it back to them.