Uh Oh, a Real World Event by dreamtrove

Those island nations have it rough, really. Most of them are volcano formed, and if their volcano isn't active, they're sinking.

Makes it easy to wipe them out with a tsunami, which are common in such a geologically active region.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 5:33 AM

Sucks.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 5:40 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I think of it as mother nature trying to cleanse herself of the parasites that are destroying her. And just in case anyone thinks I'm being one-sided (it's ok for them but not for me), every time we have an earthquake, I imagine mother nature trying to shake us off her skin.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:10 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I think of it as mother nature trying to cleanse herself of the parasites that are destroying her. And just in case anyone thinks I'm being one-sided (its ok for them but not for me), every time we have an earthquake, I imagine mother nature trying to shake us off her skin.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

I first read this message without looking at who posted it, and I thought, " Oh, God, Wulfie strikes again." Then I looked at the poster, and said, " Oh, that's better, she didn't mean Samoans as parasites, she meant all of us, humanity, as parasites. "
But, hon, watch out. That was too close a call...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:13 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Yeah, I read it and thought...

"You know, if I posted something like that... I would be called a Nazi..."

But hey, thats why they call it hypocrisy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:17 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I think of humanity's numbers, the effect we are having on basic planetary systems, the numbers of species we have killed off forever - and I think we are like a cancer, consuming and eventually killing of our host.

I think that of ALL humanity, not just 'them' other people. Rest assured, as sick as it may seem to claim this, my misanthropy is non-discriminating. My phrasing may have been close, but my thoughts are very, very far away from singling out groups. Some individuals are pure gold, but as a species, we suck.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:35 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

And the b.s never ends....

As much as I try, Rue just loves trying to bring out the worst in me.

This time, I'll just let it go.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:36 AM

I've never really understood why humanity needed to spread to places where the environment couldn't support them. Territorial thing, maybe? Probably linked with agriculture and livestock, lots of land required and people fighting over arable land.

Natural disasters are another thing: I suppose in the ancient world, a group would move into a place, cyclical natural disaster would hit, they would die. Next group would move in because no one remained to warn them? That's the best I can come up with.

Combination of the two, then possibly leading to a mentality found among a great many cultures, which can all be traced back to cultures with the inclination to spread.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:45 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I've never really understood why humanity needed to spread to places where the environment couldn't support them."

Ever wonder why lions starve ? Why don't they just live where there is plenty of game ?

The answer is that species will spread everywhere that can support them, no matter how marginal. They live in questionable areas b/c, enough of the time, they can ... until something happens and they can't for a while.

Humans have the technology no matter how primitive (the bowl, fire, clothes, simple tools) to live everywhere, from the Arctic to the Congo, from the Maldives to the Himalayas. We live everywhere simply b/c we can.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:48 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Wulf, if you notice, I didn't address my post to you, nor did I mention you by name. All I did was explain to the previous poster as accurately as I could my thoughts on the subject. And yes, when we have earthquakes, I really do think what I posted, which is the same thing I think when there are natural disasters elsewhere. Any thought you may have had that my post was directed to you or about you is purely delusional on your part.

For future reference, THIS is what a real post to you/ about you looks like.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:57 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
I think of humanity's numbers, the effect we are having on basic planetary systems, the numbers of species we have killed off forever

Yeah but we are the *best* species. What we need is better technology: to help us preserve the lesser species and damage the planet less while using it to sustain our civilisation - and also to help us acquire new planets for this end.

You have to ask yourself Rue, what value is there in the beauty of nature without a special species like our own with a concept of beauty, to be able to appreciate it? Beauty exists only in the eye of the beholder, 'mother nature' is only truly sacred so long as there are humans around to esteem it so.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:05 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

6 billion and counting.

We *could* just try to keep our numbers under control.

Or just wait for the next Black Death to do that for us.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:06 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

KPO

Are you being serious ? Or is your post an extended spoof ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:09 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

KPO: That assumes that other species don't/can't appreciate beauty, just because we haven't found a way to communicate effectively with them about it.

Let's see...

If Wulfie had said it, it would have been more along the lines of "See? Black people just can't figure out where to live!"

And if PN had said it: "The British Nazi-Jews caused this tsunami to usher in the New World Order and genocide the Samoans, because the Samoans are Zionist Jews."

And if I'd said it: "Why is Dubya on vacation again?! Why isn't he DOING SOMETHING?! Doesn't he know this is going on in AMERICAN Samoa?!"

There. Are we all caught up on our various agendas (or would that be agendae?)

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
6 billion and counting.

We *could* just try to keep our numbers under control.

Or just wait for the next Black Death to do that for us.

...and there it is...

[RELAX, everybody. I'm actually just playin' today. I'm in an odd mood, and the snarkometer is reading off the charts!]

But in all seriousness, Wulf, how do you propose we "control" our numbers? Eugenics? Abortion? Selective breeding? Limits on your "freedom" to have as many litters as you want? Licensing requirements for breeding?

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:22 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

How about we teach that we should only be having 2 kids... and only to married couples.

Everyone did that, the numbers wouldn't change too much.

Wouldn't have to make it law or anything, just common sense.

*awaiting the snark, the bs, the screaming to have me boiled in oil...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:36 AM

Nuclear family and matrimony got us into this mess. Strict structure on what constitutes family (or what "should" constitute family) has put us all into nice isolated little cells, and if that family structure falls apart, which it tends to, because of cheating or illegitimate children or whatever, it all turns ugly because society has promoted the laughably stupid idea of One True Love to encourage this pairing off behaviour. If One True Love isn't One True Love, oh, rejection, betrayal, bitterness and HATE!

What we need to do is start colonizing other worlds. Population problem solved, no eugenics, population control, or violation of human life and dignity required.

*Waits for PN to come in with his arguments against space travel*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
KPO

Are you being serious ? Or is your post an extended spoof ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

There's nothing wrong with thinking that humans have some place in this world and universe, we did evolve here. We can do a better job of fitting into that place, surely, but humanity isn't intentionally parasitic. We can change. We should change.

Though I agree with Kwicko about the "lesser creatures" thing, I'm pretty sure my cats own ME.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 9:04 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"There's nothing wrong with thinking that humans have some place in this world and universe, we did evolve here."

I'm just not into thinking that somehow we are the *best !* ever. But, in the broad scheme lots of species evolved here, and, they are no more. Our 'place' is only so long as we continue, when we cease, it will no longer be - as with all other species.

"We can do a better job of fitting into that place, surely, but humanity isn't intentionally parasitic."

Intentionally or not, we are doing that very thing.

"We can change. We should change."

A while ago, there was a thread called 'something to believe in". SignyM summed it up beautifully by (paraphrasing) posting we had demonstrated all the intelligence of creating our own social memes as a colony of ants.
I think we can do better.
I think we respond to the very structures we create - agriculture, surplus, large numbers of interconnected but impersonally related humans ...
I think we need to intelligently select our inputs to create a stable set of responses that will last over time. Further, I think we have tantalizing archeological examples of cultures that did it right; and cultures that did it wrong, and crashed and burned.

But I have no hope we will manage that. There are too many vested interests who ARE running the place for their benefit - setting our paradigms, limiting our choices, profiting from our labor, gaming the system, exerting their power.
It would take a concerted push by many, many people, all with the same goals in mind, to overcome that. And that just isn't going to happen.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 9:20 AM

TPTB can't last forever. The hope is to keep talking, keep passing word down, so maybe, when the time comes that we can build anew, maybe we won't make the same mistakes again. It's a slim hope, but I anticipate some communities wanting to remain separate instead of rejoining the union. If there's people in those communities, willing to try different things, different lifestyles, maybe some of these ideas can gain a foothold.

And there's always trying to do things under the radar while TPTB do still exist. There ARE some self-sufficient bioregionally sustainable communes out there... Though you may need to have some money to invest in them initially. Or at least pool together to get what you need.

But first, immediate problems. Still gunning for colonization, it'd help a lot with overpopulation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 9:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I think of it as mother nature trying to cleanse herself of the parasites that are destroying her.

Thank you,

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 9:56 AM

WHODIED

I seem to be on a Heinlein quoting kick lately, here and in my life, so here goes:

Quote:
It may be that an intelligent race has to expand right up to its disaster point to achieve what is needed to break out of its planet and reach for the stars. It may always -- or almost always -- be a photo finish, with the outcome uncertain to the last moment. Just as it is with us. It may take endless wars and unbearable population pressure to force-feed a technology to the point where it can cope with space. In the universe, space travel may be the birth pangs of an otherwise dying race. A test. Some races pass, some fail...

Not sure I agree with this exactly, it kinda feels like a justification for our rapine excesses, but I know I'm behind the colonization idea.

WATER ON THE MOON, BABY! (Even if it's less accessible than shale oil...sigh.)

--WhoDied

_______________________

Yeah, we're mostly just giving each other significant glances and laughing incessantly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 10:03 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Still gunning for colonization, it'd help a lot with overpopulation.

Er... as in, export enough peeps to reduce our footprint? If that's the idea, its not gonna work. It would take far more resources to "export" people than it wuld be to take care of them here on earth. The only way it would help the population explosion is if you cheerfully took them on-board, blasted them off into space, and waved them out the airlock at the rate of about 365,000 each day (because that's how many people are born.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 10:05 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The ads read: the trip of a lifetime !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 10:09 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Indeed, I want off this rock.

Gliese 581d is lookin better and better by the minute.

As for "family" - well, family is what you make it, bonds of emotion require no genetics, and I have enough non-blood nieces/nephews (along with half a dozen who are!) that it's almost the very revenge wished upon me by other students pissed about how much tail I was gettin since I took that "unmanly" home ec class!

You don't have to pop em out yourself to love em, folks.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 10:12 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

yeah.

But the reality is, we're all in this together.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 10:59 AM

WHODIED

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
yeah.

But the reality is, we're all in this together.

Unless you're obscenely wealthy, apparently, not that there aren't exceptions, of course.

I mean, should we sterilize the bulk of the African aids epidemic? Would that be a piece of mercy? And could we do it without it turning into some kind of resource seizing free-for-all?

Also, in the case of American Samoa, are we gonna see another New Orleans? Developers drunk on Government contracts, people in temporary housing for years, long-time residents unable to reside there any longer?

I don't know yet how to wrap my head around these things as it becomes all to easy to surrender to dismay.

I'm rambling...

--WhoDied

_______________________

Yeah, we're mostly just giving each other significant glances and laughing incessantly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:14 AM

I'm concerned as to what you may mean by "taking care of" people here on earth, if you think kicking them out of airlocks would be a better alternative than trying to colonize.

There's no reason this couldn't be a gradual process, in fact, because of the resource limitation you note, it would likely have to be. In the meantime, we need to work on hunger and irrigration/water needs and reduce impact on Earth, yes, until such time as we can begin to evacuate elsewhere. Resources from elsewhere will be shipped back to earth in return for necessary colonization supplies until colonies are self-sufficient, and further evacuation can commence. Once population on earth is reduced to sustainable levels, ecosystems will be able to make a come back.

It's still a solution to overpopulation. Most likely THE solution to overpopulation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:18 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I don't know yet how to wrap my head around these things as it becomes all to easy to surrender to dismay."

Long term, if things get really, really bad (your mileage may vary) I have an exit strategy. Not that I'm generally recommending it for anyone, it just seems unlikely that heading to the 'off world colonies' will be an option in my lifetime. And it does seem like this place could catastrophically tip into hell at a tweak.

Other than that, I do what I can, day to day. And though it may not be enough, it is good to be doing it.

:tilts-head chipper-voice:
And, how has your day been ?

<< universal symbol of inanity

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:30 AM

WHODIED

Well, my exit strategy was to flee to Samoa.

Sorry.

My days are improving in a 'what the hell is this?' kind of way. The Lotus-eating withdrawal symptoms are receding...

--WhoDied

_______________________

Yeah, we're mostly just giving each other significant glances and laughing incessantly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:03 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BYTE: The very best and cheapest solution to the population explosion is birth control, along with women having power over their lives, and a more equitable distribution of resources. IF we can't manage even THAT, I doubt we'll manage colonization.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
IF we can't manage even THAT, I doubt we'll manage colonization.

LOL, if we can't eradicate starvation, we have no business pissing away resources "claiming" parts of the Moon, or Mars. Exporting savagry is not the way to go, IMO.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:23 PM

There's a lot of things that birth control could mean. What do YOU mean by it?

I am very wary of birth control measures. I could dig up the logical argument I had with Citizen over it, but the basic point is, it smells a lot like eugenics to me.

If you mean the pills, I'm concerned they may be a factor in breast cancer, but I wouldn't deny anyone the choice. Same as with abortions before the 2nd trimestre, and special case abortions such as rape, incest, health concerns, etc.

Notice that I mentioned working on problems such as hunger, irrigation/water, and impact in a previous post. I'm not espousing "exporting savagery."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:27 PM

Please, Byte, unwanted pregnancies can be naturally ended by eating tuna & vitamins while lifting weights for a few weeks. Drop body fat below 3% & pregnancy isn't continued.
No pills or policies needed.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:27 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"... but the basic point is, it smells a lot like eugenics to me ..."

Which would be an odd type of 'reverse' eugenics, since wealthier, better educated women with more political power and autonomy tend to limit family size using birth control. While poorer women with less education, less political power and less autonomy don't.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:38 PM

What happens when poor women without access to birth control have a lot of children?

They can't be taken care of. So the state steps in.

That's kind of the point. TPTB are encouraging downward movement on the socio-economic ladder and increasing reliance on the state.

Birth control doesn't solve the blatant efforts to create one big slave labour class with a few aristocrats on top. Reducing reproductive potential is actually a sign of oppression in that particular class, it means that class is being outbred, and therefore marginalized.

Oh, it may not seem that way. I comprehend completely that women want to be independent, and that having children is a large drain on resources that could otherwise be directed towards other endeavors. I applaud women who choose to pursue their careers, I'm one of them. Romantic relationships and pregnancy are a bizarre process I have no interest in pursuing myself beyond study, and I don't really like children, though I'd fight for their rights at every turn.

But the difficulties of raising children, particularly the financial concerns, are a social construct, intended to make smart people question having children.

Result? Add in poor education and shiny distractions, and you get a bunch of dumb cattle willing to do and support ANYTHING you tell them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Please, Byte, unwanted pregnancies can be naturally ended by eating tuna & vitamins while lifting weights for a few weeks. Drop body fat below 3% & pregnancy isn't continued.
No pills or policies needed.

The laughing Chrisisall

That sounds somewhat unhealthy, considering the weight of most Americans does not immediately suggest that 3% body fat can be achieved in a few weeks.

Look, I admit that unwanted pregnancies are a problem, but combining that concept with the idea of population control gives me the chills. I don't trust the intentions of the people in government who might use birth control as a form of population control. The idea makes me want to find some nice rocks to hide under.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
But the difficulties of raising children, particularly the financial concerns, are a social construct, intended to make smart people question having children.

Result? Add in poor education and shiny distractions, and you get a bunch of dumb cattle willing to do and support ANYTHING you tell them

There is logic to what you say here, Byte.
Sadly.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 1:00 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Byte

I am somewhat confused by your posts.

Eugenics, AFAIK, means creating a 'better' population by removing the 'unfit'.

Encouraging a large, albeit ignorant and unhealthy, population of poor people is the exact opposite of eugenics.

If everyone practiced birth control, there would be fewer of the slave class for the wealthy to pit against each other and exploit. It would seem to me that having fewer children would both improve the immediate economic standing of poor people - not having to spend so much on children - AND reduce their potential to be easily exploited in the future. As a rarer resource, they would be a more valuable one.

And, if reducing reproductive potential was a sign of oppression, the ultra-wealthy would have fallen long ago !

You are arguing from a set of assumptions that don't concur with anything I know.

If you could explain them, I would appreciate it.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 2:03 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:

I think of it as mother nature trying to cleanse herself of the parasites that are destroying her. And just in case anyone thinks I'm being one-sided (it's ok for them but not for me), every time we have an earthquake, I imagine mother nature trying to shake us off her skin.

Okay, this wins the insensitive comment award.

Even not taken literally as:
The Samoans are the enemies of the earth...

I thought it more on target when Gaia kept attacking texas.

But has anyone notice an upsurge in earthquakes since underground testing resumed?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 2:25 PM

I find myself with a little bit of extra time today waiting for my carpool, so I thought I'd try to answer your questions as quickly as I could.

I used the term "eugenics" in the sense of what I observe being broad scale social/genetics engineering actively selecting for a particular outcome/phenotype. In this case, the "unfit" to be removed and selected against are smart people.

This does have some collateral damage in selecting against the upper class and aristocracy, although that may be an effort to remove competition from among that class. It may also just be a consequence of the method being promoted, at least while this movement is still clandestine.

It also could be because you don't need an equal number of overseers to keep the large proposed docile workforce in line.

Quote:
If everyone practiced birth control, there would be fewer of the slave class for the wealthy to pit against each other and exploit. It would seem to me that having fewer children would both improve the immediate economic standing of poor people - not having to spend so much on children - AND reduce their potential to be easily exploited in the future. As a rarer resource, they would be a more valuable one.

That's not how I observe class warfare to work. If you have "less to exploit," you also have "less to resist." Once you have a non-resistant work force, then the size of it won't matter, and you can encourage as much growth as you need to support your system.

Weed out individuals likely to resist, and the rest (and the offspring) are less likely to resist. My argument is that an educated middle class is likely to resist this change into a large worker class. And when I say worker class, I mean desk jobs as well as labour.

I also mentioned previously that the financial concerns for raising children and the limitations it puts on the ambitions of the parents are a structure of THIS society.

I will probably have to clarify this further, but I think my ride is here now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 2:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Okay, this wins the insensitive comment award.

I think you're missing the snark factor here.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 2:38 PM

Quote:
I thought it more on target when Gaia kept attacking texas.

Y'know, as a Texan, *I* could find *that* comment unfunny and insensitive.

Except that it's so goddam true, and funny, that I just can't. :)

I think it was Rue who mentioned people who move into areas that are unsustainable, and then others who move in after those first ones are wiped out, because they don't know or don't remember. I have to say, "Not true." There's a place out at Lake Travis, Graveyard Point, where it has flooded no less than five times in the 20 years I've been here. Wipes houses out - they're completely under water. And those same goddamned idiots keep rebuilding, time after time after time. So it's not that they don't remember - it's that they refuse to learn! And that's worse, by a fair piece.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 2:55 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Okay, this wins the insensitive comment award."

Not directed at Samoans, but at humans in general. Though, despite natural disasters, resource degradation, global climate change, mass extinction, human-made poverty, emerging diseases and the like, it seems we humans more than keep up our numbers, and accelerate our destructive activities.

Was the earthquake caused by humans ? Of course not. Was the tsunami ? No. Was the poverty caused by humans that dictated that people with few resources live in precarious settings ? In a general way, absolutely.

Unless, of course, you don't see these as problems ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 2:57 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I call that feeding Darwins Ghost, Mikey - but people do it, sure they do.

As for birth control/eugenics - well, that's why I am such a big fan of the Trojan Man, it puts the choice right in the hands of those doin the humping, to be lightly indiscreet about it.

Also worth pondering, since that discussion is moving in a Morlock/Loti kinda direction already...

Morlocks EAT Loti, don'tcha know.

"Eat the rich, yeah eat the rich
Don't you know, that life is a bitch
Eat the rich, yeah eat the rich
Out of the palace and into the ditch!"
-Krokus

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 3:22 PM

Quote:

As for birth control/eugenics - well, that's why I am such a big fan of the Trojan Man, it puts the choice right in the hands of those doin the humping, to be lightly indiscreet about it.

Bingo. You don't need to make abortion illegal, if you first make it unnecessary. And in most cases, it SHOULD BE unnecessary, with just the tiniest bit of forethought and preparation. No matter how many times you try to tell children that sex is "wrong" or "dirty" or "sinful", they're still going to do it at some point. I have hundreds of thousands of years on my side and literally BILLIONS of people alive today who are living proof that people are absolutely going to keep right on fucking, as long as there are people still alive. You CAN give them the knowledge and the tools necessary to take responsibility for it, though.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 4:03 PM

DREAMTROVE

The machiavellian fascism of the idea of absolute birth control seems logically impeccable though morally reprehensible, but fails when you realize that absolute control is impossible, ergo, any population practicing it is doomed to be overrun by the teaming masses of those who don't.

Therefore it seems the inescapable conclusion of any society internally executing absolute birth control is doing so under the direct or indirect manipulation of some other population that wishes to replace them, and has control over their legislative decision making and social dogma.

Under this light, support for birth control within ones own society would seem foolhardy at best, collaborationist at worst, and unquestionably a poor course of action.

As per eugenics, the manipulation of populations is always done for eugenics reason, the dysgenics which Kathy is proposing would only exist as a subset of a larger eugenics program: One which breeds for a strong ruling class, and a mass of inferior slaves that it would be certain to dominate.

The ultimate fate of such a program was well laid out a century ago by H G Wells, but we shouldn't rush to the conclusion that the master manipulators of the world are unaware of that end result, but rather that they would not care. Any eventuality in which the eloi overrun the morlock is so far in the distant future it is neither of concern to individual nor societies extant today, or indeed, civilization itself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 4:09 PM

DREAMTROVE

Kathy

Quote:

"Okay, this wins the insensitive comment award."

Not directed at Samoans, but at humans in general.

You will note that I made it clear that I understood that, and it was still reprehensible. Using a natural disaster to forward your political agenda is, well, very neocon.

Quote:
Was the earthquake caused by humans ?

Quite Possibly. There are a lot of missile tests going on, which have directly caused a number of quakes in Japan, Korea and China, and perhaps the ones in India, Pakistan and Iran. Whose bombs? Who knows, but I could make some guesses. Global warming is also to blame, but fault lines reach far and deep, and underground nukes in India or N. Korea could have profound effects thousand of miles away.

These things happen without humans, but it would be interesting to see the statistics on Earthquake frequency vs. nuclear testing, from about 1900 on, so we have a fair amount of zero nuke data to compare it to. Just a hypothesis, anyone care to dig up an post a chart?

Edit:

Mike

Quote:
Quote:
I thought it more on target when Gaia kept attacking texas.

Y'know, as a Texan, *I* could find *that* comment unfunny and insensitive.

Except that it's so goddam true, and funny, that I just can't. :)

Of course I was aware of that when I made the comment, which is why I made the comment. I think it's what you might call a snark

Re: Kathy's comment I thought it was out of line. I just wanted to make that clear and move on. No hard feelings, and please let's not get into an argument over it, but just a moment of reflection:

Remember all of the time's you've heard about some disaster like Chernobyl and every jackass for Reagan got up and preached against communism? That was damned inappropriate. They were using someone else's disaster as their soapbox, and screw the part about Chernobyl being a French reactor, that's not the point, the point is that it was out of line.

Sure, some Russian bureaucrat made an ass of himself and played nuclear engineer for about 20 minutes until he got himself and everyone else in the room killed, but this isn't a blame game, it doesn't matter whose fault it was, and even more so when it comes to not-so-manmade disasters. It's a humanitarian disaster, not your fucking soap box. That's all I had to say.

No offense, I just wanted that heard loud and clear. Now, sure, if you want to go and make specific criticisms that are constructive to avoiding the situation, like how the pakistan india quake kill 100 times the % of population on the pakistan side of the border and how this was connected to the use of pancake construction, then yes, it's appropriate IMHO to attack pancake construction (this was a factor in China's recent quake disaster as well) That's not a political issue, it's an architectural one. If someone were to use the Chinese disaster to launch a standard rant against Chinese Communism I would say "save it for another day" There's plenty of time to attack communism or capitalism on some other day, on a level playing field. And the same goes for general human irresponsibility.

Oh, for the record, Google picked the worst possible day to launch a product called "Google Wave."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 4:13 PM