Remember me
▼ Content

Overpopulation - How not to solve the problem.



Page 1 of 4123>>>
Overpopulation - How not to solve the problem.29-10-2015 20:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Since there seems to be an ongoing discussion in the Kiddie Pool about overpopulation and the various sociopathic ways of solving it, I've decided to open this subject in the Adult Pool so opposing views have a place to discuss their side.

This necessarily means a lot of cross-talk between the threads, but that's the price for censorship.
29-10-2015 20:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
* moderator's note: this post has been modified because it contained content which fell outside of the Shared Ideas guidelines.
* this post was modified with the above text that is in bold italics, which replaces original text from a post above which fell outside of the guidelines of the Shared Ideas sub-forum that has also been modified.
* this post was modified with the above text that is in bold italics, which replaces original text from a post above which fell outside of the guidelines of the Shared Ideas sub-forum that has also been modified.
* moderator's note: this post has been modified because it contained content which fell outside of this sub-forum's guidelines.
* moderator's note: this post was edited because it contained content which fell outside of this sub-forum's guidelines.
Totototo wrote:
Pinochet sure was a visionary. Now really, I can't imagine a faster solution that doesn't involve:
A) Mass unfertilization (which I'm not sure it's a word) of a generation.
Mass murder

Someone enlighten me please.


This is sociopathic. There is no other way to justify the mass killing or sterilization of people.

This sick idea is what killed political dissidents by the tens of millions under Mao Tse Tung, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, and other such wonderful "utopias" that have been attempted under Marxism.

Censorship is also a core technique of such people. Trafn, you are moving into some truly dangerous territory.
Edited by branner on 31-10-2015 14:43
29-10-2015 21:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
trafn wrote:
"POPULATION CONTROL: I am sorry to burst your bubble, but even though their implementation backfired, the Chinese were right. We need to decrease the population of this planet, and quickly, back down to a level that will not overtax global renewable resources. It took over one hundred years of linear growth to double the Earth's population from one billion in 1804 to two billion in 1927. Less than one hundred years later, by 2012, exponential growth had more than tripled the number of people alive to seven billion. [1] While I have not yet seen numbers showing the best fit between renewable resources and our planetary population size, if linear acceleration had continued after 1927, then there would be less than three billion people alive on Earth today. Therefore, my best guestimate is that we need to rapidly reduce our planet's population, or at least its carbon footprint, by at least half before 2060. To be done thoroughly and peacefully, it will take a worldwide voluntary effort. The Chinese have already demonstrated - via female infanticide - how people will resist such a process if they are forced to comply. [2]"


There will be no voluntary effort. There will be war. You will be on the wrong side of it. Such a thing can only happen involuntarily, and you will be among the first ones to contribute to 'population reduction'.

It won't matter if you save the planet. You will be dead. Fortunately for the world, more people care about each other than the sociopaths that utter and attempt to implement this crap.
Edited by branner on 31-10-2015 14:44
29-10-2015 21:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
trafn wrote:
If you mean simple in terms of low cost, and efficient in terms of fast, then mass murder is probably the most simple and efficient answer (example: drop a bunch of nuclear weapons on highly populated areas).

Unfortunately, simple and efficient in those terms would not be humane.


You suggest that we drop nuclear bombs on populated areas to "save the planet"??????

This is not only not humane, it is insane!
Edited by branner on 31-10-2015 14:46
29-10-2015 21:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Jakob wrote:
­
In Europe we help people to take poison if they are too unhappy with life.

Do you know about that from other places in the world..?

­What do you think about it. Is it okay to help people killing themselves..?

I think not.
It spoils my good mood to think about all the ways it can be abused.

­­


Wait for government "health" care, where the expensive to treat elderly are just cast aside like so much filthy trash. How's that for abuse!

Unhappy people will kill themselves anyway if they are unhappy enough. Why do you need or want a government program to help increase the suicide rate???
Edited by branner on 31-10-2015 14:46
30-10-2015 03:55
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
@Into the Night - I was being sarcastic
Sorry if you couldn't tell.
30-10-2015 08:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Totototo wrote:
@Into the Night - I was being sarcastic
Sorry if you couldn't tell.


No, I couldn't. Mass murder is no joking matter to me.
30-10-2015 09:07
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Will you please read my previous posts on that thread? The guy wanted a fast solution to overpopulation and I couldn't think of any that weren't atrocious. Hence, "enlighten me please", I wanted to see what fast solutions he had in my mind.
It's not my fault you're a bit sensitive and couldn't understand a pretty obvious message.
30-10-2015 09:24
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Unhappy people will kill themselves anyway if they are unhappy enough. Why do you need or want a government program to help increase the suicide rate???


No idea what's the reasoning behind it (no idea it was a thing in Europe either) but I'm guessing an argument in favor of that would be that suicides are... less messy? I'll ask him in his post what led to this.
30-10-2015 10:17
Tim the plumber
★★★☆☆
(956)
Thank fuck I'm not the only one who considers talk of mass killings/sterilisation as utterly evil.

Just as to post it again;

https://overpopulationisamyth.com/
30-10-2015 10:55
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(124)
­



Into the Night wrote:

Overpopulation - How not to solve the problem.



I am sorry but I do not understand it.


How can any good person ever want others not to find better ways to solve an overpopulation problem..?


And what has his work to do with climate..?


It just sounds too foolish in my ears.
And I am afraid my life is too short for too much foolish debate.
So in this matter I think I will just stay happy in "kindergarden" where it is possible to share and develop ideas about solving huge climate problems without evil sabotage from people with unclear or ill motives.





­
30-10-2015 19:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Totototo wrote:
Will you please read my previous posts on that thread? The guy wanted a fast solution to overpopulation and I couldn't think of any that weren't atrocious. Hence, "enlighten me please", I wanted to see what fast solutions he had in my mind.
It's not my fault you're a bit sensitive and couldn't understand a pretty obvious message.


I did read your earlier posts. It is not just me that is sensitive to this. It is the entire thread that is wrong. The whole concept of involuntary population controls is murder and mutilation. The whole concept of voluntary population controls is suicide and mutilation.

The millions of dead caused by population controls are not laughing.
30-10-2015 19:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Totototo wrote:
Unhappy people will kill themselves anyway if they are unhappy enough. Why do you need or want a government program to help increase the suicide rate???


No idea what's the reasoning behind it (no idea it was a thing in Europe either) but I'm guessing an argument in favor of that would be that suicides are... less messy? I'll ask him in his post what led to this.


It doesn't matter how messy it is. It is suicide.
30-10-2015 19:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Thank fuck I'm not the only one who considers talk of mass killings/sterilisation as utterly evil.

Just as to post it again;

https://overpopulationisamyth.com/


Thank you. Here's the fixed link: https://overpopulationisamyth.com
30-10-2015 21:16
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Voluntary population control can include:

1. Condoms.
2. Hormonal treatments like birth control pills.
3. Waiting longer to have children.
4. Having fewer children.
5. Not having any children.
6. Same gender sexual activity.
7. Voluntary temporary/reversible sterilization.
8. Voluntary permanent sterilization.
9. Voluntary adherence to a mono-sexual lifestyle (masturbation).
10. Voluntary adherence to an asexual lifestyle.

None of these methods involves suicide or murder.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
30-10-2015 21:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote:
Voluntary population control can include:

1. Condoms.
2. Hormonal treatments like birth control pills.
3. Waiting longer to have children.
4. Having fewer children.
5. Not having any children.
6. Same gender sexual activity.
7. Voluntary temporary/reversible sterilization.
8. Voluntary permanent sterilization.
9. Voluntary adherence to a mono-sexual lifestyle (masturbation).
10. Voluntary adherence to an asexual lifestyle.

None of these methods involves suicide or murder.


But these are all currently practiced voluntaily to the extent they are practiced and are already factored into the equation that results in the perception that something more needs to be done.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-10-2015 21:54
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - yes, and it can make a difference. Perhaps by educating people better about the importance of these, and many other forms of voluntary population control, that we will find a way to reduce the planet's population.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
30-10-2015 21:54
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Totototo - by the way, you may have noticed that some members like to be disrespectful toward other members in these threads. For some reason, they prefer to shoot the messenger rather than discuss the message.

We now have a new sub-forum here in Climate-debate.com for anyone who would like to discuss their ideas without being harassed because of what they think: Sharing Ideas. Please feel free to start a new thread there if you would rather be posting in a respectful, harassment-free environment.

Sharing Ideas is unique among all the other sub-forums on this website, as it is currently the only one dedicated to creating a non-debate, non-judgmental, supportive, respectful and synergistic environment where people can share and explore new ideas about climate, climate change, and climate change science together.



The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
30-10-2015 22:41
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
@Into the Night -
It is the entire thread that is wrong. The whole concept of involuntary population controls is murder and mutilation. The whole concept of voluntary population controls is suicide and mutilation.

So you're saying that we should avoid considering solutions for a potential catastrophe, right? Involuntary population control is murder? Please explain. Voluntary population control is suicide? Explain that as well.
30-10-2015 22:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
trafn wrote:
Voluntary population control can include:

1. Condoms.
2. Hormonal treatments like birth control pills.
3. Waiting longer to have children.
4. Having fewer children.
5. Not having any children.
6. Same gender sexual activity.
7. Voluntary temporary/reversible sterilization.
8. Voluntary permanent sterilization.
9. Voluntary adherence to a mono-sexual lifestyle (masturbation).
10. Voluntary adherence to an asexual lifestyle.

None of these methods involves suicide or murder.


No, but they do involve mutilation and disease risky behavior.

If you wish to voluntarily not have children to 'save the planet' that's your business. As soon as you make it the government's business, it will involve suicide or murder. It will be involuntary.
30-10-2015 23:02
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - you stated: No, but they do involve mutilation and disease risky behavior.

Obviously, you are talking about the way you participate in these activities, aren't you? Perhaps you need to consider healthier alternatives in your own lifestyle. Most people I know can participate in these kind of activities without any mutilation or disease. Would you like a referral to a health professional who might be able to help you?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
30-10-2015 23:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Totototo wrote:
@Into the Night -
It is the entire thread that is wrong. The whole concept of involuntary population controls is murder and mutilation. The whole concept of voluntary population controls is suicide and mutilation.

So you're saying that we should avoid considering solutions for a potential catastrophe, right? Involuntary population control is murder? Please explain. Voluntary population control is suicide? Explain that as well.


First, there is no potential catastrophe. Anyone who thinks there is needs to get out in the country more and see for themselves.

The only way to reduce populations involuntarily is to either kill people, or prevent them from having babies by force. Since preventing reproduction is itself going against natural law, the only wait to prevent babies by force is permanent sterilization (mutilation) or by abortion (murder).

Voluntary controls, if they are to have any meaning, must involve again going against natural law which encourages reproduction. Self-imposed controls often involve self-mutilation, risky behaviors, or even abortion. The present self-imposed methods used today involve these, but the population is still "too high". If such controls are to have any effect, they eventually must become involuntary.
Edited on 30-10-2015 23:08
30-10-2015 23:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - you stated: No, but they do involve mutilation and disease risky behavior.

Obviously, you are talking about the way you participate in these activities, aren't you? Perhaps you need to consider healthier alternatives in your own lifestyle. Most people I know can participate in these kind of activities without any mutilation or disease. Would you like a referral to a health professional who might be able to help you?


Obviously, you are quite mistaken.
30-10-2015 23:14
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - in an effort to stay on topic, I must remind you that when you started this post, you began by saying: Since there seems to be an ongoing discussion in the Kiddie Pool about overpopulation and the various sociopathic ways of solving it, I've decided to open this subject in the Adult Pool so opposing views have a place to discuss their side.

As "Kiddie Pool" is your derogatory euphamism for the Sharing Ideas sub-forum, it would be best if all posts in this thread included a reference to Sharing Ideas, and how it might be helpful to expand the concepts posted here by also discussing them in the Sharing Ideas platform. That way, we can get the most out of this conversation as you obviously intended.

[branner: copy about sub-forum removed - and in posts below]


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited by branner on 31-10-2015 23:16
30-10-2015 23:56
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Ok, now explain what you mean when you say "natural law".

First, there is no potential catastrophe. Anyone who thinks there is needs to get out in the country more and see for themselves.


That's not a good argument. You can't define this matter if you base yourself only on situations you whitness first-hand. And I never said it was a catastrophe now hence the word "potential", but you can see a threat if you look at the rate in which the population is growing. From 1 billion in 1800 to 7 billion this decade, I don't understand why you won't atleast consider some solutions.
31-10-2015 00:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - in an effort to stay on topic, I must remind you that when you started this post, you began by saying: Since there seems to be an ongoing discussion in the Kiddie Pool about overpopulation and the various sociopathic ways of solving it, I've decided to open this subject in the Adult Pool so opposing views have a place to discuss their side.

As "Kiddie Pool" is your derogatory euphamism for the Sharing Ideas sub-forum, it would be best if all posts in this thread included a reference to Sharing Ideas, and how it might be helpful to expand the concepts posted here by also discussing them in the Sharing Ideas platform. That way, we can get the most out of this conversation as you obviously intended.



I will continue to use the Kiddie Pool to describe your section. That is what it is. It's nothing more than your 'safe' place. Real discussions don't have a 'safe' place. They don't have censorship. They are what they are.

The topic of this particular thread is about population controls. I cannot allow such a discussion inside a 'safe' place without challenge. Indeed, I have drawn YOU out of the Kiddie Pool to try to get it back to a 'safe' place to discuss it. Most everyone else has already moved here. Deal with it.
31-10-2015 00:35
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - "Real discussions" as you like to call them can be done maturely and respectfully if all parties are able and willing.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited by branner on 31-10-2015 23:17
31-10-2015 00:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Totototo wrote:
Ok, now explain what you mean when you say "natural law".

First, there is no potential catastrophe. Anyone who thinks there is needs to get out in the country more and see for themselves.


That's not a good argument. You can't define this matter if you base yourself only on situations you whitness first-hand. And I never said it was a catastrophe now hence the word "potential", but you can see a threat if you look at the rate in which the population is growing. From 1 billion in 1800 to 7 billion this decade, I don't understand why you won't atleast consider some solutions.


Because this good old Earth is quite capable of sustaining far more than your 'scary' sounding numbers. A potential catastrophe has the same meaning as a catastrophe here. The 'potential' aspect of it is meaningless.

You might consider that this isn't a new argument. Looming 'potential' catastrophes due to overpopulation has been around since the late 1700's in the United States. There was discussion of it in England before that. That was when we had far less than the 7 billion living today.

First hand evidence is perfectly acceptable evidence. If you cut out first hand evidence, you might as well throw all of science and engineering in the scrap yard. (Sorry, Newton, you keep getting trashed)

I'm serious. Get out in the country more.
31-10-2015 01:00
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - I share your interest in the fact that catastrophic "end of the world" predictions have been around probably longer than our recorded history. The only thing I find different now, and different for the first time in our history, is that today we are able to talk about the catastrophic implications of M2C2 (man-made climate change) in scientific terms. Up to now, all "end of the world" predictions were based upon biblical interpretations.

Since we have advanced to understanding M2C2 in scientific terms through the new field of climate change science, we are now able to understand the devastating impacts we our having on this planet's environment from a purely scientific perspective. The tobacco companies fooled us once before. The petrochemical industries won't get away with that kind of similar behavior this time. Why even Exxon admitted to M2C2 in 1977:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/opinion/exxons-climate-concealment.html


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
31-10-2015 02:51
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Because this good old Earth is quite capable of sustaining far more than your 'scary' sounding numbers.

They are not my numbers and I've never said Earth was in danger.

You might consider that this isn't a new argument. Looming 'potential' catastrophes due to overpopulation has been around since the late 1700's in the United States. There was discussion of it in England before that. That was when we had far less than the 7 billion living today.

I don't understand. Should we render the new data useless since it isn't a new argument?

First hand evidence is perfectly acceptable evidence. If you cut out first hand evidence, you might as well throw all of science and engineering in the scrap yard. (Sorry, Newton, you keep getting trashed)

I've never ruled out first hand evidence in science, I specifically point out I was talking about this subject in particular. What would be the point of me going to the country?

You forgot to answer me what you consider to be "natural law".
31-10-2015 03:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - I share your interest in the fact that catastrophic "end of the world" predictions have been around probably longer than our recorded history. The only thing I find different now, and different for the first time in our history, is that today we are able to talk about the catastrophic implications of M2C2 (man-made climate change) in scientific terms. Up to now, all "end of the world" predictions were based upon biblical interpretations.

Wrong. Overpopulation 'potential' catastrophes had nothing to do with biblical interpretations. There is nothing in the Bible about overpopulation.
trafn wrote:
Since we have advanced to understanding M2C2 in scientific terms through the new field of climate change science, we are now able to understand the devastating impacts we our having on this planet's environment from a purely scientific perspective.

You are not using a scientific perspective when you are talking about global warming. Environmental problems were problems of certain industrial practices by certain unscrupulous businessmen, not overpopulation.
trafn wrote:
The tobacco companies fooled us once before.

Tobacco companies never fooled anyone anymore than they do now. They are no different than any other drug pusher out there, except their drug is legal and even subsidized by our own government.
trafn wrote:
The petrochemical industries won't get away with that kind of similar behavior this time. Why even Exxon admitted to M2C2 in 1977:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/opinion/exxons-climate-concealment.html

Exxon admitted to nothing. They are in the business of marketing their products. If that includes a presentation of a 'green' picture of their company, so what?
31-10-2015 03:40
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - you stated Since preventing reproduction is itself going against natural law, the only wait to prevent babies by force is permanent sterilization (mutilation) or by abortion (murder).

Many people are opting out of the hetero-normative lifestyle today because they have come to understand that it was fasly forced upon them by centuries of theological, patriarchal dominated societies which demanded procreation to fill the ranks of their war machines.

Today, as people unshackle their lives from this myth, they are free to follow their own inner feelings, and to explore their true inner nature as they perceive it to be. The great awakening of the Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, Pan-sexual, Asexual, Transsexual and Transgender communities (just to name a few) represents this evolving global evolution in human awakening.

Of the many ways to decrease population, the youth of today and tomorrow now have these liberating options to explore as they build their homes, their lives and their futures, all via modalities which inherently bypass the hetero-normative model of male-female intercourse. There is no murder here, there is no mutilation here, there is only love and fewer children. What could be better?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
31-10-2015 03:45
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - your reference to spam is merely a counterbalance to the negativity which has dominated so much of this website. By participating in the Sharing Ideas sub-forum, I have experienced the value of respectful conversation, and now I bring that respect to you in all the forums of this website. If negativity is posted, I will post positively. If anger is expressed, I will add tranquility.

As we move forward in our great discussion of climate change science and M2C2 (man-made climate change) we will now have a balance of voices throughout Climate-debate.com. The rule of negativity has ended. Peace.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
31-10-2015 04:54
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Please clear my doubts, Into the Night.
31-10-2015 05:14
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - it's okay to admit that Exxon lied. It's okay to admit that the tobacco companies lied. It's okay to admit that the big-pharma companies lie, as do the health insurance companies, and the phone companies, and the list goes on.

We live in a world where money matters more than people. In the end, when our lust for money has thrown us over the edge of M2C2, we will be gone, and all that will be left is our money floating in the wind.

It's okay to admit it.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
31-10-2015 11:58
Tim the plumber
★★★☆☆
(956)
Jakob wrote:
­



Into the Night wrote:

Overpopulation - How not to solve the problem.



I am sorry but I do not understand it.


How can any good person ever want others not to find better ways to solve an overpopulation problem..?


And what has his work to do with climate..?


It just sounds too foolish in my ears.
And I am afraid my life is too short for too much foolish debate.
So in this matter I think I will just stay happy in "kindergarden" where it is possible to share and develop ideas about solving huge climate problems without evil sabotage from people with unclear or ill motives.


Talk of solving a none problem with billions of deaths is utterly evil.

You are evil. Do you want to be evil?????

Your retreat into the kiddy pond is pathetic.

There is no over-population problem.

Watch this;

https://overpopulationisamyth.com

Edited on 31-10-2015 12:01
31-10-2015 12:03
Tim the plumber
★★★☆☆
(956)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - I share your interest in the fact that catastrophic "end of the world" predictions have been around probably longer than our recorded history. The only thing I find different now, and different for the first time in our history, is that today we are able to talk about the catastrophic implications of M2C2 (man-made climate change) in scientific terms. Up to now, all "end of the world" predictions were based upon biblical interpretations.

Since we have advanced to understanding M2C2 in scientific terms through the new field of climate change science, we are now able to understand the devastating impacts we our having on this planet's environment from a purely scientific perspective. The tobacco companies fooled us once before. The petrochemical industries won't get away with that kind of similar behavior this time. Why even Exxon admitted to M2C2 in 1977:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/opinion/exxons-climate-concealment.html


Some of us can talk about the science of climate. You cannot. You have demonstrated a complete inability to do any science at all. You are just evil.
31-10-2015 15:14
branner
AdministratorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(30)
Please add a link when you quote from another thread, just like if you had quoted from another website/blog/article. I have inserted some links in the first posts to show how.

Also, for future posts, please don't post the same block of text/invitation in a lot of posts.

I know the situation on the site is not perfect right now. I decided to give the current setup some week's trial and then evaluate. I hope you will all do your best to make it work.
31-10-2015 16:33
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Tim the plumber - you see evil in much of what you disagree with. The perception of evil in others is often a projection of our own fears and insecurities.

If I post a statement saying that mass murder has been used in the past (which it has, as in Cambodia) and may be used in the future as a form of population control, this is not the same as advocating it. It is merely a statement of historical fact, something which is neither good or evil.

If I post a statement saying that nuclear bombs could be used in the future as a form of population control, something others have repeatedly discussed in the past (e.g. - General MacArthur's Korea-China Dead Zone Proposal), this is not the same as advocating it. It is merely a statement of a potential future reality, something which is also neither good or evil.

To improve both the quality of your posts as well as your interactions with other members on this website, might I invite you to release any underlying fear or insecurities which might be influencing your posting mannerisms by posting in the Sharing Ideas sub-forum. There, you will have a moderator who can assist you in posting in a fear-free and insecurity-free manner.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
31-10-2015 16:39
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Branner - necessity is the mother of invention, and if this site is to ever reach its full potential, then it is in great need of re-invention.

As you are advocating a wait-and-see policy, and so as to get the most out of this "hands-off" period, I am now engaged in a "fight-fire-with-friendly-fire" strategy to see if those who are propagating negative content on this website can be effectively counterbalanced by my attempt to propagate positive content of equal weight and measure.

I apologize for any repetitive content posting I have done during the past 24 hours, as this is a new format for me, and I am still in the early stages of its learning curve.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
Page 1 of 4123>>>





Join the debate Overpopulation - How not to solve the problem.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Do We even want solve climate change?9207-10-2017 19:14
Overpopulation - How to solve the problem..?3501-11-2015 16:22
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact