Overpopulation, how will it affect us?

[Drasiana]

Kill all the animals on earth! Then WE can eat all the food those assholes are eating!

_{yeah no}

Clearing land to create more food is still not fixing the whole overpopulation thing. It's a treatment for a symptom, sure, but it won't actually do anything to slow the population increase, and if that increase continues, even that food won't be able to sustain everyone.

The problem lies not only in a low quality of life (people without access to birth control, people who intentionally have many kids to either be workers or "insurance" because of high mortality rates), but also in cultures that detest birth control, marry women off young (smaller gap between sexual maturity and time expected to have children) and promote many children for one reason or another. Not enough food is what is happening in some places, but those places are also often stricken with conflict.

[Thu'um]

Okay. At this point, having done some more reading on this, I should point out that your assertion that livestock are taking away our arable land is false. Not all of the land used for pastures for livestock is actually useful for anything else, and in factory farming, they don't necessarily use farmland for grazing anyways, or is being allowed to lie fallow so the nutrients can be replenished (and, fun fact, livestock help replenish said nutrients). Yes, food has to go to them anyways, but getting rid of them doesn't mean you've necessarily got more agricultural land to work with. Nor does it mean that that land is going to keep up with the increased demand for food anyways.

But even if we go with these numbers you've pulled out of nowhere (and it'd be nice to see some kind of source for your claim that humans consume only 50% of our agricultural product), what you're saying still makes no sense, unless you really are just arguing for the elimination of livestock. Because the effect of reducing food available to livestock is to eliminate them, whether you mean to or not.

Kill all the animals on earth! Then WE can eat all the food those assholes are eating!

_{yeah no}

Clearing land to create more food is still not fixing the whole overpopulation thing. It's a treatment for a symptom, sure, but it won't actually do anything to slow the population increase, and if that increase continues, even that food won't be able to sustain everyone.

The problem lies not only in a low quality of life (people without access to birth control, people who intentionally have many kids to either be workers or "insurance" because of high mortality rates), but also in cultures that detest birth control, marry women off young (smaller gap between sexual maturity and time expected to have children) and promote many children for one reason or another. Not enough food is what is happening in some places, but those places are also often stricken with conflict.

you guys clearly don't understand how the energy transfer throughout organisms works, and you think i am suggesting that we get rid of live stock for farming space not what i said. @ dras quote me where i said kill all live stock. i believe i suggest that we cut our live stalk population half, that doesn't mean we have to kill half of them, just control the population of animals for the next generation so that they have half the population. now if we just did that, we wouldn't even need to have more agricultural land, we would instantly have more food. the ONLY change would be only 25% of our agricultural product. and it would occur over 20 or so years.

[unoservix]

You are in fact suggesting that we get rid of livestock. Whether or not you think you are, well, you are. You keep saying we'll save all this land if we aren't using it to grow livestock feed--but if we're not getting rid of livestock, then what are you going to feed to them? Protip: if you feed them nothing, they die, and then you've gotten rid of livestock whether you meant to or not.

Energy transfer has very little to do with it. If you want to talk about energy, try factoring in the increased energy needed to grow all that extra food. You seem to think that any land being used for livestock raising is automatically arable land that can be used to grow crops fit for human consumption, and that is just not the case.

Livestock or not, we wouldn't have to get rid of them or enforce a vegan diet on the world either way if we go with the one solution to overpopulation that history shows us actually works: raising the standard of living. And it's more difficult to raise the standard of living if you take away something on which many people depend for their living at all.

[Asper Sarnoff]

There's this wee issue to the solution of combating overpopulation with raising standards of living, like you and Dras here claim. Simply the fact that the inhabititants in westen countries with high standards of living are a lot more wasteful with the planets resources than people living under worse conditions. In 2006, WWF calculated that if the entire worlds population had the same standards of living and consumance patterns as the average European, we would be spending three times as many resources as the planet can renew.

Raising the standards of living, and with it, the ecological footprint, just in itself, would actually be a death sentence for countless millions of people. With it needs to come drastic cuts and fresh thinking in how we grow our food, power our homes, factories and vehicles.

[unoservix]

Raising the standard of living across the board rather implies that we adopt sustainable methods of producing and consuming, otherwise such an increase is impossible to begin with.

But if we're talking about overpopulation, the best way to do it is to make people better off. The same countries that use so much of the world's resources also don't face crushing population explosions.

And either way, eliminating livestock from food production doesn't do anything to help that, and it actually creates several other problems.

[Drasiana]

you guys clearly don't understand how the energy transfer throughout organisms works, and you think i am suggesting that we get rid of live stock for farming space not what i said. @ dras quote me where i said kill all live stock. i believe i suggest that we cut our live stalk population half, that doesn't mean we have to kill half of them, just control the population of animals for the next generation so that they have half the population. now if we just did that, we wouldn't even need to have more agricultural land, we would instantly have more food. the ONLY change would be only 25% of our agricultural product. and it would occur over 20 or so years.

I know perfectly well how energy transfer works, and you clearly don't understand the concept of a joke. And I wasn't just referring to livestock, I was referring to every single animal that requires space to live in that we simply can't just clear away for the sake of agriculture. Rain forests, anyone?

And you're forgetting why people eat so much meat to begin with. It has different properties than non-meat foods. You're also ignoring the uses had in other parts of the cow harvested; only some of it goes to food, but the parts of cows wind up in some crazy, yet useful areas of industry.

Hooves and horns = fire extinguisher foam

Hide = sports balls, shoes

Small intestine = surgical sutures or racket strings

Fat is used for soap, other "icky" parts we don't want to eat go into pet food. There are other uses for other parts, but you can look that up on your own.

Now, about the standard of living. Having a good standard of living--meaning not having to deal with severe government oppression, deadly disease, and un-farmable land--is not the same thing as owning a Hummer and an iPad and building a custom home out of 100% rainforest-harvested wood. Yes, people do consume way too much in certain Western societies, and that is a problem that needs addressing. But to think the highly consumer-based, materialistic values of certain socieities is synonymous with a "good life" is fallacious.

[Asper Sarnoff]

Now, about the standard of living. Having a good standard of living--meaning not having to deal with severe government oppression, deadly disease, and un-farmable land--is not the same thing as owning a Hummer and an iPad and building a custom home out of 100% rainforest-harvested wood. Yes, people do consume way too much in certain Western societies, and that is a problem that needs addressing. But to think the highly consumer-based, materialistic values of certain socieities is synonymous with a "good life" is fallacious.

Not as much as you might think. Let me run a scenario past you.

Let's imagine a poor family in a third world country. They are struggling to make a living, and more often go to bed starving than not. Plagues with diseases, and their house is close to falling together over them. The kids have no education, no future. And to top it all of, whenever any of the family members try to go outdoors, they get chased by the bloodthirsty honeybadger.

Then, suddenly, all that misery goes away. Now that they no longer have to worry about starving, becoming ill, their house falling over on top of them, or the vicious fangs of the honeybadger, is it likely that this family will start pursuing a more luxurious life? Will they be satisfied with a decent life, or will they crave more? A larger house, a nice car, fashionable clothes, Macbooks for the kids and triple-sheet ultrasoft toiletpaper to wipe their behinds?

People are never satisfied with what they have. When the bare life-necesities are covered, most people will automatically start pursuing a lifestyle that is many times more wasteful than before. Seeing how rapidly developing countries drastically increase their consumption, despite birthrates going down, should serve as proof to this.

[unoservix]

Why are we reducing standard of living solely to material consumption? Why are you ignoring all the other stuff, like a realignment of values and the availability of education? If your population has a higher standard of living, then its population increase will slow, then halt, then reverse. Consumption is a different problem. You are conflating them unnecessarily and confusing the issue.

But in case you didn't catch this, I already conceded that sustainable patterns of production and consumption have to be in place before you can increase people's standards of living, otherwise the planet simply cannot support it. That still doesn't mean AJC is talking a lick of sense, so all you're doing here, Asper, is arguing with shadows of your own creation.

[Asper Sarnoff]

Why are we reducing standard of living solely to material consumption? Why are you ignoring all the other stuff, like a realignment of values and the availability of education? If your population has a higher standard of living, then its population increase will slow, then halt, then reverse. Consumption is a different problem. You are conflating them unnecessarily and confusing the issue.

But in case you didn't catch this, I already conceded that sustainable patterns of production and consumption have to be in place before you can increase people's standards of living, otherwise the planet simply cannot support it. That still doesn't mean AJC is talking a lick of sense, so all you're doing here, Asper, is arguing with shadows of your own creation.

Because that's the downside to raising standards of living to combat overpopulation which you conveniently choose to ignore. Raised standards of living will slow down the birth rate, but it will also in a different way have a negative impact on the same problems overpopulation cause.

Good luck getting those "substainable patterns" up in any reasonable amount of time. If it is as scientists believe, the earth will hit a population of 10 billion in 40 years time. And I'm quoting: "Humanity as a whole was using, by 2006, 40 percent more than what Earth can regenerate." (Source: WWF's "Living Planet Report".)

Frankly, I think it's allready too late to turn this trend around before natural regulation will kick in, trough a world-wide famine that'll hit people in developing countries like a shitload of bricks.

[The Green Fox]

people are so untrusting of nature.

maybe nature will take care of the overpopulation problem with

earthquakes and tsunamis. Is it really morally correct to start killing people

to control the population? I think not.

[Thu'um]

people are so untrusting of nature.

maybe nature will take care of the overpopulation problem with

earthquakes and tsunamis. Is it really morally correct to start killing people

to control the population? I think not.

humans are so unnatural, we are one , if not the only, species that manipulates and can change their environment to our whims

[OneUnder]

Is it really morally correct to start killing people

to control the population? I think not.

Once again, I'd like to cite Niccolo Machiavelli and his ideals written in The Prince. Machiavelli states that a good leader doesn't always do what is right morally, but what is better for his people. Where the human race has absolutely no problems with killing animals to control their population, I can't grasp why problems start to arise when someone even thinks about doing the same to our race. The problem is ethics, and if we plan to have a viable solution anytime soon, we'd have to rethink those ethics.

[Drasiana]

I love how Asper says this,

Because that's the downside to raising standards of living to combat overpopulation which you conveniently choose to ignore.

Right after quoting this:

I already conceded that sustainable patterns of production and consumption have to be in place before you can increase people's standards of living' date=' otherwise the planet simply cannot support it.[/quote']

Yeah, whoever's "conveniently ignoring" anyone's posts here certainly isn't Uno.

Way to only read the first line of his post, broski, but that makes it more than evident that you and crazyfoonic are boners over this whole "dystopia of human culling" scenerio and would rather decry the filths of humanity than actually suggest that being good to people (not being materialistic) might help the world.

No need to try and be "cute" with honey badger scenerios when you're arguing with ghosts and not with anything I actually said, but I'll make it short for you if you need to post a knee-jerk reaction to anything:

> Having a good life and having a materialistic life are not the same thing, though they are often confused

> We need to redefine our own societal morals as to what contitutes a "good life" eg. healthcare, shelter, education and a lack of warring, and cut the consumerism crap in certain areas

> Promote this definition of "good life" towards those who are not recieving it

> Influential factors causing people to shoot out babies are absent, birthrate drops or declines

With a higher standard of living comes sustainable resources.

If you are a person that believes having an assload of shiny new products, the ability to drive absolutely everywhere, the ability to waste electricity/water/heat, and more, gives you a "good life", you are part of the societal problem that needs to be re-evaluated.

[OneUnder]

Way to only read the first line of his post, broski, but that makes it more than evident that you and crazyfoonic are boners over this whole "dystopia of human culling" scenerio and would rather decry the filths of humanity than actually suggest that being good to people (not being materialistic) might help the world.

I don't believe I ever explicitly stated or implied that non-materialism and being "good" to others would actually help the problem of overpopulation; I was simply suggesting that our ethics contradict what is in the best interest for the survival and prosperity of our species as a whole. Non-materialism would help the world a great deal IMO, but the problem is to get people to -actually- be non-materialistic; something that is no easy task. Being "good" has had its advantages and drawbacks in the past; while some will be thankful others will be sure to take advantage.

A good example for the whole materialism =/= raised standard of living is the Tata Nano. This vehicle was built as a cheap alternative in order to allow poorer members of society in India to have a viable piece of personal transportation. The problem is that these cars sold very poorly; regardless of whether they needed it or not, no one wants to own a car known for its cheapness.

[Drasiana]

I don't believe I ever explicitly stated or implied that non-materialism and being "good" to others would actually help the problem of overpopulation;

That's because that was directed at Asper, not you. In fact, the only part where I addressed you was my mentioning of this insane clamouring for new "ethics" that allow for a dystopian future where humans are culled off to keep the population limited. There is no way this would ever happen, and I shouldn't have to explain the flaws there.

[OneUnder]

That's because that was directed at Asper, not you. In fact, the only part where I addressed you was my mentioning of this insane clamouring for new "ethics" that allow for a dystopian future where humans are culled off to keep the population limited. There is no way this would ever happen, and I shouldn't have to explain the flaws there.

Gotcha, just a suggestion is all. What will most likely happen is nothing will be done and the population will be left unchecked until a natural occurrence begins to "thin the herd." At least, that's how it appears judging by how the world's governments so eloquently cooperate with each other.

[unoservix]

If you've got some idea for dealing with overpopulation that doesn't involve flagrant abuse of human rights or spectacular moral failure, Asper, feel free to speak up. On the other hand, I pointed out the one that history does support as actually working, with the caveat that it won't be possible unless sustainable patterns of consumption and production come along. Those patterns are already haltingly starting to emerge, and as such things as dwindling fossil fuels and advancing climate change have greater effect, those patterns will intensify. Why? Because the people who adapt to their new conditions will be the ones to survive. Evolution. It works everywhere.

Now, since I'm assuming "massive worldwide Malthusian catastrophe" is an outcome that we as a species should try to avoid (what with "human rights" and "morals" and all), there's my proposal: raising worldwide standards of living at least to the point where populations cease to increase unsustainably. Part of that is finding more sustainable ways to use the world's resources; part of it is ensuring a more equitable distribution of the world's resources than what we've got now; and part of it is finding ways to better utilize the resources we do have (solar power, for instance). Will it happen? Sure it will, when the negative impact of not doing it becomes too great to ignore. That's how it always works.

On the other hand, if you are advocating that we allow said massive worldwide Malthusian catastrophe to occur...well, you'd better hope it happens after you're dead. 'cuz you sure as hell won't be exempt from it.

[Asper Sarnoff]

I love how Asper says this,

Right after quoting this:

Re-read that post again, and you'll what part I of this mindset I challenged wasn't whether or not substainable use of resources need to be in place before raising standards of living, but if we are capable of making those changes. Do you think you're able to reduce your consumption patterns to a third of what they currently are within our lifetime? Because that's pretty much what the entire western population needs to do for the math to add up.

Way to only read the first line of his post, broski, but that makes it more than evident that you and crazyfoonic are boners over this whole "dystopia of human culling" scenerio and would rather decry the filths of humanity than actually suggest that being good to people (not being materialistic) might help the world.

It would help the world, indeed. It would also indirectly hurt millions of people, when we get to the stage the planet's got nothing more to give. There's always a backside, and when one steams ahead, chosing to ignore it, it'll come back to bite your ass, hard.

No need to try and be "cute" with honey badger scenerios when you're arguing with ghosts and not with anything I actually said, but I'll make it short for you if you need to post a knee-jerk reaction to anything:

> Having a good life and having a materialistic life are not the same thing, though they are often confused

> We need to redefine our own societal morals as to what contitutes a "good life" eg. healthcare, shelter, education and a lack of warring, and cut the consumerism crap in certain areas

> Promote this definition of "good life" towards those who are not recieving it

> Influential factors causing people to shoot out babies are absent, birthrate drops or declines

With a higher standard of living comes sustainable resources.

With higher standards of living, comes an increase in consumption.

Whether one like it or not, when standards of living are raised, people will seek out what they see as "good life". As standards of living keeps rising in for example China, people are replacing their bikes with cars, adopt a more meat-filled diet, build bigger houses and buy more objects that aren't of vital importance to survival. Increase in consumption.

If you are a person that believes having an assload of shiny new products, the ability to drive absolutely everywhere, the ability to waste electricity/water/heat, and more, gives you a "good life", you are part of the societal problem that needs to be re-evaluated.

I don't. But you'll be hard pressed to ignore the fact that as people no longer have to pursue ways to live, they'll pursue what they define as happiness.

If you've got some idea for dealing with overpopulation that doesn't involve flagrant abuse of human rights or spectacular moral failure, Asper, feel free to speak up.

I haven't. That's why I'm playing the devils advocate and pointing out the weaknesses of others theories.

What I predict will be the solution, is that things will even out by themself. As we become too many for the planet to feed, prices of food, water and basic commodities will rise to the point the poor people of the world have no chance to afford it, people will die in droves untill we come down to a substainable level again, and then it starts all over again. Bloody shame, but that's most probably how things will become.

Now, since I'm assuming "massive worldwide Malthusian catastrophe" is an outcome that we as a species should try to avoid (what with "human rights" and "morals" and all), there's my proposal: raising worldwide standards of living at least to the point where populations cease to increase unsustainably. Part of that is finding more sustainable ways to use the world's resources; part of it is ensuring a more equitable distribution of the world's resources than what we've got now; and part of it is finding ways to better utilize the resources we do have (solar power, for instance). Will it happen? Sure it will, when the negative impact of not doing it becomes too great to ignore. That's how it always works.

In very, very long term, that is the solution. Not denying that. Short term however, it will cost blood, tears and lives.

On the other hand, if you are advocating that we allow said massive worldwide Malthusian catastrophe to occur...well, you'd better hope it happens after you're dead. 'cuz you sure as hell won't be exempt from it.

It's not as much allowing it to happen, as I think it's pretty much inevitable at this point.

And actually, yes I think I'd be able to survive. Same with you, and most inhabitants in rich, western countries. We have the financial backbone to outbid the poor parts of the world when resources become scarce. Ethic? Nope. But when it comes down to survival, it's every man and woman for themself.

[Drasiana]

Re-read that post again, and you'll what part I of this mindset I challenged wasn't whether or not substainable use of resources need to be in place before raising standards of living, but if we are capable of making those changes. Do you think you're able to reduce your consumption patterns to a third of what they currently are within our lifetime? Because that's pretty much what the entire western population needs to do for the math to add up.

I live in a one-room apartment with one light I never turn on, do not own a car, take one short shower every other day, and mostly buy locally-grown food. If I reduced MY consumption patterns at this point, I'd be homeless. And yet, it isn't particularily hard living like this (at least in the city I'm in).

It would help the world, indeed. It would also indirectly hurt millions of people, when we get to the stage the planet's got nothing more to give. There's always a backside, and when one steams ahead, chosing to ignore it, it'll come back to bite your ass, hard.

It'll hurt millions more than what culling the fucking human population would do?

With higher standards of living, comes an increase in consumption.

You're still missing the re-define the meaning of a good life business I keep bringing up over and over and over and over. You're also still missing the fact that I and Uno have said we'd still need to find more ways of creating and distributing sustainable resources. FFS, I'm sick of repeating myself. I have said this over and over again.

YES, we need to find better ways of sustaining resources, YES, we need to redefine quality of life to steer it away from a consumer-driven lifestyle, but NO, fucking killing people is a stupid way to get around this.

I'm done if your next post is just gonna be BUT PEOPLE WILL STILL BUY MORE STUFF! again.

And actually, yes I think I'd be able to survive. Same with you, and most inhabitants in rich, western countries. We have the financial backbone to outbid the poor parts of the world when resources become scarce. Ethic? Nope. But when it comes down to survival, it's every man and woman for themself.

Yeah it's not like the USA is on the verge of economic collapse itself at all whatsoever. It's every man, woman, and their countries for themselves alright, but the collapse of the world won't end at your doorstep.

[unoservix]

Asper, if you're going to be so patently dishonest about what we're saying, do us all a favor and piss off.

[Faisul]

Okay, not having read the above, I realize I'm stepping into this with points others might have already made ten thousand times over, but I digress.

Humanity as it stands now is horrible at long-term planning. We might be able to maintain a good idea for a project and carry it out over the span of a decade, but as the previous generation largely showed to great effect, humans are absolutely retarded at being careful with making decisions that adversely affect future generations. It seems to me that this wasn't always the case. There are architectural masterpieces like the Great Wall of China that, while not having been worked on constantly and in some cases being added to simply by virtue of minimal forethought, took almost a thousand years to build to completion. It's the same with social reform. The revolutions of the 18th century drastically restructured the way human society functioned, and it was a long-term project that's still being carried out to this very day.

What we're talking about is largely social reform. The West has very few of the compulsions that leads to excessive population gain because of many factors that are both highly complex and not readily apparent. Sub-saharan Africa still has these compulsions, also a complex and difficult thing to explain. Most of it is because of poor levels of education, superstition regarding contraceptives, and the real, practical need to raise as many children as possible in order to keep agricultural productivity up. Providing education, removing government corruption in these areas (as well as in our own) and supplying material and logistical aid will help and is currently helping this. Some aid is more valuable than others, but that's a point for another topic. Africa actually exports a huge amount of grain and other foodstuffs, for the benefit of the West. Africa also has a high number of unstable or downright tyrannical regimes. Atrocities and human rights abuses are rarely commented on these days. The West leans on Africa for much of its industry, so it's no big guess why conditions are the way they are in many African countries.

Raising standards of living may end in higher consumption, yes, but it also provides a decline in overall population growth. What is currently the biggest threat to future generations, more people using more resources now, or orders of magnitude more people using a little less resources in the future? I'd say it'd be the latter.

Halting the overpopulation threat involves a fundamental and drastic re-thinking of the current Western model of doing business and the overall consumer culture, as is required in China, India, and the Middle East, as well as improving life in other places. I'm not saying we should ship all our ipods to Kenya or dump school textbooks into Ethiopia (we're already doing this), I'm saying that we need to get better at planning long-term. We've already started, concerning global warming and other global threats, we just need to think further ahead when we make policy changes. China's taken a big step in this regard, limiting the number of children couples can produce to one, as well as working hard to make adoption much more palatable to a culture that has previously been hostile towards the practice. There needs to be sweeping changes in so many areas of commerce, government and in the home, in a scale absolutely unprecedented, that the task may seem insurmountable at first. But I should remind you that, through all of human history, the only thing that's remained constant is the fact that we change, personally and on the global level. Sooner or later, we'll just have to.

[Asper Sarnoff]

I live in a one-room apartment with one light I never turn on, do not own a car, take one short shower every other day, and mostly buy locally-grown food. If I reduced MY consumption patterns at this point, I'd be homeless. And yet, it isn't particularily hard living like this (at least in the city I'm in).

Pretty much same as me then.(Own a car, but it's been in zillion parts in my parents garage since I bought it.) I any case, good job.

It'll hurt millions more than what culling the fucking human population would do?

Where did I say I considered that a valid option? I mentioned in the OP that it was a possible solution, but purely as a shock tactic to open some eyes on how severe this problem can become, and trough it create some debate. If you for a moment think I would support such an option, then I don't know what to say to you.

You're still missing the re-define the meaning of a good life business I keep bringing up over and over and over and over. You're also still missing the fact that I and Uno have said we'd still need to find more ways of creating and distributing sustainable resources. FFS, I'm sick of repeating myself. I have said this over and over again.

YES, we need to find better ways of sustaining resources, YES, we need to redefine quality of life to steer it away from a consumer-driven lifestyle, but NO, fucking killing people is a stupid way to get around this.

In the same way my point keeps flying over your head? Let me sum it up in a way that should leave no room for misunderstanding.

This thread -

Asper: Overpopulation. It's a problem. What do you think can be the solution?

You: Raising the standards of living. It'll slow down birth rates and solve the problem.

Asper: It will slow down birth rates, but it will also indirectly increase our patterns of consumption, and thus bring forth the exact same problem it was meant to solve. It is the only option long term, but will hurt badly short term, be prepared for that.

I don't think you're unable to grasp this Dras. The question is whether or not you want to.

Yeah it's not like the USA is on the verge of economic collapse itself at all whatsoever. It's every man, woman, and their countries for themselves alright, but the collapse of the world won't end at your doorstep.

Highly doubt we would see the end of the world. More likely a famine that would eradicate a couple billion people, the poorest ones, those who can't afford food that starts multiplying in value.

Of course, it's up to you whether or not you want to continue this debate.

You always seems to be in them to somehow prove you're a better debater than others. And for the very most part, you indeed are.

On the other side, I'm in them to have fun and spark what few brain cells I was blessed with. I'm not getting any satisfaction from offending people untill they don't want to take part any more. I don't belive in "winning" or "loosing" casual debates like these, and as such, don't feel you ove yourself to keep going if you don't want to.

Asper, if you're going to be so patently dishonest about what we're saying, do us all a favor and piss off.

Where did that come from? Now, I'm going to be brutally honest with you uno. Your ways in the counter-point are not acceptable, and something which have been tolerated far too long. If I spot you trying to boss anyone around or generally act like an ass, I'll throw you head first out. Have I made myself clear?

@Faisul

Well said. *Like*

[unoservix]

Where did that come from? Now, I'm going to be brutally honest with you uno. Your ways in the counter-point are not acceptable, and something which have been tolerated far too long. If I spot you trying to boss anyone around or generally act like an ass, I'll throw you head first out. Have I made myself clear?

Where did it come from? It came from you shamelessly lying about what Dras and I have said in this thread. And you're doing it again. Dras and I have both repeatedly addressed it when you say

Asper: It will slow down birth rates, but it will also indirectly increase our patterns of consumption, and thus bring forth the exact same problem it was meant to solve. It is the only option long term, but will hurt badly short term, be prepared for that.

And we'll just leave aside how you aren't even honestly summarizing the debate thus far to begin with.

You have ignored that point time and time again. You're still ignoring it. You know that we've addressed that point repeatedly, because you've quoted us doing it. Yet you're continuing to claim otherwise. You're not debating anything anymore because you're still hammering away at points that have already been addressed. Now you aren't arguing. You're trolling, which is a highly ironic position for you to be in considering what you say next.

For someone who was entrusted with the responsibility to moderate this forum, you've been remarkably dishonest and you seem quite happy to abuse your power here. It's not the first time you've played favorites and demonstrated that you don't actually deserve to be entrusted with that responsibility, nor is it the first time you've tried to use your position to start shit with me. If you want to be a big boy, you can feel free to take your beef with me to private messages. If you'd rather be quite angry at "losing" an "Internet debate" despite self-righteously claiming otherwise, well, fine, do your "moderator" thing--not that you're actually moderating anything. Because, after all, all I've done here is call you out for your dishonesty. I know that you know we addressed your objection, because you quoted us doing so. Yet you're claiming we did not. Ergo, you are lying. You don't want me to do that? Quit being dishonest.

So yes, you've made it quite clear that you are in fact quite angry about an Internet debate and you're getting quite a kick out of abusing your authority. This ain't the first time you've completely failed to do your job, after all. Inescapably clear, I might add!

And to be fair, since you're not saying anything different, well, there isn't a whole lot to debate anymore. So you could, in fact, get this thread back on track yourself just by acknowledging that Dras and I did in fact address your objection, and move on from there! And you could do it without demonstrating just why you don't deserve to be a moderator, you could do it without petty recrimination, you could even do it without saying another word to me if you like!

Or you could throw your tantrum. Choice is yours, man.

[Drasiana]

Asper: It will slow down birth rates, but it will also indirectly increase our patterns of consumption, and thus bring forth the exact same problem it was meant to solve. It is the only option long term, but will hurt badly short term, be prepared for that.

That's why I've repeatedly agreed that we also need to find more sustainable ways to distribute and produce resources. Are you fucking blind?

I'm not getting any satisfaction from offending people untill they don't want to take part any more.

But you're flagrantly disregarding the parts where I've actually agreed with you just for the sake of arguing an argument that doesn't actually exist. Way to go. Offending? No. Annoying? Fuck yes. I'm out.

edit: Then there's the part where you threaten to ban Uno for...what, hurting your feelings? Yeah, he was a little harsh just then but you know he earned the right to be, especially considering he's one of the few people that cares enough about the standards of these debates to provide us with paragraphs of educated information to work with (see: his dissertation on the history of Islam in that otherwise failure of a topic). God forbid he get annoyed when someone turns him into a strawman, not to mention someone who then waves the power wand over his head when he's called out on being a nuisance.

[unoservix]

And lo, behold the greatest irony of all: the one who turned this thread from a debate into a fight was, indeed, Asper himself--the moderator! O Irony of Ironies! It's like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife.

See, the sort of debate that's supposed to go on in this section isn't possible if you aren't honest about what the other person said. Like, say, if 1) I claim that raising the standard of living is the best solution to overpopulation, 2) you say that it would come with unsustainable consumption, and 3) I say that any rise in standard of living would have to be accompanied by more sustainable patterns of production and consumption or it would be impossible either way? Remember that? See, we can't really have a meaningful conversation if you act like 3) never happened. Which is exactly what you have done throughout the course of this thread. And by something that I can only describe as the Magic of Internet Fuckwaddery, whaddya know, I get frustrated and call you out for it. Why? Because you--you, Asper--brought it all to a screeching halt by being dishonest about it. It's almost as if you saw a weak link in my argument, saw a way to "beat" me, and started hammering away at it even though I dealt with it and, to be honest, there's plenty of other weak links you could have found or at least tried to find anyways. But we all know that couldn't be the case because you don't care about "winning" or "losing" in "Internet debates."

Which is also ironic, to be honest. Maybe not "ten thousand spoons" level irony, but I think we could say it's on the level of "raa-ee-aain on your wedding day," or at least "traffic jam when you're already late."

So yeah, I'm entirely justified in calling you out, because you brought the debate--and, indeed, the possibility of further debate--to a screeching halt in the above-enumerated way. If publicly calling you a liar is what it takes to get things back on track, then whatever. That you went and praised Faisul for basically saying the same things that you disagreed with us for saying tells me that either you didn't read very closely (which of course you would never do because you want to stimulate your brain cells or whatever) or you were deliberately doing all this. And since I think the probability lies behind Door Number 2 there, well, here we are.

So! If you want to get back on topic and/or take your throbbing turgid hate-boner for me to PMs, fine. If not, well, then we can all enjoy the spectacle of you threatening to ban me for disagreeing with you. Isn't it ironic, don't ya think.

EDIT FOR GREAT JUSTICE: And before you try to bring it up, no, I was not doing the same thing by calling out AJC over the livestock-and-food thing. Why? Because he continued to maintain that we could keep livestock around while simultaneously eliminating their food supply. I pointed out that it's a contradiction; it cannot be the case that both those propositions are true. I don't know if he's stuck with that claim or modified it or abandoned it or what, but either way, I think you've got greater problems anyway.