Population implosion

Scattergunner:
Shmarmie, can't find that word in a basic dictionary. Can you help out with the definition?

Here's your original sentence: "Those being ad hominem attacks and back-handed, indirect besmurdging of your opponent's intelligence, charecter, etc."

Which means: "Those being attacking someone's character rather than the topic being discussed attacks and back-handed, indirect besmurdging of your opponent's intelligence, charecter, etc."
I still don't get it.

I called noone an idiot. I called noone a redneck. In fact, I didn't call anybody any name at all.
So I'm still not sure where I have attacked anyone, but if I look in this sentence: "But then, you knew this all along." I can figure it out? Please help my feeble mind decipher what you mean.

So far in this thread, I've been called Bonehead, the bone, and it's been suggested that I have only an 8th-grade education.

Also, I have no idea how to couch words, so if I have indeed been doing that, I will definitely put that on my resume. (It's a good thing, right?)
 
Your right I didn't comment on the original topic. Have you? I am not really concerned about overpopulation or shrinking population. Nature will take care of that.
 
I'm just remembering something about a pig and something to do with singing lessons... Hmmm... Now what was that?

Thanks bone, your defensiveness more than makes my point.

Have a day.
 
What is funny is that people tend to say things like "Your approach to solving environmental issues only when they cause people to die is moronic."

But then they say that they didn't call anyone a moron. Technically they are right, but I don't need a college degree to figure out the implication of "moronicness".

I do think that the people who jumped on Tony's case were a little slaphappy. I also see his point. I don't really agree with it but I feel no desire to belittle it either.
 
Hey Yellowhammer,
your research said over half the pop is under 25.
Just curios, did it break down the different countries and their age ratio, or just a general observation?

I remember reading about social insecurity, when it started, eight workers supported one retiree, now it's like flip flopped.

I haven't studied this, but everything you hear about in this country suggests that there are more boomers retiring than we can support. Also, many professions are crying for help and are in big trouble because there are not enough people entering the workforce to off set the boomers retiring.

Just curios.
 
Scatter, I don't see the defensiveness in my posts, but I'll just let that go without argument. I hear nothing but grunting coming from your pen, anyway.

I didn't call BroncoGlenn an idiot because I don't think he is. His idea was moronic, he isn't. Big difference.

YD, yes, indeed, I did offer comment, although I perhaps didn't spell it out.
 
Hey NYnovice! Slappy Yeller here /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif ! I did say:
My first thought was "what a moron this guy is!"
Click to expand...
Then I remembered that a whole lot of young people think these things. When I was his age I thought the sky would come crashing down someday also.
I guess I'm not as sharp as the intellectual Butcher /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif .
 
exudus-I believe that it was the overall world population. Africa and India likely contributed to this figure due to the high birth rate and high adult mortality. Life expectancy in Africa is low due to Aids and other diseases. While the baby boomers getting older will put more stress on SS, the pendelum will swing the other way when the baby boomers die off.
 
Your approach to solving environmental issues only when they cause people to die is moronic.
Click to expand...
RRTB, re-read what I wrote again. I didn't state the approach was to wait until people die, but once the danger is recognized and the implications it creates action must be taken before mortality occours. Death is but an extreme occourance. It can be expanded to include illnesses, genetic alterations resulting in defects of offspring, and so on. In most cases, however, these lead to death.

You are welcome to call the idea moronic if you wish, but I fail to see how cleaning a contaminated water supply would be moronic. Your solution would then be to what, move out of the area and let the next people that inhabit the area worry about it? Don't waste our time by arguing prevention. Prevention wouldn't do any good in this case since the damage is already done. Furthermore, prevention is only possible when a known possible outcome exists. When many of the eviornmental issues started appearing, it was not known before then that certain things were cause such problems.
 
Main Entry: mo·ron
Pronunciation: 'mOr-"än, 'mor-
Function: noun
Etymology: irregular from Greek mOros foolish, stupid
Date: 1910
1 : a mentally retarded person who has a potential mental age of between 8 and 12 years and is capable of doing routine work under supervision
2 : a very stupid person
- mo·ron·ic /m&-'rä-nik, mo-/ adjective
- mo·ron·i·cal·ly /-ni-k(&-)lE/ adverb
- mo·ron·ism /'mOr-"ä-"ni-z&m, 'mor-/ noun
- mo·ron·i·ty /m&-'rä-n&-tE, mo-/ noun

This definition would apply to anyone who really believes that mankind has not totally screwed up this planet in the name of greed! If you think that acid rain is a myth, and the greenhouse effect is some left wing liberal fantasy, and that for some unexplainable reason children in Maryvale, AZ have 4 times the cancer rate as the rest of the country is just dumb luck then the above definition also applies to you. And as long as we're going to bash people for their political leanings, I'll say that it's all those right wing, money grabbing, war mongering, bible thumping, republicans that are the blame. How's that for some fancy pants, liberal college schooled red neck from Arizona. Man you guys P#$s me off. The guy just brought up a population question and you turned it into THIS! Get a grip.
 
And then people start insulting each other and their ideas Tony...

discuss, don't dismiss.

BTW, I think the article was interesting.

Yellerdog, I'm starting to really like you! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
(I just don't want you to start labeling the guy.)
 
Thanks, NY. Like I said, It was my first thought, not my final judgment. I don't know him at all, so passing judgment would be wrong on my part.
I feel most of us have had some fun and very interesting conversations on here. Sometimes when the hunting's slow it helps keep it interesting. I do consider many of the people here as new friends. NY, you are one of those that I have enjoyed chatting with, much like Tonlocus. We have disagreed on some issues, but always have a laugh at the end.
 
Geesh Tonlocus, everything OK with you... you seem to be taking this debatea little personal. Also, I'm not sure that dismissing certain arguements with which you disagree, because they're "typical" right-wing dogma (you know - blame everything on leftist college professors and liberal politicians) is any different than what you're saying.

This definition would apply to anyone who really believes that mankind has not totally screwed up this planet in the name of greed! If you think that acid rain is a myth, and the greenhouse effect is some left wing liberal fantasy, and that for some unexplainable reason children in Maryvale, AZ have 4 times the cancer rate as the rest of the country is just dumb luck then the above definition also applies to you.
Click to expand...
Not exactly falling under the catergory of emperical evidence, by my view. Just more emotionally charged rehtoric, lacking any real basis in fact.

Not that facts are entirely convincing, in and of themselves. After all, seems like every other word I heard in high school science class was somethingabout how "we" were destroying the Amazon rainforests at a rate of something like ten square miles, each and every day. Well, I'm no mathmatician, but since this was about 15 years ago, I reckon the Amazon rainforest is nothing more than a parking lot nowadays. Anybody knowhow that thing turned out? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

It's not unlike all the hub-bub surrounding "green house gases" and how they're increasing "global warming." This of course is all the fault of us nasty capitalists and our insistance on driving vehicles propelled by evil internal-combustion engines. Tony and Tonlocus, I'm sure have turned their vehicles in and are hoofing it everywhere they go. Of course, nothing is ever said, except by the greenest of the green, and I mean freaky green, about the real mass producer of these allegedly harmful gases. Probably because the only way to control this major polluter would be through massive animal and human slaughter, there is far more methane and CO2 produced through normal, daily activity of humans and animals, even sans vehicles, than the "Demons of Detroit" could ever hope to produce.

The conservation mentality is that we nurture, conserve, and wisely use our natural resources. For the most part, our nation has done pretty well at this. Most of the relatively few problems have actually occurred in the "more enlightened" socialist and communist (former and neo) nations of Europe, or the despotic regimes throughout Asia, Africa, and Latin America. You know, the folks that want to blame all this crap on us.

As far as one particular town having higher cancer rates, I'm not aware of this particular example. But, my question would be, "has a CAUSITIVE relationship been shown to exsist?" After all correlation doesn't prove causation.
 
More rain forest has been destroyed by the local inhabitants, than by foreign interests. Most of the rain forest loses have been to clearing for agricultural crops and raising cattle to feed the expanding populations. It is easy for activist in the U.S. to say "stop destroying the rain forest" while sitting in America, but the local clearing the land is just trying to feed his family. Granted, he and a lot of others should think about limiting the size of their family, but that is a little more difficult to address.
 
just food for thought, from an illiterate Missouri hillbilly...

Just because there are "facts" printed in a book, newspaper, pamphlet, or on TV, radio, or the Internet,... does not necessarily guarantee that they are correct. Any group or organization that is in a position to report such information, could, for whatever reason, broadcast false statistics.

In that same vein, do we just swallow everything they emit, or do we turn to other sources for information on the same topic???

NO!!! Most of the time, we (with the help of the media) take the numbers or "facts" as the Gospel truth.

So what, if these "facts" were produced by a well-known group, organization, or government agency??? They could still be wrong, and the general public would have no way of knowing. A number could be transposed here, a word left out of a report, there, and it would change the entire meaning.

Call me a skeptic, but I believe every organization, of any persuasion, has an axe to grind, whether it be for monetary gain, political views, or social change.

Look at the stats about concealed carry. Depending on who is doing the telling, it's either the best thing for the reduction of crime, or the most dangerous thing ever for cops. It can't be both!! So, there's a lie there somewhere.

HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU ARE BEING TOLD THE TRUTH???


The truth is....You don't!!!!!
 
This is how the EPA describes acid rain. But it’s just another liberal bureaucratic agency designed to mislead and misinform. People that live in the REAL WORLD know better than to believe this drivel.
Acid deposition - commonly called acid rain - is caused by emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Although natural sources of sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides do exist, more than 90% of the sulphur and 95% of the nitrogen emissions occurring in eastern North America are of human origin. These primary air pollutants arise from the use of coal in the production of electricity, from base-metal smelting, and from fuel combustion in vehicles. Once released into the atmosphere, they can be converted chemically into such secondary pollutants as nitric acid and sulfuric acid, both of which dissolve easily in water. The resulting acidic water droplets can be carried long distances by prevailing winds, returning to Earth as acid rain, snow, or fog.

This is the executive summary of the most recent World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme assessment. It contains the most up-to-date understanding of ozone depletion and reflects the thinking of 250 international scientific experts who contributed to its preparation and review. No doubt 250 flaming liberal professors filling our childrens heads with more rubish that they’ll never use.
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/index.html

I would go into the suspected links between commercial chemicals such as benzine and leukemia but we all know where that will lead. Just some cancer research executives trying to make a buck off of a so far incurable illness.

You see it doesn’t matter what facts, hypothesis, evidence, or even likely causes for a specific ailment or condition are put forward for discussion. It always ends the same way. Either I’m a moron because I don’t share your views, or I’m just another perverted liberal, or the bleeding heart liberals did that, or blame it on Clinton. Oh you say you’re not a liberal? Oh you’re an Independent? That just means you’re a fence sitter and can’t make a commitment.

The environment should be of more concern to sportsmen than anyone else. After all we’re the ones it effects first hand. I know I don’t want to catch and eat the fish that has enough mercury in it to fill a thermometer. Gun control and the economy aren’t the only things that we should be concerned about. I know they can’t get along in Washington, but we ought to be able to have a discussion about something without it turning into a conservative/liberal p!$$!ng match. Thank you and goodnight.
 
Bronco,
Sounds to me like you've hit the nail squarely on the head. I remember when I was in high school, the panic of the day was the coming ice age. The brainiacs were spouting off about how the earth was cooling off at an alarming rate (it was at the time 1 degree below the average) and how within the next thousand years we would experience an ice age more terrible than any seen before. Now here we are, 25+ years later. Apparently the ice age has come and gone, (somehow I missed it), and now we are headed to global warming. This time I need to pay more attention. I missed the ice age and it really makes me mad. I am going to keep my eyes open for the global warming. Maybe somebody will post a notice here on this forum so we will all know when it arrives.

The earth has an amazing ability to repair itself. I understand that there have been studies that show that Mt. St. Hellens put more pollution into the air than mankind has since the beginning of time. And we are all still here. Go figure.

As far as the population being mostly under 25 years of age, I think that is world wide. In the US, we are quickly nearing a point where people over 50 will be the majority.

I wonder what the next disaster will be the college boys will come up with. Keep your eyes open. It is sure to be a doozy.

Paul
 
Well lets see if I can't get a few more panties in a bunch being a moronic super liberal college student, as you have all so politely put it. First of all, I'm a republican, and I have my fair share of conservative views. Second, I will agree with some of you in the fact that a few of my professors are over zealous tree huggers.
But, if the human population continues to grow nothing but harm can come to the earth. Eventually mother nature is going to find a way to make what we have screwed up right, and this my friends means lowering the human population. How is the easiest way to lower a population, disease.
Also, these are my own ideas, my own opinions, I didn't copy them out of a text book and they were not given to me in a lecture. So please continue to insult my ideas, because you will not be the first, and definately not the last.
And as being as concidering myself part of what I called the cance of the earth earlier, I sleep very well at night.
 
Thanks for the answer. The reason I asked is because I occassionaly run into people, either in person or see them in the news, who make the samek types of complaints. Usually they also have drastic proposals for population control also.

I have always found it quite interesting that these people have no problem advocating that lots of people need to die, but I never see any of them volunteering to lead the way...

It seems that their lives and that of their own families is just fine, it's all those other folks that need to be done away with.

Here in the USA, out domestic population is actually pretty stable right now. Once the death rate is factored in we're either just barely replacing ourselves, or declining slightly. The population increases we've experienced for the past 10 years or more is due to immigration, both legal & illegal. Which tells me that we're doing pretty good in our own back yard in handling the problem. But we can't afford to absord the rest of the world's increase indefintely, not and retain any semblence of the great nation we've built so far.

The single best thing for protecting a clean environment is when a country prospers economicly. When people are doing well, they both can afford and have an interest in a cleaner environment and will take steps to have one.

Are we hunters & outdoorsmen concerned over the environment? Absolutelym but it's also laced with reality. You need to face the facts, the environmental movement in America is no longer really about the environment. It has been hijacked by the socialist/communist movement who are using it as cover to further their work on destroying property rights, among others, in America.

The problem with environmental issues, as some ave noted, is sorting out the facts from the BS. I'm also old enough to recall when they were railing against the next ice age (that WE were creating) and now we're all going to cook to death (also OUR fault), ditto the destruction of the rain forest (not happening as portrayed, or the entrie South American continent would be nothing but rock & mud baking int the sun already), ditto the destruction of the ozone layer (couldn't destroy it if we set out to, ozone is created by sunlight hitting the atmosphere, so until we figure out a way to block the sun...), and on it goes.

25 years ago we were told that in 25 to 30 years the world's oil supply would be dwindling down to nothing, yet somehow we keep finding more oil and there's no shortage just yet.

Man isn't the only species that can and does harm the environment. Look at any habitat with a deer over population problem, in a fairly short amount of time they can eat it out so bad it'll take 100 years to recover, and may not ever go back to what it was. Coyotes population gets high, they eat most of the rabbits, quail & other critters to the point where the coyote population will fall due to lack of food in subsequent years, until it cycles around again.

Yeah, we make messes, but we also clean them up.
 
Back
Top