ThePumpkins.net

I'm getting braces.

But at least I'm getting the invisalign kind and not a mouth full of metal.

epitome wrote:
No, it really isn't. The idea that the world is overpopulated is a myth.


Are you crazy? How the fuck is that not very interesting? I'm at a loss for words.

Patriots and Giants. I so hope the Pats win. I'd hate the rematch to turn out the same as it did last time.

Oh, and I think Oceania is gonna be great as well. Maybe not as great as the old stuff, but great nonetheless.

Sikamikanico999 wrote:
Get your head out the sand dude.
If the worlds not overpopluated, then why are we the direct cause for mass extinction of other species? and why do we now need to geneticaly modify food.
Plus there is plenty more evidence out there that proves Human population are the cause of other environmental crisis.
The more we grow the more other species go extinct.

And no, im not going to post a 1000 word essay proving my point, because Ive got better things to do with my time. The information is out there if you take the care to look at this site.
www.nationalgeographic.com/

Sikamikanico999 wrote:
Of course it's overpopulated. With people I mean. I suppose reducing all the other species evens it out, but that doesn't seem right to me. Not to mention how we'll struggle to feed everyone if the population keeps growing like this - plus using up other resources. I actually have to presume you were joking when you said it was a myth. Next you'll say the polar ice caps aren't melting.

In the great scheme of things, I won't find it all that interesting when a man steps on Mars. If I was around when man went to the moon, that would've been exciting. But this is just more of the same. Sure, it's a planet rather than a moon but still...

PersianBellyDancer wrote: way to shoot down any opportunities to call you metal mouth

I had metal braces in high school and oh man, it sucked. Not because of the social ostracization, because that was the case regardless, but because it made my mouth a mini-torture chamber for my lips and tongue. Plus, my orthodontist was a sadist

venison wrote:
I'd like to hear a song called My Orthodontist Was A Sadist. Could you write it please?

epitome wrote: I would, but it's already been done

venison wrote:
But that would've been so much better with you in Steve Martin's role...

pierowmaniac wrote:

I'm glad the destruction or taking over of natural habitats for other species is of no concern to you.

The Earth is over populated, and it's because everybody fucks everybody, every women I meet at least has one child. I used to live next to a "ladies" that had fifteen children and zero husbands. I used to live next two two "ladies" that had at least thirty children, and when ever they had a child Child Protective Services would take the child away because they were abusing them. Hate me if you want because I'm the fucking writer and the fucking messenger.

It is of concern to me. That pesky fact remains that human driven events that have caused extinction only account for the disappearance of around 500 to 1000 species. That's... .0005%? Of the animals alive that we know of. If the estimated species is correct it is .0001%. And as our society advances forward, that number is only going to get lower. We are more conscious than we have ever been of our impact on the environment.

If evolution is true than us destroying nature is just another part of evolution. I don't have all the answers but I sure as hell know that I'm not a germ, fish, or monkey.

Sikamikanico999 wrote:
So as long as a species doesn't go extinct then it's ok to decimate their numbers? Just make sure we set up a few sanctuaries here and there?

Really, it's a matter of ethics. You might be looking at things technically and saying it's physically possible to accommodate more people than there currently are. But surely that isn't the right way to look at it - the question really is whether it is morally or ethically "right".

Technically, we could bulldoze half the rainforests left in the world and, with some luck, it's possible no species would go extinct. They could reduce in number as they fight over the remaining habitat and then continue to live there until we destroy some more of it. I don't think it's right though.

Another way to think about it... supposing a superior species was suddenly on this planet. They decided to burn Los Angeles and rebuild it to their needs, making it unsuitable for humans to live there. Over the years they decided to do the same with most of the planet, but decided to have a few small reservations where humans were allowed to live. Fair? Well, based on what humans have done to other species, I suppose you could say there would be a kind of ironic justice, but other than that it would probably be considered a bit harsh.

Of course, nature is cruel, and I suppose there's no real reason our species shouldn't be part of that. Our greater intelligence has made us adaptable to the point that we go beyond nature though, and, in my opinion, that same intelligence should place a sense of responsibility on us. And, again, just my opinion, but I think it should go beyond making sure a few of every species survive. It's like a man burning down an orphanage but rescuing two of the fifty children to appease his conscience. Well, a little bit like that anyway

White and Black men killed Native Americans, rebuilt the country to suit our way of life, and put Native Americans on reservations. So have already did it to other people. And don't give me that crap my Junior College Teacher gives me, "Indians were heathen and cavemen they needed to die." I have a secret not everything John Ford made movies about was true.

I don't give a rats fury nuts about space exploration. I say unfuck up this planet before we fuck up another planet.

First off, I would like to clarify that I am not anti-conservation or anti-nonhuman in any fashion. I value our animal compatriots and the weath of benefits they provide to make the world such a wonderful and amazing place.


All I am arguing is that how you look at it, is invalid to me. In the indifferent sense of nature outside of society, it is absurd to try and apply moralities to it. The whole topic of population growth and effect is amoral. Had this been a hundred years ago people would not have given a flying fuck if they did kill off a species or two to satisfy manifest destiny. Conservation efforts and schools of thought on this subject are necessarily socially internal. As far as I know, altruism outside of a species is not inherent in any animal - only in cases where domestication has served to make animals more useful to humans do humans therefore care about that organism's personal health. You could pull up, like, whale people who follow a herd for 20 years forming feelings and names for them, but that is not a common convention.

Your Alien/LA setup is a false comparison. The aliens would be destroying the progress and work of a thinking society full of self aware, thinking, independent beings. Tell me epitome, when you hook a horse to a plow is that "slavery"? PETA seems to think so. All I'm saying is the difference between progressing a human society by having wild, non-salient animals adapt versus your premise of one society destroying another society is a maaaaaaaaasive difference. It is completely invalid.


Nature is not cruel, it is indifferent. And where we get our responsibility and our morals are from society, not nature. Society is the rebellion against natural selection. The orphanage example is also invalid, because again, it involves reactions between to independent, thinking beings.


___________________
Glass:

"If" evolution is true? Evolution by natural selection is a scientific fact. So let us continue; you imply that because of evolution, it naturally follows that man should destroy other species and the environment. Please show your logic on this line. Conquer such savagery by excluding ourselves from it in a society? Why yes. But to go on the offensive and destroy it? No no no no no, no one in their right mind would advocate that.

What happened to the Native Americans was nothing short of genocide and I abhor it completely. I fully support restitution and sovereignty for any peoples affected.


As for not giving a rats nuts about space exploration, I can't quite understand. (And I am quite surprised you thanked him for this particular post, Epitome.) Not only is it extremely fascinating and humbling, but it holds the key to our only method of survival. This planet isn't going to last forever, our sun isn't going to last forever, this galaxy is on a crash course with the Andromeda, which could provide any series of complications to any other solar system that might be relocated to. If humans want to survive such cataclysmic events, spacefaring is the only option to remain alive. As for "unfucking" up this planet, modern science is working on it. Never going to be 100%, but it is heading that direction on the spectrum.

Sikamikanico999 wrote: Not that I lose any sleep over it, but I'm pretty sure the number of man-made species extinctions is way more than that—that figure probably applies only to recorded species extinction events, and surely just as there are thousands of species we haven't discovered yet, there are thousands of species going extinct we never knew about yet either. But to be honest, it's only the cute fuzzy animals I'm worried about. All those bugs, worms and microbes can suck it

venison wrote:
Well I feel bad birds, fish, frogs, lizards, and whatnot too.