Nubblies.net Forums - Wtf Did You Google To End Up Here?

Nubblies.net Forums - Wtf Did You Google To End Up Here? (http://www.nubblies.net/forums/index.php)
-   General Chat (http://www.nubblies.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=67)
-   -   The Future of the Human Race. (http://www.nubblies.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17384)

DDTempest 08-09-2009 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde (Post 382861)
I also wonder if our descendants will hate us for how reckless we are/were. Almost like a future version of slavery. At the time, it was status quo and therefore most people were okay with it. 300 years later, we're ashamed of our ancestors.

Ashamed of our ancestors for ending it ... fuck, what were they thinking?

f3lix 08-09-2009 02:04 PM

I'm sure they won't so much hate us, but look down on us for how stupid and selfish we are. We're trying to get ourselves ahead more than our species.

Money should NOT be a factor in trying to improve our future with space and such. This is where I'd really prefer we lived in a resource based economy instead.

Mr. Blonde 08-09-2009 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by f3lix (Post 382880)
I'm sure they won't so much hate us, but look down on us for how stupid and selfish we are. We're trying to get ourselves ahead more than our species.

Agreed. I had to re-read this upon reflection to make sure you weren't saying the human race is trying to get ahead; PEOPLE are. People want to have a nice house, nice car, nice salary and their kids to grow up in a nice neighborhood. Unfortunately, that (and keeping the money coming in) is about the extent of philosophical thinking that the general population does. While there are obviously lots of people out there trying to save the world, there needs to be more...lots more, in order to divert an eventual disaster. It seems that humans just aren't wired that way in civilization today.

Mr. Blonde 08-10-2009 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard (Post 382832)
I like the spirit of this thread, but I think in general you guys are being over-dramatic. ....The Earth can sustain a human population of 20 billion or more without too much trouble.

With todays rate of consumption? Source?

Quote:

Some of the major problems that humanity thinks they're facing, global warming in particular, are basically just the new religion of "educated" elite upper-middle class whites. We're not even sure if humanity has made the slightest contribution to this issue; it could very well just be a part of the natural cycle of Earth's heating and cooling. Climates change, species go extinct. This is a natural part of Earth's evolution.
Fair enough, but I didn't even mention global warming in my OP. Just because something becomes trendy among rich people I don't think is a very good reason to entirely shrug it off as token upper-class melodrama. Global warming may very well be a part of Earths 'natural' evolution, but I can guarantee that widespread depletion of forests, massively overfishing, and polluting our oceans to the point where life on the bottom of the sea no longer has any oxygen in the water to survive on is not.

Honestly, this kind of thinking is the kind that is going to end up fucking ourselves. Everybody (myself included) downplays how fragile plant/animal/life really is, in an "oh it will all work out" sort of way from time to time almost in denial of the inevitable. The planet is obviously (according to scientists a long time from now) on its way out, but we're exponentially expiditing the process.

ID brought up some good points before about our only real options to be colonizing planets, but to be honest resource wise we simply can't do it, and for a REALLY long time. Our only options are either to die out or to sustain life on earth, and while I think the latter will probably eventually happen, i'd prefer for it not to be in a completely backwards "running up an escalator going down" kind of way.

Ugly Bastard 08-10-2009 01:13 AM

Keep in mind Blonde that none of this matters. Humanity is just a cancer that has grown on a small insignificant planet.

Mr. Blonde 08-10-2009 01:21 AM

That is very true, but a conscious, self-aware and technology-producing cancer nonetheless. Are you proposing that we should allow ourselves to die out?

Ugly Bastard 08-10-2009 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde (Post 382907)
Are you proposing that we should allow ourselves to die out?

Not really. I don't think it matters whether or not we let ourselves die out. There are, however, quite a few people who believe in voluntary human extinction: VHEMT

THEINCREDIBLEdork 08-10-2009 02:11 PM

When we create the first AI, the human race will die.

ninjaface 08-10-2009 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard (Post 382911)
There are, however, quite a few people who believe in voluntary human extinction: VHEMT

I read quite a bit from that website. I like the idea behind it.

I've always thought it would be interesting if the human race was collectively unable to procreate for a period of 20 or 30 years. I feel like it would allow us to get our heads on straight as a species. It would certainly eliminate many of the distractions that come with having kids. Not to mention Disney and lots of terrible music would fall by the way side. But once the 20 or 30 years was up and people could have kids, they would grow up to be even more entitled little shits than they (we) are now.

I don't see voluntary human extinction being popular enough to make a noticeable difference.

Mr. Blonde 08-10-2009 06:52 PM

On a related note, the movie "Children of Men" is one of my top 5 movies ever.

ninjaface 08-10-2009 06:53 PM

For me, Children of Men is Just below Masters of The Universe.

Repugnant Abomination 08-10-2009 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninjaface (Post 382919)

I don't see voluntary human extinction being popular enough to make a noticeable difference.

lol ya think?

Mr. Blonde 08-10-2009 06:55 PM

Why?

ninjaface 08-10-2009 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination (Post 382922)
lol ya think?

Sorry I didn't use the snark tags for that one. Nice one, author.

Repugnant Abomination 08-10-2009 07:46 PM

Easy, guy.

theMerciless1 08-17-2009 02:44 PM

you should read ISHMAEL. excellent book, easy read. can be finished in a day or two.

Mr. Blonde 08-17-2009 06:56 PM

Isn't that about a gorilla?

Some chick gave me that book to read once and after we stopped sleeping together she got all emo and asked for it back before i finished it. Then we started sleeping together again later. I never got to read the book though.

THEINCREDIBLEdork 08-17-2009 07:36 PM

Didn't Moby Dick write Ishmael?

Beebs 08-17-2009 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde (Post 382901)
Agreed. I had to re-read this upon reflection to make sure you weren't saying the human race is trying to get ahead; PEOPLE are. People want to have a nice house, nice car, nice salary and their kids to grow up in a nice neighborhood. Unfortunately, that (and keeping the money coming in) is about the extent of philosophical thinking that the general population does. While there are obviously lots of people out there trying to save the world, there needs to be more...lots more, in order to divert an eventual disaster. It seems that humans just aren't wired that way in civilization today.

Disagree completely.

The whole of human advancement, or at least the vast majority of it, is driven by self interest.

Everybody looks out for themselves, then everybody can get whats best for themselves; everybody looks out for everybody, everybody ends up having no fucking clue what is best for the other man.

This is essentially why the societies that have embraced free markets and personal responsibility are where they are, and backwards "tribal" people or even countries that lived for communism for any period of time are behind.

It all comes down to incentive, and "I want to" is always, always, always, always, going to be better incentive than "It's whats best for everybody." Better incentive gives you smarter people trying harder, better people trying harder gets you better results, which is the only thing that matters.

You can take your magnanimosity and shove it up your ass; I want the greedy fucking pharmaceutical industry coming out with better drugs because they think it will make them filthy rich more than I want them doing it because they want to help humanity; I want that because I know the guy doing it to get filthy rich is going to do it better.

When I'm dieing, I don't give a shit why the drug is there, I give a shit that it is there, and the greedy bastard will get it there, or another greedy bastard will beat him to it.

SittinOnDubsWGW 08-18-2009 12:18 AM

I couldn't have said it better. As nice as it would be to have a communal system work, it doesn't. The free rider problem takes place due to people not putting out near as much as they consume, etc.

Lazy entitled bastards are always the problem.

Mr. Blonde 08-18-2009 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beebs (Post 383160)
Disagree completely.

The whole of human advancement, or at least the vast majority of it, is driven by self interest.

Everybody looks out for themselves, then everybody can get whats best for themselves; everybody looks out for everybody, everybody ends up having no fucking clue what is best for the other man.

This is essentially why the societies that have embraced free markets and personal responsibility are where they are, and backwards "tribal" people or even countries that lived for communism for any period of time are behind.

It all comes down to incentive, and "I want to" is always, always, always, always, going to be better incentive than "It's whats best for everybody." Better incentive gives you smarter people trying harder, better people trying harder gets you better results, which is the only thing that matters.

You can take your magnanimosity and shove it up your ass; I want the greedy fucking pharmaceutical industry coming out with better drugs because they think it will make them filthy rich more than I want them doing it because they want to help humanity; I want that because I know the guy doing it to get filthy rich is going to do it better.

When I'm dieing, I don't give a shit why the drug is there, I give a shit that it is there, and the greedy bastard will get it there, or another greedy bastard will beat him to it.

Why don't you post this in the Healthcare reform forum, where it apparently belongs? The main purpose of this thread is about the future of the Earth, and unfortunately for your argument, Beebs, in this thread its the greedy and selfish who are ruining the planet.

SittinOnDubsWGW 08-19-2009 01:04 AM

actually, his comment fits perfectly fine here. He talks about societies and how "for the greater good" doesn't work.

People being selfish helps the greater good far more.

In theory, communal societies are ideal. In practice, it just doesn't work.

Mr. Blonde 08-19-2009 01:44 AM

At what point did I suggest communism was the way that we should save the planet? If anything i'm referring to Humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


EDIT: Up to and including caring for our planet as well. I'm sorry, whether or not caring about other humans and limiting consumption on our planet is financially or economically valuable, its what i consider the right thing to do.

EDIT 2:
Quote:

People being selfish helps the greater good far more.
I understand this to an extent, looking out for ones own self and not "coddling" others and whatnot, but how does being selfish help limit consumption and help the planet earth not die? Hate to sound like a dick, but remember what thread you're in.

Phase 1. Put naturally selfish humans on planet with finite resources.
Phase 2. Let them rape the planet with barely any concern for their effects on the environment for a couple thousand years until all the resources are gone or the environment can no longer sustain the almost 7 billion people on the planet.
Phase 3. ????
Phase 4. PROFIT!

SittinOnDubsWGW 08-19-2009 02:32 AM

It doesn't really limit consumption. I think it all boils down to efficiency. We currently don't worry about it near as much as we should because we don't have to. Being able to produce things more efficiently and the spread of technology over time might be able to save us. It might also lead to a faster destruction. Only time will tell.

I doubt we'll see anything drastic in our lifetime, unless we increase our life expectancy by a significant amount.

similar thoughts to what UB stated above, I just don't think many people really care.

Mr. Blonde 08-19-2009 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SittinOnDubsWGW (Post 383200)
It doesn't really limit consumption.

Yes it does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by From earlier in this thread
...globally, we're already in "overshoot", consuming 30 per cent more material than is sustainable from the world's resources. At present, 85 countries exceed their domestic "bio-capacities", compensating for their lack of local material by depleting stocks elsewhere, in countries that have "surpluses" because they're not consuming as much.

Which is all fine and dandy as long as those third worlders know their place and stay there, amirite?! But as more Economies and regions move from third world to 2nd and 1st world status, consumption will inevitably increase, and we will be proper fucked.

I understand what you're saying, that people dont' care right now, and I understand that, I do, but I guess i'm just trying to say that i'd rather be proactive about it then have to run the wrong way up an escalator a hundred or 2 hundred years from now (which i obviously won't be doing but future humans)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright 2002-∞ - Nubblies.net