🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3664A0AF.3093E5C6@clark.net>,
  klaatu@clark.net wrote:
> a_jabberwock@hotmail.com wrote:

> Possibly because, as a side effect of education - and the explosion of
> rationality, scientism and common sense - people of conscience are deserting
> the Mother Church in literal droves?

More likely the fact that Catholic countries recieved a structured culture
that did away with the tribal or caste systems that doom the other area's.

>
> >they are India, most of Asia, and parts of Africa.
>
> You left out the region with the greatest and most explosive potentials for
> growth, all on the worst agricultural terrain on earth outside of Antarctica,
> to wit, the Middle East?

The middle east is minor compared to India alone.

> > BHut you knew that, you just want to blame the Pope for something, to pump
> > yourself up, don't you, Chris?
>
> Actually, I find Chris, while a bit flippant, to be a lot more in tune with
> reality and sensibility than yourself.

You mean your version of reality and sensibility.

> And with the present rates of growth, 6 billion will be achieved before the
> end of the millenium.

And if we reach 10 billion, the world will still be here, right?

> Note that humanity didn't achieve its first billion until the start of this
> century.
>
> you don't seem to be able to understand the difference between raw numbers,
> and statistical history, nor do you seem to have a concept of the difference
> between linear and geometric growth, nor have you much of a concept or
> "reproductive inertia" or the simple fucking fact

You seem to miss out on the fact that there is a maximum sustainable
population in any geographic area, so your expedintal growth models are only
good to a point, then the population becomes self limiting. That is bad for
that certain area, but it is not the end of the world. Your chicken little
mentality betrays your reason.

> that as more people waste
> more energy in competing for less resources we see:

As more underdeveloped nations have less resources per pop, we see the
following:

> - increases in conflict

conflict localized to underdeveloped nations

> - decreases in potential remediations of conflict;

conflict that does remidiates itself at some point, due to lack of resources
to sustain conflict and .

> depletion of non-renewable
> resources

removal of resources to developed areas

> - degradation of renewable-resource renewal processes with concurrent increase
> in politically-motivated assaults on renewable-resource renewal processes

Little change in the undeveloped area

>
> "just for starters."
>
> > but the numbers mean nothing
> > without knowing the largest stable population the Earth will support with
> > proper managment. My guess is 50 billion.
> >
>
> You are either trolling, or you need to be pilloried in the public stocks
> beneath a sign that says "I am a senseless boob who likes to grossly
> misrepresent the planetary ecology's carrying capacity".

Then prove me wrong, caculate the number of people that an acre can sustain
multiplied by ariable acres possible and add the maximum that sea farming can
sustain.

> The topic hasn't been Catholics for the last three iterations of the thread
> here.

Catholics still figure in the topic. They are not to blame for more than a
fraction of the world population.


> You pretend to be the master of the unsubstantiated allegation as a prelude to
> a diversion into interminable and pointless debate over a strawman attack?

You submit a faulty hypothisis embellished with unreasoned accusations in an
attempt to mitigate a non issue into a diversion from your own politically
motivated distortions of the possibilities of future implications of
political instabilities in areas over which you have no control and limited
understanding of.

>
> Jeeze, you _are_ a newbie to the net, aren't you?

No, why? You looking to start a club?

> > I'm fine right now, Chris, and so is Colorado. We're living high on the hog.
>
> Not if I can help it.

What? Is your agenda to drag others down?

> Um, how ya like the radioactive water supply courtesy of
> that nifty little outfit west of Denver that dumped all of their
> plutonium-refining sludge into surface ponds on your uphill slope?

Funny, my water is not radioactive.

> Judging from your rhetoric and the shapes of most of the people living out
> there, I'd say that that there ol nuke-juice must be damned near making you
> glow in the dark.

Sorry to disappoint you, things here are A OK

> Oh, BTW, I'll stop saying how bad Denver sucks when the earth opens and
> swallows it up.

No, you will be dead and forgotten long before then.

> > It's very practical, just not practiced, especially in less developed
> > countries where people have nothing.
>
> See? they've already bred chastity out of their populations. Population
> explosion, crash, explosion, crash, explosion, crash <etc etc ad nauseum> here
> we come!

Here we come?  you mean there they go again, don't you?

> You're barking up the wrong tree and have been for the last few posts.

Huh?

> >
> > But how can you really mean it when you would limit free speech of a
> > religious nature?
>
> Strawman argument, "where the hell did e say that?"

Can you read?


> I dunno. what about religious freaks who think they have the right to kill
> anyone they label a witch "cause thou shalt not suffer a witch to live?"

Those which burnings have really gotten out of hand lately, huh? How many this
year? 0?

> Agnostic isn't a religion. Nor is atheism.

Certainly they are.

>
> You do like to trot out strawman arguments, don't you?

Find "strawman" in your word a day calender?

> Combining strawman
> arguments with presuppositive ad-hominem attacks is generally considered the
> premiere indicator that you've no real arguments in support of your own
> (obviously ill-chosen) position.

No, your misdirection combined with your colorado bashing is the premire
indicator that you're blowing smoke son. Now do the math and tell me how many
people the world can support.



-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own