Brontoforumus Archive

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:


This board has been fossilized.
You are reading an archive of Brontoforumus, a.k.a. The Worst Forums Ever, from 2008 to early 2014.  Registration and posting (for most members) has been disabled here to discourage spambots from taking over.  Old members can still log in to view boards, PMs, etc.

The new message board is at http://brontoforum.us.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 18

Author Topic: Aborpopulation  (Read 31700 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Caithness

  • Hat Man
  • Tested
  • Karma: 8
  • Posts: 889
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion
« Reply #120 on: October 29, 2011, 08:56:56 AM »

I don't think overpopulation is the problem. The earth could comfortably support a population many times higher if we were able to allocate resources more effectively.

The problems are greed, carelessness and income inequality.
Logged

Smiler

  • HOM NOM NOM NOM
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: 66
  • Posts: 3334
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion
« Reply #121 on: October 29, 2011, 09:14:33 AM »

Overpopulation isn't scary until everyone starts turning into zombies.
Logged

Beat Bandit

  • be entranced by my sexy rhythm
  • High-Bullshit
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65418
  • Posts: 4293
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion
« Reply #122 on: October 29, 2011, 09:42:32 AM »

I don't think overpopulation is the problem. The earth could comfortably support a population many times higher if we were able to allocate resources more effectively.

The problems are greed, carelessness and income inequality.
So the problem isn't the people, just the effect of having people.
Logged

Caithness

  • Hat Man
  • Tested
  • Karma: 8
  • Posts: 889
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion
« Reply #123 on: October 29, 2011, 10:27:12 AM »

Pretty much. But I believe that people and societies are are slowly improving as time goes on, and we'll eventually reach that utopian state.
Logged

MarsDragon

  • NO FUCKS LEFT TO GIVE
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65527
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion
« Reply #124 on: October 29, 2011, 10:46:34 AM »

After we destroy ourselves? Sounds about right.
Logged

Classic

  • Happens more often than you'd think.
  • Tested
  • Karma: -58471
  • Posts: 7501
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion
« Reply #125 on: October 29, 2011, 10:49:17 AM »

Imagine there's a condescending comment here, maybe with the phrase, "adorable naivete."
EDIT: Shit. Mars beat me to it with an actually cynical response.


ORIGINAL CONTINUES:
I dunno if I'd go so far as "utopian" myself, but... Yeah.
Getting Better- The Beatles
Logged

Caithness

  • Hat Man
  • Tested
  • Karma: 8
  • Posts: 889
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion
« Reply #126 on: October 29, 2011, 01:00:44 PM »

After we destroy ourselves? Sounds about right.

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/29/141801929/u-s-dismantles-the-biggest-of-its-cold-war-nukes

Edit: Okay, after actually reading that article, it's kind of scary.

Quote
"In the 1990s, the United States was dismantling at a rate three times the rate of today," he said. "Partly that's because we were not refurbishing a lot of weapons and extending their life spans. And now we have a plan, just the next 10 years, we're supposed to be extending the life, the longevity, of roughly 2,000 strategic, high-yield nuclear weapons."

The U.S. still has some 1,800 strategic warheads deployed, a thousand on land- and sea-based missiles that could be launched in 12 minutes — and another 2,500 in reserve. These are the warheads that are being refurbished and that have slowed the dismantling process.

"At the rate that we're dismantling now, which is around 250 or so weapons per year, a weapon that is ready to be retired and be destroyed may not get to Pantex for actual dismantling for 10 years, because the queue is so long."

How long is that queue? Poneman would only say it's a goodly number. Other sources say there could be as many as 4,000 bombs in warehouses awaiting destruction.
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion
« Reply #127 on: October 29, 2011, 05:57:01 PM »

After we destroy ourselves? Sounds about right.

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/29/141801929/u-s-dismantles-the-biggest-of-its-cold-war-nukes

Edit: Okay, after actually reading that article, it's kind of scary.

Quote
"In the 1990s, the United States was dismantling at a rate three times the rate of today," he said. "Partly that's because we were not refurbishing a lot of weapons and extending their life spans. And now we have a plan, just the next 10 years, we're supposed to be extending the life, the longevity, of roughly 2,000 strategic, high-yield nuclear weapons."

The U.S. still has some 1,800 strategic warheads deployed, a thousand on land- and sea-based missiles that could be launched in 12 minutes — and another 2,500 in reserve. These are the warheads that are being refurbished and that have slowed the dismantling process.

"At the rate that we're dismantling now, which is around 250 or so weapons per year, a weapon that is ready to be retired and be destroyed may not get to Pantex for actual dismantling for 10 years, because the queue is so long."

How long is that queue? Poneman would only say it's a goodly number. Other sources say there could be as many as 4,000 bombs in warehouses awaiting destruction.

Your tiddlyweek bombs! They do not scare me!
Logged

Kashan

  • Tested
  • Karma: 9
  • Posts: 679
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion
« Reply #128 on: October 29, 2011, 11:23:32 PM »

I think humans are naturally inclined towards apocalyptic thinking, and that as a result of this people massively overestimate the damage and likelihood of a nuclear war. Which isn't to say that it wouldn't be the worst thing to ever happen to man kind and that it isn't more likely than I'm comfortable with. Still, I think natural extinction events are much more likely to push mankind to the brink rather than man-made ones.

Also I more or less agree with Caithness that things are getting better on a long enough timeline. No reason to think tomorrow will be better, but eventually things will be better. I think we see things as getting worse because we're less tolerant and more aware of the things that aren't okay than in the past.
Logged

  • Magic Gunner Miss Blue
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65461
  • Posts: 4300
    • View Profile
Re: Homobortions and Pot
« Reply #129 on: October 30, 2011, 02:31:08 AM »

Split.  If someone can find the earlier abortion thread (we DO have an earlier abortion thread, right? (anybody who says Jail gets a posting ban.)) feel free to merge it.

I think there IS an actual Abortion thread in Jail/Guild Hall that got jailed because Guild guilded it.

Wait, are you threatening to ban someone who mentions that thread, or someone who calls Jail an abortion of a thread. Because I took it to mean the second.
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion
« Reply #130 on: October 30, 2011, 06:54:37 AM »

Generally, I do agree that things are getting better over the long term and that even a massive extinction event would leave some survivors who would eventually rebuild some semblance of society.

But I would like to point out that if you're on the ascending slope of a very gradual and very long-term bell-curve, then of course things are going to look like they're always getting better. Which is just to say, we don't generally appreciate what "long-term" really is.
Logged

Cthulhu-chan

  • Tested
  • Karma: 10
  • Posts: 2036
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion
« Reply #131 on: October 30, 2011, 08:57:42 AM »

Accounting for the heat-death of the universe is generally considered cheating.

Unless you'd like to make a contract...?

Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Aborpopulation
« Reply #132 on: October 30, 2011, 09:16:25 AM »

Jesus Christ we've switched gears AGAIN.

Rather than go through the tedious process of splitmerging one more time I just came up with a quicker and easier solution.
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Aborpopulation
« Reply #133 on: October 30, 2011, 09:44:18 AM »

Accounting for the heat-death of the universe is generally considered cheating.

Unless you'd like to make a contract...?



Only if it's not payable until said heat death   >__>
Logged

  • Magic Gunner Miss Blue
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65461
  • Posts: 4300
    • View Profile
Re: Aborpopulation
« Reply #134 on: October 30, 2011, 12:24:32 PM »

I still need to watch that.
Logged

Büge

  • won't give you fleaz
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65304
  • Posts: 10062
    • View Profile
Re: Aborpopulation
« Reply #135 on: October 30, 2011, 01:10:10 PM »

Me too.

Hey, we could watch it together.
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Aborpopulation
« Reply #136 on: October 30, 2011, 01:12:11 PM »

Perhaps as some sort of remedial program?
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Homobortions and Pot
« Reply #137 on: October 31, 2011, 08:31:27 AM »

A fetus is a living human organism. Whether you consider it a person is up to you, I guess, but it is alive.

A sperm is alive too.  Again, the trouble with this debate is that slippery-slope arguments are pretty much unavoidable.

I think humans are naturally inclined towards apocalyptic thinking, and that as a result of this people massively overestimate the damage and likelihood of a nuclear war.

I think it was a Stross post I read a few months back that posited we'll never see nukes dropped again simply because of the cost involved.  You want to kill a few thousand people, you can do it just fine by hijacking a plane.

The other key difference between WWII Japan and modern powers is that, well, as you may have noticed, 9/11 didn't result in an immediate surrender, it just pissed us the hell off.  You can make "the terrorists won" arguments for various subsequent infringements on our rights, but I don't think anyone can really say that bin Laden got what he wanted.

Unless what he wanted was to be shot in the face.
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Aborpopulation
« Reply #138 on: October 31, 2011, 09:28:19 AM »

I'm trying to frame this in a way so that I don't catch a facefull of Thad for it, but it's kind of a tiring exercise so I'm just gonna be upfront with it.

The scale of the Hiroshima bombing to 9/11 is at least 25:1 just in the immediate death toll.  I think it's rude to the Japanese to compare the two directly.
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Aborpopulation
« Reply #139 on: October 31, 2011, 10:26:44 AM »

Since I was paraphrasing Stross's post, I've gone ahead and dug it up and will quote him directly:

There's one group of people who might still want to acquire nukes for a practical purpose: "terrorists". (Scare quotes intentional.) But I think this is a paper tiger. Terrorism isn't an existential state, it's a tactic. People employ it in order to achieve political ends. Nuclear weapons are difficult to make because they require extremely exotic materials that the existing manufacturers keep under armed guard. As the Hamburg Cell of Al Qaida demonstrated on 11/9/2001, you can achieve equivalent damage using much simpler tactics. The collapse of the World Trade Centre buildings released about as much gravitational potential energy as a one kiloton nuke, and killed roughly as many people. But the 9/11 atrocities also demonstrated the limits of the terrorist spectacle: like Douhet's mass bombardment of cities from the air, terrorism doesn't make the target population quake in their boots and plead for surrender, it mostly pisses them off and stiffens their spines.

No, clearly the two are not directly comparable, for a myriad of reasons which he largely covers in the post.  That the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a unique moment in history and we'll never see their like again is the point.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 18