Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Stewart Brand, an article from the New York Times. What a refreshing look at a practical environmentalist, one who contrasts the gloom-and-doom of the Al Gore school of "enviro-socialism". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 I respect him. It takes courage to admit he was wrong, as he did WRT nuclear power. But if in the past he overstated the immediacy of the dangers of population growth, he's now erring to the other extreme. The Third World's population boom may not cause an immediate global famine, but if left unchecked its long-term consequences will be bleak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 The Third World's population boom may not cause an immediate global famine, but if left unchecked its long-term consequences will be bleak. This isn't more of your "Humans are going to breed to be more stupid" nonsense, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 This isn't more of your "Humans are going to breed to be more stupid" nonsense, is it? You're implying the Darwinistic forces I described earlier are "nonsense." Your confidence is interesting, given that any real support for your position is political, not scientific. But no, this isn't about that. It's about the way the populations of places like India and Latin America and other Third World nations and regions are expanding. If--for five minutes--you could overcome your desire to bite my head off, and actually consider the likely effects of this expansion, you'd experience sobering realizations. The Third World's population expansion is driving the destruction of the rain forests, it's resulting in more pollution, and it's set us on a long-term course for global famine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 You're implying the Darwinistic forces I described earlier are "nonsense." Your confidence is interesting, given that any real support for your position is political, not scientific. But no, this isn't about that. It's about the way the populations of places like India and Latin America and other Third World nations and regions are expanding. If--for five minutes--you could overcome your desire to bite my head off, and actually consider the likely effects of this expansion, you'd experience sobering realizations. The Third World's population expansion is driving the destruction of the rain forests, it's resulting in more pollution, and it's set us on a long-term course for global famine. The only real solution is more cheap, bad reality television. Then they'll stop screwing, just like Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 You're implying the Darwinistic forces I described earlier are "nonsense." Your confidence is interesting, given that any real support for your position is political, not scientific. But no, this isn't about that. It's about the way the populations of places like India and Latin America and other Third World nations and regions are expanding. If--for five minutes--you could overcome your desire to bite my head off, and actually consider the likely effects of this expansion, you'd experience sobering realizations. The Third World's population expansion is driving the destruction of the rain forests, it's resulting in more pollution, and it's set us on a long-term course for global famine. And you're implying you described Darwinistic forces. You can't even distinguish genetics and environment. I just wanted to make sure you weren't going to rehash your eugenics agenda again. Of course I recognize the ecological and economic threats of Third World overpopulation to the industrialized West. I just wasn't sure that you, with your track record of absolute cluelessness, did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 And you're implying you described Darwinistic forces. You can't even distinguish genetics and environment. I just wanted to make sure you weren't going to rehash your eugenics agenda again. Of course I recognize the ecological and economic threats of Third World overpopulation to the industrialized West. I just wasn't sure that you, with your track record of absolute cluelessness, did. It looks like we're on the same page WRT the Third World population explosion. To address your other point, I realize that phenotype (one's actual traits) is the product of genotype (relevant genes) plus environmental influences. Darwinism works by selecting those with the "best" phenotypes; but any sort of Darwinistic improvement is achieved through the genotype. Unfortunately, the average stupid person has far more children than does the average smart person. The fact that "stupid" and "smart" refer to the phenotype does not, as you seem to imply, mean that there are no negative consequences to the genotype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 It looks like we're on the same page WRT the Third World population explosion. Did I say anything to that effect? I didn't even give anything resembling an opinion on overpopulation. To address your other point, I realize that phenotype (one's actual traits) is the product of genotype (relevant genes) plus environmental influences. Darwinism works by selecting those with the "best" phenotypes; but any sort of Darwinistic improvement is achieved through the genotype. Unfortunately, the average stupid person has far more children than does the average smart person. The fact that "stupid" and "smart" refer to the phenotype does not, as you seem to imply, mean that there are no negative consequences to the genotype. Anyone: is there anything new in the above worth reading, or is he parroting his same ol' nonsense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Did I say anything to that effect? I didn't even give anything resembling an opinion on overpopulation. Anyone: is there anything new in the above worth reading, or is he parroting his same ol' nonsense? Has anyone told you how very annoying it is to have a conversation with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Has anyone told you how very annoying it is to have a conversation with you? Actually, we weren't having a conversation. I was abusing you. But that was still funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helmet_hair Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Actually, we weren't having a conversation. I was abusing you. But that was still funny. Admitted guilt, LAW SUIT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Actually, we weren't having a conversation. I was abusing you. But that was still funny. Why do I feel like I'm talking to an eleven-year old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Why do I feel like I'm talking to an eleven-year old? Have you been hanging around Meazza? That could be one explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 Hell!@#$ingo!!! You're all acting like !@#$ing idiots. Please knock it off. While I may not bring a lot to the table for discussions. I really do like to read this board. But you three are !@#$ing driving me crazy. Start you own !@#$ing board so you can circle jerk yourselves. BTW. I mean that in the nicest way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 Anyone: is there anything new in the above worth reading, or is he parroting his same ol' nonsense? Let me translate, in case you didnt hear what he said, due to static in the drive thru speaker: HA: "Intelligence is caused by genetics and environmental forces" (for a second i thought he was going to admit this and actually be correct about something for a change, but then he let this gem fly), "but the effects of environmental forces are due to genetics." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 Let me translate, in case you didnt hear what he said, due to static in the drive thru speaker: HA: "Intelligence is caused by genetics and environmental forces" (for a second i thought he was going to admit this and actually be correct about something for a change, but then he let this gem fly), "but the effects of environmental forces are due to genetics." No sh--, really? That's a new one. Kind of like saying chickens are made from Chicken McNuggets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 Let me translate, in case you didnt hear what he said, due to static in the drive thru speaker: HA: "Intelligence is caused by genetics and environmental forces" (for a second i thought he was going to admit this and actually be correct about something for a change, but then he let this gem fly), "but the effects of environmental forces are due to genetics." If you feel the need to apply your very own combination of stupidity and incomprehension to my posts, please do so in the thread that's there for the three of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share Posted March 12, 2007 Why the hell do you people pick MY threads to bicker in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Why the hell do you people pick MY threads to bicker in? Random dumb chance...but from now on, I'll make sure we make an actual effort... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 It looks like we're on the same page WRT the Third World population explosion. To address your other point, I realize that phenotype (one's actual traits) is the product of genotype (relevant genes) plus environmental influences. Darwinism works by selecting those with the "best" phenotypes; but any sort of Darwinistic improvement is achieved through the genotype. Unfortunately, the average stupid person has far more children than does the average smart person. The fact that "stupid" and "smart" refer to the phenotype does not, as you seem to imply, mean that there are no negative consequences to the genotype. Hey, HA, about this gem... If "stupid" and "smart" refer to the phenotype, why are you consistently measuring "stupid" and "smart" strictly in terms of the GENOTYPE. I mean, according to you, if one has a "smart" phenotype, it's entirely genetic, so you have a "smart" genotype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts