Things that are WAAY overdue

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by Alphapheemail

I have been following this thread completely enthralled with the series of ideas that have been discussed. I agree with most, some i have to do some research on what yee all are talking about. kudos

I love hearing about the space program and all of the discoveries that have come forth from it.
However I do think its time that we eradicate world hunger. I mean its been around for HOW LONG?
now I know its not as simple as allocating money... we have seen that.
Its politics of the hungriest nations. It may seem that having hungry people benefit few on the top. This is what saddens me.
The only way i can see to efficiently attempt to solve this is by dramatic population control. Why bring children to the world to be hungry?
Less of us would help the environment as well.

thoughts?

Before the space program, war brought forth science and technology. The real incentive, the reason for achieving greatness is having a common goal. The next one should be achieving a unification of the planet's passengers. That Babel thing has lasted enough.

In nature, all species challenged by extinction get a high reproduction drive to compensate for loss.

Originally Posted by kazbates

When you start talking about population control, you get into a really dicey area. I, for one, do not want to tell people whether or not they can procreate. I wouldn't have liked it if someone told me I could only have 2 children, then I wouldn't have had Ryleigh who is an absolute blessing from God.

Having said that, I agree that people should be more sexually responsible. If you can't provide for a child, don't have one. I wish it were that simple, but know that it is not. Go back a few posts to Steve's comments about "getting laid every night" and you see an underlying issue. Sex feels good! When you can't control much about your outside environment, that seems to be the only thing you can control. The escape that sex can provide from the realities of life is one of the biggest aphrodisiacs. Thinking about birth control or disease transmittion gets in the way of that euphoric/escapism feeling, not to mention the religious or cultural aspects of birth control.

Bottom line, we're going to have to deal with world hunger another way.

Sex is God's joke on us. It is so powerful a force on us as to be almost totally impossible not to fall for it. We are not let any power on it but will and we know how fallible it is...

Sex is so important that it has a big part of our brain dedicated to it. BTW it is the same part that is stimulated by powerful narcotics such as cocaine, heroin and nicotine. No wonder those things turn up to be addictive. They become as hard wired as sex.

[balok]

Originally Posted by kazbates

How about something actually doable like mass producing electric cars!

Sure, unless you actually care about the environment.

Hybrid and electric cars are bad news for the environment. They trick people into thinking they're being environmentally friendly in buying a car. The fact is, the environmentally friendly thing to do would be to not buy any car. Hybrids and electrics keep people from making the much-needed lifestyle changes that are the real solution, like moving closer to your job/school/daycare so you can walk instead of drive (which, incidentally, would reduce the obesity pandemic). They also keep governments from making sustainable policy, like subsidizing public transit instead of research in electric vehicles and biofuels.

[yvanleterrible]

I need a truck for my work. How expensive would a house be if material to build it was brought by public transit? How would you bring that fridge home?

Public transit will not cater to more than 30% of transportation needs.

Does that also mean no one would live in Gaspesie?

[balok]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Speaking of which, something else that's waay overdue: Ditching the whole "jewelry box," "man-purse," "Mars" and "Venus" and "homo" and "straight" and "hit like a girl" and "man hands" and "who wears the pants in this house" load of felgercarb.

And men should be able wear dresses and women ties, and we should find a way to operate men so they can have babies and a way to make lesbians capable of producing sperm.

[Angst]

Universal Heath care.

Whither someone lives or dies should not be dependent on how much money they make.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

I need a truck for my work. How expensive would a house be if material to build it was brought by public transit? How would you bring that fridge home?

No one said public transport should do 100% of our transportation load. There will always be a need for point-to-point transport, especially of heavy goods, and that's fine. (My fridge was delivered by a commercial truck, ensuring that I did not have to provide a truck that I would subsequently drive around town getting 12MPG while I hauled nothing but my own a$$. Of course, I could have, and have in the past, rented a truck for the day... nothing wrong with that.)

It's the point-to-point transport of people that's gotten us into so much trouble, and needs to be curbed.

[balok]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

I need a truck for my work. How expensive would a house be if material to build it was brought by public transit? How would you bring that fridge home?

Public transit will not cater to more than 30% of transportation needs.

Does that also mean no one would live in Gaspesie?

Dude, how does that change anything that I wrote in my earlier post? And where do you get that 30% number? Is that the maximum possible?

Obviously cars and trucks have their uses. We're just not putting them to good use, and hybrids and electrics will not solve that problem. Most people who "need" their car for work are stuck in a system that makes them need their car for work. If a guy has to take three busses and spend two hours twice a day getting to and from work, it's understandable that he would take his car and get there in 20 minutes. The problem is that hybrids/electrics won't help change that. They'll lull the government into thinking that it's not necessary to invest in public transit to solve global warming issues.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by balok

That entails keeping people from having sex or making them take pills to prevent pregnancy. Sounds like tampering with nature to me. Humans are as much a part of the environment as everything else.

Heh... yeah, like locusts and prions...

Originally Posted by balok

Our ability to proliferate is a survival trait that has saved the race more than once in the event of a cataclysm, and a widespread genepool makes for more efficient natural selection.

However, with a lack of population control, said survival trait is overwhelming the planet. There's such a thing as "too much of a good thing."

Originally Posted by balok

Curtailing at 100 million sounds like a bad idea.

Why? Is there some particular reason we need 5 billion people? We were straining the planet's resources before we reached our first billion (about 1830AD), we just didn't know how to recognize it.

Is there some particular reason why 100 million would not be considered enough people to allow the human race to survive? Were we, as a race, at particular threat of extinction when our population was that size, at approx. 500BC? No... a number of plagues reduced our numbers, but we bounced back ably. Would we be under the same threat of extinction today?

I say 100 million is a great number for human population. That number would have more than enough worldwide resources for food, shelter and amenities and ensure survivability numbers without risking the health and welfare of the planet to provide them.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by balok

And men should be able wear dresses and women ties, and we should find a way to operate men so they can have babies and a way to make lesbians capable of producing sperm.

Women wear ties, men wear kilts, and the last thing we need is to find new ways to have more kids!

[balok]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

the last thing we need is to find new ways to have more kids!

Some governments (like mine) pick up the tab for in-vitro fertilization (over$10,000 a shot) because of declining birth rates and couples who wait forever before having their first kid, thus becoming less fertile. How about we take that money and feed the kids who are being born in countries where they don't have enough to eat?

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

No one said public transport should do 100% of our transportation load. There will always be a need for point-to-point transport, especially of heavy goods, and that's fine. (My fridge was delivered by a commercial truck, ensuring that I did not have to provide a truck that I would subsequently drive around town getting 12MPG while I hauled nothing but my own a$$. Of course, I could have, and have in the past, rented a truck for the day... nothing wrong with that.)

It's the point-to-point transport of people that's gotten us into so much trouble, and needs to be curbed.

If you want the government to do something, make them say that all vehicles must be electric by such and such a date, just like the CFL mandate. That will solve the non-impact on the environment issue that balok mentioned earlier. No, I am not serious. I do not want more government mandates. I do think that government incentives to hurry along the mass production of electric cars would be helpful, though. I'm doing my part by driving a hybrid, but I like my car and do not want to give it up.

Originally Posted by balok

Some governments (like mine) pick up the tab for in-vitro fertilization (over$10,000 a shot) because of declining birth rates and couples who wait forever before having their first kid, thus becoming less fertile. How about we take that money and feed the kids who are being born in countries where they don't have enough to eat?

Because people have a right to have children. I am sorry that there are hungry children in the world. There shouldn't be and we should be ashamed that there are, but that should not be a reason for people not to have children of their own. If I chose to be politically incorrect and open my self up for a backlash, I could make comments about the poor and uneducated that would be offensive, but an explanation as to why there are so many hungry children. I feed my children, clothe them, educate them, and make sacrifices so that my children have a good life. I don't think I am in the minority. I was lucky that I did not have to go to extreme measures to get pregnant, although, I will say, that I miscarried 3 times between my 2nd and 3rd children. My children are a blessing and a gift but they were a conscious and thoughtful decision. Why should those people in other countries that you mentioned be allowed to have children but someone who waits until they feel the time is right for them, not be allowed to have them? Making people who are prosperous give everything up to people who are not is counter-productive. Sooner or later, no one will be productive, they'll just wait for someone else to do it and give it to them.

[balok]

Originally Posted by kazbates

I'm doing my part by driving a hybrid

You actually think you're doing your part by driving a hybrid. The automobile industry tricked you.

I like my car and do not want to give it up.

Said the cancer patient, "I like smoking and I don't want to give it up."

Ok, I'm being too hard on you. I don't really expect you to give up your car, and I applaud you for buying a hybrid instead of a gas guzzler. You're acting reasonably considering the circumstances. But you should recognize that this isn't the ideal solution. You should vote for a party that proposes to make fundamental changes to the transportation system and the urban landscape that will allow you to do without a car more often, instead of a party that proposes tax incentives for hybrids.

Because people have a right to have children.

Is than an unqualified right? I don't think people have an unconditional right to have children. In my opinion, state-subsidized fertility treatments are not within the scope of that right.

Why should those people in other countries that you mentioned be allowed to have children

See previous quote: "Because people have a right to have children."

Besides, what I proposed is grounded in the right for those children to eat, not in the right of their parents to have children.

someone who waits until they feel the time is right for them, not be allowed to have them?

I just don't want to pay for it with my taxes. These people wait until they're nearly infertile because they want to be "financially secure" first, then the government pays for their fertility treatments. Talk about having your cake...

[balok]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

Robot monkeys.

We already have politicians, who are robot-slaves of corporate america and act like monkeys.

[balok]

Originally Posted by Verencat

I'd root for a better surveillance on roads... we must be abble to do better, no?

How about:

Mandatory speed governors on all automobiles. Variable speed governors could be radio-controlled according to the speed limit in the zone where you're driving.

There's a proposition that will never be adopted. People think they have the "right" to break the law.

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by balok

You actually think you're doing your part by driving a hybrid. The automobile industry tricked you.



Said the cancer patient, "I like smoking and I don't want to give it up."

Ok, I'm being too hard on you. I don't really expect you to give up your car, and I applaud you for buying a hybrid instead of a gas guzzler. You're acting reasonably considering the circumstances. But you should recognize that this isn't the ideal solution. You should vote for a party that proposes to make fundamental changes to the transportation system and the urban landscape that will allow you to do without a car more often, instead of a party that proposes tax incentives for hybrids.

No solution is ever IDEAL. Something better usually comes along when we continue to investigate alternatives and external factors (like lobbyists) don't get in the way.

Is than an unqualified right? I don't think people have an unconditional right to have children. In my opinion, state-subsidized fertility treatments are not within the scope of that right.



See previous quote: "Because people have a right to have children."

Besides, what I proposed is grounded in the right for those children to eat, not in the right of their parents to have children.



I just don't want to pay for it with my taxes. These people wait until they're nearly infertile because they want to be "financially secure" first, then the government pays for their fertility treatments. Talk about having your cake...

I agree with you, I wouldn't want to my taxes to pay for it either. I also don't want my takes to pay for people to get abortions. I believe people have the right to make those choices, though.

As for an "unqualified right", I already stated that people should be more circumspective about procreation. So, in a way, I have qualified the right.