Thread: Grinds my gears

Originally Posted by Kealran

Yes, because I did say that we should all be hunter-gatherers...

There is a difference between following the laws of the natural world and going back to hunter-gatherer. Also it would be impossible in this day and age.

But there are sacrifices that must be made in our society in order to follow this rules. A majorr one is that we cannot keep increasing our population since it is already extremely high.

We can on another hand, start engineering in a Cradle to Cradle concept instead of Cradle to Grave. We keep making things and destroying things, accumulating trash in land fills and such. In a Cradle to Cradle in the design process we take into consideration the reuse of the materials after the product has past it's uses.

Also, we need to start doing Green chemistry. Since we are the only species on this planet creating components that have never been scene by the community of life. Components that no organisms have been adapted to dissolve and return to a natural state.

Those are just two things that can greatly help us.

Then again, with our current social organization we stand little chance to advance in the right direction. hierarchy is exceedingly problematic. The first step towards the new age is to have a new social order (not NWO that we keep hearing, thats just a new level of Hierachy.)

You are the really dumb kid in class who thinks he has everything figured out and then when he goes to do the work on the board gets revealed for an idiot and then goes home and takes his father's gun and shoots up the school.

What are these natural laws you seem to believe exist?

The natural environment is dynamic with or without us. Your whole ideal is half-baked to begin with because you aren't committing to your stated goals. We don't do chemistry without impacting the environment. If your goal is minimizing environmental impact, you're advocating the hunter-gather lifestyle. But who are we kidding, that's not really your goal, that's what you heard on TV.

Why can't we continue increasing our population? What rule does this break? There are plenty of examples of natural populations increasing beyond carrying capacity (let's just start with red tides, since it's probably the lowest-order example.)

And then to whatever other dumb ideas you've got: you are afforded the luxury of demanding these changes because the rest of the world is willing to sacrifice the environment for personal welfare. It's just the same as the way religion is one of the primary reasons we have the luxury to sit around and criticize religion. These are all necessary advances to get you where you are today.

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

You are the really dumb kid in class who thinks he has everything figured out and then when he goes to do the work on the board gets revealed for an idiot and then goes home and takes his father's gun and shoots up the school.

What are these natural laws you seem to believe exist?

The natural environment is dynamic with or without us. Your whole ideal is half-baked to begin with because you aren't committing to your stated goals. We don't do chemistry without impacting the environment. If your goal is minimizing environmental impact, you're advocating the hunter-gather lifestyle. But who are we kidding, that's not really your goal, that's what you heard on TV.

Why can't we continue increasing our population? What rule does this break? There are plenty of examples of natural populations increasing beyond carrying capacity (let's just start with red tides, since it's probably the lowest-order example.)

And then to whatever other dumb ideas you've got: you are afforded the luxury of demanding these changes because the rest of the world is willing to sacrifice the environment for personal welfare. It's just the same as the way religion is one of the primary reasons we have the luxury to sit around and criticize religion. These are all necessary advances to get you where you are today.

are you kidding me the natural laws are to live in peace with nature while fellating oneself

also agriculture is the worst thing ever to be invented by man

I know people who'd kill you guys for speaking so badly of agriculture. Thankfully they're too stupid to spell or operate a computer so we won't have to listen to their yapping.

Originally Posted by sycld

Hey, don't get me wrong-- agriculture was absolutely brilliant for humanity as a whole, just not so good for nature. That's just the way it is.

generally speaking, farming and agriculture doesn't implicitly require the destruction of the area around it to function

i mean we devote areas of land for many purposes like buildings and everything based on our level of need

nowadays that need had really just gotten out of hand, but proper farming practices generally keep a solid amount of nutrients in the soil

If you buy soy you promote slash and burn.

Way to go Vegetarians.

Originally Posted by Pepsi

You know, I'm rather sure I got banned for a little while for doing that outside of flames.

Atmosfear, I'm looking at you with a sparkle in my eye.

yes but bacon ops isn't a raging homosexual whose presence on the forum resembles an oil spill

To be fair I am pro-oil spills because I am anti-biodiversity.

ok but forests aren't like the pinnacle of nature or anything

biodiversity is important, and forests are important

but i mean you can't make an omelette without chopping down a few trees

Originally Posted by Pepsi

You know, I'm rather sure I got banned for a little while for doing that outside of flames.

Atmosfear, I'm looking at you with a sparkle in my eye.

Newsflash, Peps, this forum is Flames and the Armory putting on funny hats and pretending it's LWS 2.2.

Well, that, and you.

Originally Posted by sycld

that's my point

i'm supporting you on this, wine cock.

oh

just for clarity's sake, my point was cutting down forests is not a bad thing nor the end of the world, provided it's done properly

so losing acres of forestry to farmland doesn't harm my conscience too much, idealistically

how things actually played out is a little different, but i still think that the principle is sound