Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shook]

"Ends" is a lot said, it just resets like ours. This article explains.

[Trapezohedron]

I'm actually more worried with SOPA than the end of the world. I wonder when the American Congress' winter recess will end?

[Hitty40]

You know, I'm suprised Toady hasn't been summoned on this for our derailing.

[Frumple]

There will be issues. There will be starvation. There will be a lot of shit.

To none of that will overpopulation be anything but a aggravating factor.

Not to mention your crys of doom of the human race are very very unrealistic.

This would be my point of disagreement. Resource use is absolutely the base cause of bloody everything, as I see it, and population is the base cause of resource use. Logic says, then, that population is the root issue from which all others stem. When we can't deal with the base issues that arise from having a smaller population (and we've been having problems for a long bloody time~), having this buggeroff huge population isn't just an 'aggravating factor,' unless you're using the term similar to saying fire is the aggravating factor in a burning building. It's the root cause, and everything else is symptomatic.

As for the second; no, it's not 'unrealistic', it's inevitable. (Sun's going to go out eventually! If we can avoid that, then heat death of the universe later on.) The goal is to stave it off as long as possible. My goal is try to try to, at least in some minor way (and I bloody well don't expect my contribution to be anything even remotely approaching more than vanishingly small), help stave it off a really rotterdamn long time. I want another 200k years at minimum, not the less-than-millennia we're pushing toward.

Unless, of course, you count 'unrealistic' as attempting to plan and influence for periods beyond a generation or two. Which... hell, frankly, I agree with you, to a large extent. Almost entirely. I seriously doubt it's even possible and am damn sure it's not even remotely likely. But, yanno' what? Damnitall, I want our species to be aiming for being there when the sun goes out. The only way that's even going to be remotely possible (especially without a buggeryall huge amount of not-even-remotely-necessary suffering) is with genuinely longterm planning. Which we either refuse to do or are incapable of.

Also, some of you are misunderstanding how population growth works yet again. Overpopulation, as Criptfiend said, is not a thing that modernized countries have to worry about. Indeed, it is not something anyone outside of Africa has to worry about because the only countries that could realistically overshoot their carrying capacity, or already have, are in Africa.

Yeah, the problem with [that outlook]?

The world has finite resources. I really can't emphasis that g'damn enough. 7 billion people on the planet is not a 'third world problem' it's a 'going to fucking kill all of us' problem. Sticking our heads beneath the sand in our fenced community doesn't help anything.

That's the issue. The whole freaking bloody thing. Resources == finite. Growth =/= infinite. Global situation == not-freaking-ignorable. The belief that those three are somehow untrue is going to kill our species if it doesn't change, or something more direct (i.e. boom) doesn't intervene.

Populations naturally even out.

That's... basically, it's one of my points. Population can even out. Resource constraints cause it to (it's a lot more expensive to raise a child in an industrial nation than an agricultural one.). The growth period during that time before it evens out can also completely destroy the local environment, or, if you prefer a less extreme view, render a great deal of it unusable. In the most extreme situation, it can render the entire area unsuitable for the species's occupation, resulting in either a massive die off or localized extinction. We've seen this many times with non-humans, and it's killed some of them completely. Personally, I don't want to risk it on something that can possibly result in either a massive population death or extinction, when we can be proactive about it and lessen the chances of disaster.

TL;DR: We're going to be fine, so calm down already.

Pretty much my major point: This is utterly untrue. There's nothing 'fine' in doing crap, right now, that is going to be continuing to have negative repercussions hundreds of years from now and completely ignoring that fact, not trying to mitigate that fact, and basically screwing ourselves over.

Our generation is going to be fine. The next one, probably the same. The one after that, and after that? Hell, sure, I wouldn't be surprised if they do alright, too. But give it enough time and the absolute refusal of most of our species to even attempt to curtail the actions that have multigenerational impact, and things are going to snowball. Snowball to the point that folks then are entirely likely to not be able to do anything about it, whereas we, right now, can.

Won't, but can.

Right now, most of our species reaction to the issue is sticking our fingers in our ears and yelling 'science will save us' really, really loudly. That's treating the symptoms (in most cases.). Doesn't help with the cause any.

You know, I'm suprised Toady hasn't been summoned on this for our derailing.

Hey, we've stuck to 'end of the world' pretty well

[RedWarrior0]

Um... Not really. Especially not "End of the World in 2012"

[MorleyDev]

Wait, some people actually believe this crap about 2012? I just thought everybody on the planet was either pointing and laughing at the idea of a person believing it or just trolling. Sort of like the Emperor's new clothes, only we're the ones who are naked and the emperor's imaginary.

Of course human kind will get vanish off the planet eventually. That's kinda the inevitable fate of the majority of species...except the cockroaches, viscous bastards are just waiting for the majority of us to die off so they can rise up and enslave us as the new lords and masters of the world. But even their time is numbered. Eventually even stars go out. Heck, if the hypothesis about heat death is correct then even universes go out.

But since I'll probably be long dead by the time those things happen why care ^,,,^ (unless I achieve immortality, in which case I will wait for the majority of us to die off so I can rise up and enslave those left as the new lord and master of the world)

[Tellemurius]

Wait, some people actually believe this crap about 2012? I just thought everybody on the planet was either pointing and laughing at the idea of a person believing it or just trolling. Sort of like the Emperor's new clothes, only we're the ones who are naked and the emperor's imaginary.

Of course human kind will get vanish off the planet eventually. That's kinda the inevitable fate of the majority of species...except the cockroaches, viscous bastards are just waiting for the majority of us to die off so they can rise up and enslave us as the new lords and masters of the world. Heck, eventually even stars go out.

But since I'll probably be long dead by the time those things happen why care ^,,,^ (unless I achieve immortality, in which case I will wait for the majority of us to die off so I can rise up and enslave those left as the new lord and master of the world)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY

[Criptfeind]

Modern Catholics are okay with it, like they are will pretty much everything. Obviously more traditional ones are not.

No idea which is more prevalent.

It doesn't matter which is more prevalent because that's not how catholicism operates. The entire basis of the Catholic Church is that there is an overarching authority that, in many ways, you must obey. You really don't get another option with them. If you're a Catholic who thinks that using condoms or the pill is okay, then you're essentially a heretic at odds with the church itself, in addition to the sin you're (supposedly) already committing.

I agree that a lot of Catholics, especially modern Catholics, have very lax ideas about Church doctrine, but there's a huge element of doublethink involved for the aforementioned reasons: They disagree with the Church, but on things the Church explicitly does not allow you to disagree on. At all. Disagreeing with that sort of dogma is tantamount to disagreeing with God himself, and those people effectively are not Catholic except through group affiliation.

One: No one cares.
Two: The infallibility of the Pope is a new thing that was not even considered for like a thousand years after the bible was written. I would certainly say if anyone here is the heretic it is the Pope.
Three: Religion is not about God anymore, it is about the group anyway, bringing us back to point one.

You know, I'm suprised Toady hasn't been summoned on this for our derailing.

If you have a issue report it. Obviously no one else has had a issue though.

[RedWarrior0]

One: No one cares.
Two: The infallibility of the Pope is a new thing that was not even considered for like a thousand years after the bible was written. I would certainly say if anyone here is the heretic it is the Pope.
Three: Religion is not about God anymore, it is about the group anyway, bringing us back to point one.

Four: The infallibility of the Pope only applies in certain circumstances, using specific language. It does not mean the Pope is never wrong.

[G-Flex]

One: No one cares.

This is a pretty piss-poor response to... basically anything. And regardless of whether or not the catholics in question, their church, priest, etc. sure do! It's incredibly ironic that people would purport to subscribe to a religious organization despite subverting the entire basis of that religion, especially when that religion has an actual hierarchy with absolute rule at the top telling you exactly what's what.

Two: The infallibility of the Pope is a new thing that was not even considered for like a thousand years after the bible was written. I would certainly say if anyone here is the heretic it is the Pope.

This isn't really the point at all. Hell, I would probably agree with you on that, but that is so contrary to the position of the Catholic Church it's just silly to believe that while simultaneously identifying as Roman Catholic. If you're a Roman Catholic and you don't believe in papal infallibility or the validity of church dogma, then your own church thinks you're going to hell for it, no questions asked. Well, not many, at least.

It doesn't matter how new the concept of papal infallibility is; it's basically the crux (no pun intended) of the entire religion.

Three: Religion is not about God anymore, it is about the group anyway, bringing us back to point one.

It's been about both for a very, very, very long time.

Four: The infallibility of the Pope only applies in certain circumstances, using specific language. It does not mean the Pope is never wrong.

I'm aware of that, which is why I'm talking specifically about cases where it is an issue of stated Church dogma, not issues that are open to interpretation or debate within the Church.

[RedWarrior0]

Four: The infallibility of the Pope only applies in certain circumstances, using specific language. It does not mean the Pope is never wrong.

I'm aware of that, which is why I'm talking specifically about cases where it is an issue of stated Church dogma, not issues that are open to interpretation or debate within the Church.

'Twas more directed at Cript.

[Criptfeind]

Was it in agreement or disagreement? Does it even matter?

I mean. What. Do you want G-flex? The old style of strict roman Catholicism has been dying for 500 years. The idea of a central moral authority gets more obsolete every year. This is realized. The church is not dying, but rather changing. Your view of it is basically obsolete. Or will be soon enough. The fact is no one cares. It becomes more a idea than a set of rules, as I feel it should be. You can say that is not how Catholicism works. But it really is. The central church may not like it. The more conservative churches may not like it. For all I god damn know you may not like it. But, the Church is not made up, ultimately, of the minority. No matter how much power they hold, they can not stop the majority (or what is turning into the majority) from changing.

[Frumple]

Was it in agreement or disagreement? Does it even matter?

I mean. What. Do you want G-flex?

I think he just wants a new name for it. To make things clear that the group isn't what it once was and that when you say 'Roman Catholic' you're actually talking about 'this particular form of Roman Catholicism that's breaking away from centralized church authority (implied: And isn't really connected to historical RC on some major functional issues).'

That'd be my guess, anyway. Things are a lot less messy when folks do that.

[Criptfeind]

Alright. Fine. Call them just Catholic then. It both disassociate them from the Roman Catholics and fails to draw a difference between the 'lax' versions of various dominations.

That's what I do. And you might notice I said Catholic in my first post you objected too. Not Roman Catholic.

[G-Flex]

Was it in agreement or disagreement? Does it even matter?

I mean. What. Do you want G-flex? The old style of strict roman Catholicism has been dying for 500 years. The idea of a central moral authority gets more obsolete every year. This is realized.

I want people to be honest. If people view the Catholic Church and its foundation as old and rickety and outmoded, they should admit to that instead of saying they belong to it and support it while simultaneously holding views completely opposed to it. All I'm asking is that people be a little aware of what they're doing instead of becoming accidental hypocrites.

But, the Church is not made up, ultimately, of the minority. No matter how much power they hold, they can not stop the majority (or what is turning into the majority) from changing.

The Church is a hierarchical organization with absolute rule at the top. When you have that kind of power structure, the power does lie with the minority. The majority may indeed have power to split off from it and adopt a different sort of power structure, but that's not the same thing as pretending that you belong to an essentially totalitarian religious organization while also going against it in your actual beliefs. If people want to belong to a schismatic or heretical church that is split off from the papacy in some way that would cause the roman catholic church to declare them apostates, then that is totally their prerogative, but they should actually do it instead of thinking they're still somehow in service to the roman catholic church while actually doing things that would cause them to get excommunicated or committing mortal sin.


I'm not saying that things aren't changing, or that they shouldn't change. I'm saying that people need to be a little more aware of it, and more aware of how that change can or should be processed, and to understand how the catholic church actually works and how serious it is (from the church's perspective) to deviate from that.