Why do people in USA fear socialism so much?

[RandyFolds]

Goddamn, you're retarded.

Corn is your solution? Do you have any idea what monoculture does to the environment? Learn something about agriculture and ecology and then come back and have a real conversation. Look into some material science as well...bioplastics are not a replacement for petro-plastics. There is not enough water and space on this whole goddamn planet to grow enough corn to synthesize a month's worth of plastic. How do you plan on powering that extremely energy intensive process?

Wood - not a substitute for rigid or rubberized plastic. How many wooden plumbing systems have you seen?
Glass - also not a substitute for plastic. Again...material science, son. You can make windows and bongs and kitchenware with glass...that's about it.

You seem to have very little understanding of the industrialized world. Perhaps you are in an internet cafe in Ethiopia, but I doubt it. Being a 14-year-old who has it all figured out is a much more likely culprit.

a notice before you start saying any bs about this post i am about to make, I DO NOT CONDONE KILLING PEOPLE TO LOWER THE POPULATION

throughout history, we have been able to keep a very healthy number of people, below 1 billion in the entire world, with the advent of steam(coal, wood other nonrenewable) and oil, the population has grown over 6 fold.

now tell me, how do we possibly maintain a population that has grown to such a size, when we know for a fact that we are unable to maintain this growth. obviously the alternatives will require LARGE amounts of land to use, versus oil where you suck it up and use it. and ill say it again, not everything has a viable alternative, so ill say it again, you will just have to live with more expensive synthetics. this is something you can not and will not be able to avoid as the world worships oil, whether you like it or not. 10 calories of carbon based energy in the production of every 1 calorie you eat. mostly due to moving it around. id also be willing to bet that figure is inflated, but it still goes to show, it probably does have some truth.

So, you failed to address that your 'alternatives' are a delusion, and also failed to address the fact that there is no way to produce those 'more expensive synthetics' while also producing food to sustain us.

[1714023855]

1714023855

[1714023855]

1714023855

[CanaryInTheMine]

PS The sooner oil is depleted the better. We could finally take on new energy sources with full force.

i would love nothing more, id have like a brain orgy in an instant the second i realized that came to fruition.

let's see if our wishes come true by the end of the month:

http://freeenergytruth.blogspot.com/

in a few weeks we'll find out if this is a hoax or not.

[ctoon6]

Goddamn, you're retarded.

Corn is your solution? Do you have any idea what monoculture does to the environment? Learn something about agriculture and ecology and then come back and have a real conversation. Look into some material science as well...bioplastics are not a replacement for petro-plastics. There is not enough water and space on this whole goddamn planet to grow enough corn to synthesize a month's worth of plastic. How do you plan on powering that extremely energy intensive process?

Wood - not a substitute for rigid or rubberized plastic. How many wooden plumbing systems have you seen?
Glass - also not a substitute for plastic. Again...material science, son. You can make windows and bongs and kitchenware with glass...that's about it.

You seem to have very little understanding of the industrialized world. Perhaps you are in an internet cafe in Ethiopia, but I doubt it. Being a 14-year-old who has it all figured out is a much more likely culprit.

a notice before you start saying any bs about this post i am about to make, I DO NOT CONDONE KILLING PEOPLE TO LOWER THE POPULATION

throughout history, we have been able to keep a very healthy number of people, below 1 billion in the entire world, with the advent of steam(coal, wood other nonrenewable) and oil, the population has grown over 6 fold.

now tell me, how do we possibly maintain a population that has grown to such a size, when we know for a fact that we are unable to maintain this growth. obviously the alternatives will require LARGE amounts of land to use, versus oil where you suck it up and use it. and ill say it again, not everything has a viable alternative, so ill say it again, you will just have to live with more expensive synthetics. this is something you can not and will not be able to avoid as the world worships oil, whether you like it or not. 10 calories of carbon based energy in the production of every 1 calorie you eat. mostly due to moving it around. id also be willing to bet that figure is inflated, but it still goes to show, it probably does have some truth.

So, you failed to address that your 'alternatives' are a delusion, and also failed to address the fact that there is no way to produce those 'more expensive synthetics' while also producing food to sustain us.

yes i did, it all has to do with population, less population, less goods needed, less land needed.

[RandyFolds]

Goddamn, you're retarded.

Corn is your solution? Do you have any idea what monoculture does to the environment? Learn something about agriculture and ecology and then come back and have a real conversation. Look into some material science as well...bioplastics are not a replacement for petro-plastics. There is not enough water and space on this whole goddamn planet to grow enough corn to synthesize a month's worth of plastic. How do you plan on powering that extremely energy intensive process?

Wood - not a substitute for rigid or rubberized plastic. How many wooden plumbing systems have you seen?
Glass - also not a substitute for plastic. Again...material science, son. You can make windows and bongs and kitchenware with glass...that's about it.

You seem to have very little understanding of the industrialized world. Perhaps you are in an internet cafe in Ethiopia, but I doubt it. Being a 14-year-old who has it all figured out is a much more likely culprit.

a notice before you start saying any bs about this post i am about to make, I DO NOT CONDONE KILLING PEOPLE TO LOWER THE POPULATION

throughout history, we have been able to keep a very healthy number of people, below 1 billion in the entire world, with the advent of steam(coal, wood other nonrenewable) and oil, the population has grown over 6 fold.

now tell me, how do we possibly maintain a population that has grown to such a size, when we know for a fact that we are unable to maintain this growth. obviously the alternatives will require LARGE amounts of land to use, versus oil where you suck it up and use it. and ill say it again, not everything has a viable alternative, so ill say it again, you will just have to live with more expensive synthetics. this is something you can not and will not be able to avoid as the world worships oil, whether you like it or not. 10 calories of carbon based energy in the production of every 1 calorie you eat. mostly due to moving it around. id also be willing to bet that figure is inflated, but it still goes to show, it probably does have some truth.

So, you failed to address that your 'alternatives' are a delusion, and also failed to address the fact that there is no way to produce those 'more expensive synthetics' while also producing food to sustain us.

yes i did, it all has to do with population, less population, less goods needed, less land needed.

So, your solution is to not have experienced the last 200 years. That seems...unrealistic?

[RandyFolds]

Also, side note, there is a SHITLOAD of arable land that is not being actively farmed. We aren't anywhere near a global food shortage, there are merely logistical and bureaucratic hindrances.

[FirstAscent]

Also, side note, there is a SHITLOAD of arable land that is not being actively farmed. We aren't anywhere near a global food shortage, there are merely logistical and bureaucratic hindrances.

There is not a shitload of arable land out there. The logistics are real (transportation, irrigation, soil sustainability, ecosystem damage, etc.). The bureaucratic hindrances are not enough. More effort should be put forth in further hindering any development or change to existing wild lands.

On the other hand, if you're talking about conversion of parking lots to agricultural use, by all means...

[RandyFolds]

Also, side note, there is a SHITLOAD of arable land that is not being actively farmed. We aren't anywhere near a global food shortage, there are merely logistical and bureaucratic hindrances.

There is not a shitload of arable land out there. The logistics are real (transportation, irrigation, soil sustainability, ecosystem damage, etc.). The bureaucratic hindrances are not enough. More effort should be put forth in further hindering any development or change to existing wild lands.

On the other hand, if you're talking about conversion of parking lots to agricultural use, by all means...

We were arguing the same point a couple posts ago...I am not sure what happened. I was just saying that food is not going to be the breaking factor, at least not in the near future.

The government is paying people to turn their crops...so no one actually knows what the capacity of already developed farmland is in the US, for example. Beyond that, there is plenty of arable land that is not farmed, even where there is no shortage of water. Ever been to the midwest? There is no shortage of water and there is plenty of access to transcontinental train shipping.

Going even further, is your garden planted? A well planted acre can damn near feed a family.

[FirstAscent]

We were arguing the same point a couple posts ago...I am not sure what happened. I was just saying that food is not going to be the breaking factor, at least not in the near future.

All my posts have been consistently in favor of reducing mankind's footprint on undisturbed land.

Ever been to the midwest? There is no shortage of water and there is plenty of access to transcontinental train shipping.

Again, land which has not yet been converted to agricultural use, or any other use, will ultimately prove to be the most valuable if left undisturbed. This goes for all over the world. Granted, the midwest doesn't have the charisma of the Rockies or the Sierra Nevada, but don't forget it was where the buffalo roamed. 'Tis a shame that is now lost.

[FirstAscent]

Going even further, is your garden planted? A well planted acre can damn near feed a family.

Perhaps, depending on how you look at it. Current data shows that due to consumption in the U.S., the ecological footprint of each person is approximately 24 acres, on average. This of course includes other things in addition to food. The earth's carrying capacity is currently calculated to be 4.5 acres per person.

Unfortunately, China's one billion plus upwardly mobile citizens are all moving in the direction of the U.S. in terms of consumption. And then there's India, not far behind.

[ctoon6]

i believe this image is useful, because it shows that the human population simply is not able to be this high, naturally anyway. i think oil and other carbon based energy caused the spike, and i think the downfall of the population will be the result of oil/other running out.

[RandyFolds]

i believe this image is useful, because it shows that the human population simply is not able to be this high, naturally anyway. i think oil and other carbon based energy caused the spike, and i think the downfall of the population will be the result of oil/other running out.

Are you retarded...again?

It is not able to be this high naturally? Did it get here unnaturally? Cause it is where it is, and humans weren't synthesized. Once again, read up on ecology.

Modern medicine is what allowed it to get this high, not petroleum products.

[NghtRppr]

It is not able to be this high naturally? Did it get here unnaturally?

It's the old myth that nature is whatever man doesn't do. It's as old as Aristotle. Spiders weave webs. Terminates build mounds. Humans use tools. It's all natural.

[RandyFolds]

It is not able to be this high naturally? Did it get here unnaturally?

It's the old myth that nature is whatever man doesn't do. It's as old as Aristotle. Spiders weave webs. Terminates build mounds. Humans use tools. It's all natural.

If only ctoon6 would figure this one out...

He is claiming that our current population is unsustainable. It seems to be working pretty decent thus far, as the population is still growing while life expectancy is up and infant mortality is down, worldwide. A population with a long lifespan can only rise above carrying capacity for a generation. I don't believe we are there. We are still turning crops for subsidies...sure some people are starving here and there, but again, logistical/social problem vs. capacity problem.

[FirstAscent]

It is not able to be this high naturally? Did it get here unnaturally?

It's the old myth that nature is whatever man doesn't do. It's as old as Aristotle. Spiders weave webs. Terminates build mounds. Humans use tools. It's all natural.

You are so right! And by that logic, governments and regulation are natural too. Man is another animal who reacts to his environment, engages in debate, and makes decisions to affect the world, either positively, or negatively. Your methods are negative. Other methods can be more positive.

But positive or negative, it's all natural.

[ineededausername]

How did a thread about socialism become a thread about the environment!?
I am very confused.

[NghtRppr]

How did a thread about socialism become a thread about the environment!?
I am very confused.

The same way a thread about intellectual property became a thread about the environment. The statists run out of straws very quickly.

[FirstAscent]

How did a thread about socialism become a thread about the environment!?
I am very confused.

Because one day you'll realize that politics in the absence of the real physical world is like debating philosophy.

[Icoin]

How did a thread about socialism become a thread about the environment!?
I am very confused.

Well Socialism is an murderous system, all socialistic movements did murder the intelectual class first as they came to power. Its a principle that Lenin did discribe in his teachings.

i suggest you educate yourself a bit about history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uwggPP17IE

[FirstAscent]

I responded to a post of yours, and it wasn't about shampoo. Just giving you a heads up...

I know. I want to give it the effort it deserves.

Give up?

[JA37]

How did a thread about socialism become a thread about the environment!?
I am very confused.

Well Socialism is an murderous system, all socialistic movements did murder the intelectual class first as they came to power. Its a principle that Lenin did discribe in his teachings.

i suggest you educate yourself a bit about history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uwggPP17IE

Really? All the social-democrats in Europe have secret death-camps where they kill off the intellectual class as soon as they come to power? Good to know, I might have to watch out.

Or is it perhaps that certain authoritarian governments, regardless of ideology, have a tendency to kill off opponents?