Robots: The Future is Scary.

.

i'm in favore of two children per household and general population decrease over time, however the fact is that the planet could sustain

many more times it's current population if we completely transformed our lifestyles. there's no use even talking

about what that would entail though, especially on the internutz.

.

  On 3/11/2011 at 3:10 AM, troon said:

.

i'm in favore of two children per household and general population decrease over time, however the fact is that the planet could sustain

.

 

Yes transform our lifestyle you say, ie: i live in a tiny little hovel, and you reside in your mansion, paying lip-service to sustainability whilst we cover the natural world with mega cities.

 

edit: Anyway, you are in favour of doing the right thing, even if you're not on board with the rational behind it, so that's duly noted.

  On 3/11/2011 at 1:12 AM, chenGOD said:

Jesus you love putting words in a person's mouth don't you.

The population growth is the biggest problem.

The means by which we produce things and dispose of them are problematic, but they pale in significance to the population issue.

 

"Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."

 

I don't see why population growth is problematic per se. Because they fart ? IMO this is all about the consequences of such a growth, which just reveals how bad our way of producing goods (and disposing of them) are bad for our environment.

wao ...

I'm dead serious. I think it is possible to sustain both our population and lifestyle with new technologies and by changing our way of consuming. For example, we could stop eating Chilean tomatoes at the heart of winter.

 

Also, rooting(in the causal hierarchy) our current problems to the population growth is just fatalism. We should work on the sub-hierarchic causes which I have mentioned in my previous posts : intensive farming, globalization of the production chain, etc…

  On 3/11/2011 at 3:25 AM, Babar said:

 

 

I don't see why population growth is problematic per se. Because they fart ? IMO this is all about the consequences of such a growth, which just reveals how bad our way of producing goods (and disposing of them) are bad for our environment.

Because of the land that humans take up maybe? And building up causes extinctions as well as building out.

 

 

  On 3/11/2011 at 3:46 AM, Babar said:

I'm dead serious. I think it is possible to sustain both our population and lifestyle with new technologies and by changing our way of consuming. For example, we could stop eating Chilean tomatoes at the heart of winter.

 

Also, rooting(in the causal hierarchy) our current problems to the population growth is just fatalism. We should work on the sub-hierarchic causes which I have mentioned in my previous posts : intensive farming, globalization of the production chain, etc…

 

I know you love Baudelaire and his contradictions, but since our lifestyles currently consist of eating exotic foods, in or out of season, you're not sustaining anything.

 

Again, note - I'm not saying there aren't problems with our system - that's obvious. But ranting against globalization, which is a force that has been around for a long time, which enables you to buy your cheap laptops, ipods, cell phones, books, clothes, food etc etc is a waste of time. Unless you're really prepared to go back to living like your forefathers did in the 17th century (and I'm talking about the average french/english/korean peasant) then instead of whining about globalization, work to make it better. And more than 30 hours a week ;)

  On 3/11/2011 at 4:11 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 3/11/2011 at 3:25 AM, Babar said:

 

 

I don't see why population growth is problematic per se. Because they fart ? IMO this is all about the consequences of such a growth, which just reveals how bad our way of producing goods (and disposing of them) are bad for our environment.

Because of the land that humans take up maybe? And building up causes extinctions as well as building out.

Oceans' fish could disappear in 40 years: UN

'Only 50 years left' for sea fish

subaquatic cities, fuck yeah

 

 

  On 3/11/2011 at 4:11 AM, chenGOD said:

I know you love Baudelaire and his contradictions, but since our lifestyles currently consist of eating exotic foods, in or out of season, you're not sustaining anything.

I hate eating tomatoes in winter. I eat tomatoes (home-grown tomatoes, way better than "industrial" tomatoes) twice a day from june to october. And there are plenty of local vegetables that are exotic because abandoned by modern farming. Following the seasons rythm doesn't necessarily imply a bad lifestyle. Actually, lot of *** restaurants only propose in-season fruits and vegetable because they taste better.

 

  On 3/11/2011 at 4:11 AM, chenGOD said:

Unless you're really prepared to go back to living like your forefathers did in the 17th century.

 

i'm ready. That's probably better than leaving a wasteland to our grandchildren.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ5a2JH_BVE&start=20

babar isn't serious btw. I think he's just bored

if you're ready then get off the internet :)

 

What do you think would happen if all 7 billion people had local gardens? The reason we're able to sustain our population is through increases in farming productivity, made possible by.....globalization.

 

Don't conflate globalization with free market capitalism. The two are not synonyms.

 

and if delet is serious and you're just bored, well then that's some good trolling.

  On 3/11/2011 at 6:13 AM, chenGOD said:

if you're ready then get off the internet :)

 

What do you think would happen if all 7 billion people had local gardens? The reason we're able to sustain our population is through increases in farming productivity, made possible by.....globalization.

 

Don't conflate globalization with free market capitalism. The two are not synonyms.

 

and if delet is serious and you're just bored, well then that's some good trolling.

 

Oh delet...'s serious. Whether delet...'s right or not, is another matter. I mean the guy is infatuated with torch lights in the sky.

 

hrmm maybe i'm trolling now. /exit stage thread.

i have throat cancer.

woa (pt 2)

  On 3/11/2011 at 6:21 AM, delet... said:

  On 3/11/2011 at 6:13 AM, chenGOD said:

if you're ready then get off the internet :)

 

What do you think would happen if all 7 billion people had local gardens? The reason we're able to sustain our population is through increases in farming productivity, made possible by.....globalization.

 

Don't conflate globalization with free market capitalism. The two are not synonyms.

 

and if delet is serious and you're just bored, well then that's some good trolling.

 

Oh delet...'s serious. Whether delet...'s right or not, is another matter. I mean the guy is infatuated with torch lights in the sky.

 

hrmm maybe i'm trolling now. /exit stage thread.

 

people could have robotic kolkhoz (or totally private garden, if they're rich) and cultivate vegetables on the basis of natural agriculture.

  Quote

1 Four principles

1.1 No soil work

1.2 No chemical fertilizers, no ready-made compost

1.3 No weeding

1.4 No chemicals

 

his yield can indeed compare with that from the most productive Japanese farms. His method requires less work than any other. Neither does it need fossil fuel or generate any pollution whatsoever.

 

no pollution = more productive in the long run.

You might think "zen farming, of course…", but scientists at the INRA (maybe just a few hundred meters from my place) are working on adapting this guy's techniques to our climate.

 

and no, i'm not trolling (i mean not that much), nor especially bored, i enjoy a good argumentation from time to time. Now, if you feel bored, or insulted, you can stop answering my posts. But please stop using words such as 'cute' or 'the guy is infatuated', i feel devaluated.

 

delet:

yes i'm infatuated with the "alien sky torch" phenomenon, because i personally witnessed it. Yes i used to believe it was a phenomenon of ET origin. I was wrong. They are more likely caused by R-7 type launchers. And we should see more russian videos about this stuff just after march 30 (so maybe on april 1st, that won't be an april fool though).

when I say that "invention is a good thing" and you respond with "you're a supporter of free market capitalism which has led to the death of our planet" how in the fuck is that a good argument?

 

Again - please note: I have never, not once - ever said that the systems and processes of globalization are perfect, or don't need to be improved. I am saying that they have allowed humans to flourish and develop a fairly high standard of living in many parts of the world.

  On 3/11/2011 at 9:43 AM, Babar said:

natural agriculture

:sup:

  On 3/11/2011 at 6:21 AM, delet... said:

1 Four principles

1.1 No soil work

1.2 No chemical fertilizers, no ready-made compost

1.3 No weeding

1.4 No chemicals

 

his yield can indeed compare with that from the most productive Japanese farms. His method requires less work than any other. Neither does it need fossil fuel or generate any pollution whatsoever.

that's how all farming was done before the 1700s, and yield was low. life before the 1700s was really shitty. surely some link there?

Edited March 12, 2011 by ezkerraldean

  On 3/12/2011 at 12:35 AM, ezkerraldean said:

  On 3/11/2011 at 6:21 AM, delet... said:

1 Four principles

1.1 No soil work

1.2 No chemical fertilizers, no ready-made compost

1.3 No weeding

1.4 No chemicals

 

his yield can indeed compare with that from the most productive Japanese farms. His method requires less work than any other. Neither does it need fossil fuel or generate any pollution whatsoever.

that's how all farming was done before the 1700s, and yield was low. life before the 1700s was really shitty. surely some link there?

 

 

hah !! at making the quote seem to come from me.

 

not that i have a thing against no till farming. As it actually leads to greater productivity when you look after the soil biota.

  On 3/12/2011 at 12:45 AM, delet... said:

  On 3/12/2011 at 12:35 AM, ezkerraldean said:

  On 3/11/2011 at 6:21 AM, delet... said:

1 Four principles

1.1 No soil work

1.2 No chemical fertilizers, no ready-made compost

1.3 No weeding

1.4 No chemicals

 

his yield can indeed compare with that from the most productive Japanese farms. His method requires less work than any other. Neither does it need fossil fuel or generate any pollution whatsoever.

that's how all farming was done before the 1700s, and yield was low. life before the 1700s was really shitty. surely some link there?

 

 

hah !! at making the quote seem to come from me.

 

not that i have a thing against no till farming. As it actually leads to greater productivity when you look after the soil biota.

lol i thought it was by you sorry lol

 

i'm skeptical of claims that ultra-organic farming is superior. if it really is better then why were fertilisers ever invented?

  On 3/12/2011 at 12:47 AM, ezkerraldean said:

  On 3/12/2011 at 12:45 AM, delet... said:

  On 3/12/2011 at 12:35 AM, ezkerraldean said:

  On 3/11/2011 at 6:21 AM, delet... said:

1 Four principles

1.1 No soil work

1.2 No chemical fertilizers, no ready-made compost

1.3 No weeding

1.4 No chemicals

 

his yield can indeed compare with that from the most productive Japanese farms. His method requires less work than any other. Neither does it need fossil fuel or generate any pollution whatsoever.

that's how all farming was done before the 1700s, and yield was low. life before the 1700s was really shitty. surely some link there?

 

 

hah !! at making the quote seem to come from me.

 

not that i have a thing against no till farming. As it actually leads to greater productivity when you look after the soil biota.

lol i thought it was by you sorry lol

 

i'm skeptical of claims that ultra-organic farming is superior. if it really is better then why were fertilisers ever invented?

 

Fertilizers offset the poor health of the soil which tilling has dried up, killed all the flora/fauna, which then loosens up and lets the top soil blow/wash away. Sure fertilizers are fine, they increased productivity. But at the same time they went a long way to hide the negative aspects of modern farming method. This rethink of farming technique is especially important in marginal areas like vast swathes of australia's farmland.

  On 3/12/2011 at 12:35 AM, ezkerraldean said:

life before the 1700s was really shitty

 

 

 

  On 3/12/2011 at 12:47 AM, ezkerraldean said:

i'm skeptical of claims that ultra-organic farming is superior. if it really is better then why were fertilizers ever invented?

organic food is superior in nutrients when you eat it. fertilizer was invented to save time but just like so many things that are convenient in our lives

the somewhat hidden negative effects are not so convenient. the daily processes that we take part in to survive together as smaller communities are

essential to our health-the daily activities of growing or gathering food together for example. another example is walking versus taking a car. it

seems like an advantage to have a car but the effect is that we don't intermingle as much along the way, we just speed past each other. we don't

get exercise or have the same adventures together as we would on foot, not to mention the environmental effects.

 

 

also, when you eat the food stuffs your eating the chemical fertilizer and that's no good

.

.

Edited March 12, 2011 by troon

  On 3/12/2011 at 2:24 AM, troon said:

  On 3/12/2011 at 12:35 AM, ezkerraldean said:

life before the 1700s was really shitty

 

 

 

lol you're such an incredible bundle of joy troon.

 

eskerraldean - I'd go even further - life before WW1 was really shitty.

 

Oh and the bit about organic food having more nutrient value:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080807082954.htm

  On 3/12/2011 at 2:24 AM, troon said:

  On 3/12/2011 at 12:35 AM, ezkerraldean said:

life before the 1700s was really shitty

fancy living like a 1500s chinese peasant? you'd have six kids and three would die before their first birthday. the fourth would probably get killed by someone or sent off in the army and you'd never hear from them again. the fifth would die from malnutrition in a famine and then the sixth would live to watch you die slowly and agonisingly from something that could be cured today with great ease.

 

improved food supply is surely one of the primary ways in which humanity lifted itself out of such a miserable existence

  On 3/12/2011 at 7:14 AM, chenGOD said:

 

Oh and the bit about organic food having more nutrient value:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080807082954.htm

 

yep, there's no reason for organic food to be healthier at all. and it isn't. it's all public retardedness. i detest the whole public equatedness of "natural" with "healthy", it's total gobshite.

Edited March 12, 2011 by ezkerraldean

holier-than-thou single-emoticon-only posts

 

YOU'RE WINNING

 

 

lol

the funny thing is we are talking with a manufactured personality. troon is a creation of a strange mind.