Which leads me to say there is no blimy "good" reason to be "good" because in these millennia, "good" always seems to mean "more humans", so what several herein consider "good", I consider genocidal. Is genocidal "wrong", well I guess not, not inherently, it's all relative right? Since for so many people, it's ok to genocide our ecosystem, just not religious and/or ethic humans...
Less Homo sapiens would be beneficial to the our (not N.Americans, but the big us, the planetary us) quality of life, this means that we must work against all these H.sapiens who are obsessed with purposes such as creating "little thems", and purpose such as spreading H.sapiens everywhere... why... cuz we can? Where is the rationality in that. "cuz we can" is not an argument to move forward in a detrimental direction.
"Cuz we can" has no rational basis in good. Sure we can pollute the air, contaminate our water, increase human population, build bigger, faster cars, longer smoother highways, and we can feed our humans and agriculture with GMO. What is the probability we will create our own demise by doing so? Growth can be beneficial and it can be deadly cancer. At this point, all the factors I cite become deadly.
"Why be good?" Well, it depends on what one calls good. We live on such an incredibly beautiful planet that provides all we need in water, air, soil and energy, until and unless we think growth is good. If we look at the bottom line for profit and growth, we tend to neglect such things as beautiful, healthy, productive and sustainable life as we wish it to be. Even as these life-supporting gifts exist without any effort on our part, they remain life-sustaining as long as we manage them correctly. I want my great-grandchildren to inherit after me a planet of abundance, not of shortages. Oh, if I could leave behind a planet inhabited by peace, fairness and justice, I would be so happy.
Yes, we are in a phase, one that could put an end to life. It is possible to think of better options, to recognize what harm we do, to decide change must occur, to set ego and greed aside and think in terms of that which is good for the whole.
So Trooo! TNT! LOL!
Malthus doesn't take into account such things as pollution, global warming, super bugs, extinction of flora and fauna that is valuable to various ecosystems, loss of the ozone layers as well as other barriers to solar radiation, etc...
Aye M8! :-D-
Dear me this is useless, Tom you are completely ignoring scientific facts and spouting hot hair, you're sounding more and more like one of those Republican climate change deniers, a little vaginal ultrasound with that? In your "seeking the truth", you might try spending less time analysing bible quotes and more time in the sciences.
Excellent liberal empty-headed snarky dismissal! I especially like the sexist "vaginal ultrasound" bit. I have ignored no scientific “facts”, but do challenge scientific “speculation” – a distinction which seems lost on you. I don't deny climate change - I question its extent and stand in stark opposition to your “other species before humans” mentality.
However, we do agree on one thing, this is useless. I will withdrawal from this forum as it clearly has less to do with Atheism and more to do with promoting a crazy liberal agenda that recoils at being challenged. Fare thee well.
Hey Tom - the thread is supposed to be about the topic of Atheism - not sure how it started to get into climate change. I will read back and see what happened.
Super bugs are definitely a result of overpopulation.
Despite stabilizing conditions, facts remain that we are past peak oil production, water shortages remain a problem, as well as loss of animal and plant habitat due to deforestation -- and this is true even if the population peaks out at 10 billion according to UN "medium" estimates. Pollution declines as government regulations improve. Super bugs (viruses) are a function of threshold host density. Global warming is not simply a small rise in temperature, but major ecological changes that may cause drought or flooding depending on the area. The largest factors for population growth decline are either linked to economic decline or HIV.
I'm not going to be an overpopulation alarmist, but if you think we could just solve all this through production as described in free market Capitalist theory, you've been eating Soylent Green for far too long.
as a corrupt sob w/faith as cover for drug dealing and general bad shit...
is there a moral and ethical reason to your.. standards? (directed towards the vatican hacks...)
Thanks for the link Jim - will check it out.