We have previous written three lists on this topic and it is always a very popular one. This time we look at facts that are very commonly held but completely wrong. Feel free to add your own to the comments for others to read. If you want to read over the previous lists, here they are:
Top 10 Fascinating Facts That Are Wrong
10 More Fascinating Facts That Are Wrong
Another 10 Fascinating Facts That Are Wrong
The error: We have five body senses – sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste.
These are the traditional five senses, but there are in fact many more – some say up to 21. Obvious additions to the list are balance, pain, and temperature. Furthermore, we have internal senses which traditionally number four: imagination, memory, common sense (not to be confused with commonsense which many people lack!), and the estimative power. Wikipedia has a very interesting article which covers the large number of senses seldom mentioned. You can read that here.
The error: A rainbow has seven colors
We are, no doubt, all familiar with the old phrase “Roy G. Biv” used to remember the colors of the rainbow: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet. This series of colors was coined by Newton who initially excluded indigo and violet. While a rainbow does appear to have seven colors, it is, in fact, one continuous spectrum of color and it is merely an artifact of human color perception that makes it appear to be a series of bands. There are also things called supernumerary rainbows which have more than 7 bands visible to the human eye (pictured above – note the extra green and purple bands at the bottom of the rainbow).
The error: Drinking alcohol warms you up
This is entirely untrue – yet it is still commonly seen as an antidote to coldness in movies, and people still believe the myth about the St Bernard dogs with casks of liquor around their necks! In fact, when you drink alcohol, your body temperature drops! This is because alcohol allows more blood to reach the surface of the body, and more heat is radiated or conducted away. Any feeling of warmth experienced after drinking alcohol is explained by the fact that this flow of blood to the surface warms the skin and the ends of the sensory nerves in the skin, and these convey to the brain a sensation of warmth. The fact that alcohol actually lowers the temperature of the body was first announced by Sir B. Ward Richardson in 1866 to the British Association. [Source]
The error: Small earthquakes can reduce the chance of a big one
There is a common myth (particularly in New Zealand where earthquakes are common) that if you have a lot of small earthquakes, it helps to alleviate the pressures building up that can cause a big one. But this is not true. Seismologists have observed that for every magnitude 6 earthquake there are 10 of magnitude 5, 100 of magnitude 4, 1,000 of magnitude 3, and so forth as the events get smaller and smaller. This sounds like a lot of small earthquakes, but there are never enough small ones to eliminate the occasional large event. It would take 32 magnitude 5’s, 1000 magnitude 4’s, 32,000 magnitude 3’s to equal the energy of one magnitude 6 event. So, even though we always record many more small events than large ones, there are never enough to eliminate the need for the occasional large earthquake. [Source]
The error: You must wait 30 minutes after eating before swimming
While there is a theoretical concern based on the fact that the body diverts the circulation of blood to the gut and away from the muscles that this might possibly cause a cramp, no one has ever drowned because they went swimming with a full tummy. Going swimming after eating a big meal might make you uncomfortable, but it won’t cause you to drown. And even if you did get a cramp, in most cases you could easily exit the water before any real damage is done.
The error: The earth is dangerously overpopulated or is getting close to being so
This is a myth which has been around for quite some time – from the Anglican minister Malthus in the 18th century who said: “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man” to environmentalists who see humans as evil in comparison to the rest of nature. But, in truth, the world is a big place with plenty of space. So, how much land does it take to hold 6 billion people? To give you an idea, consider the small nation of Japan. It has about 143,000 square miles of area. One square mile has 5280 * 5280 = 27.9 million square feet. Japan has a total of about 4 trillion square feet, enough to give each person of the earth 670 square feet. If we housed people in families of four in simple two-level buildings (8 people per building, one family of four per level), each building could be on a lot of over 5300 square feet. If we used the American average of 8,000 square feet to four people, the entire population of the planet would fit into a space as big as Texas and Nevada combined – leaving the rest of the land for food production and entertainment venues. I should also mention that many countries in the west are now in a period of population implosion as families are getting smaller.
The error: Using a cellphone on a plane can cause interference and, consequently, a crash.
The FAA has tested all sorts of electronic devices for 25 years, at 100 times the RF interference levels—and nothing happened. The FAA simply states that no link between operating the devices has been proved. It’s been left up to the airlines to determine their own policy—and that policy is to put away your Blackberry. By using your cellphone during flight, you risk interfering with a flight crew—but the plane won’t crash. Consequently, some airlines are now allowing the use of cellphones during flights. [Source]
The error: When you get older, you become bad tempered
A recent study found that our personalities don’t change much after age 30. So, if you’re cheerful and gregarious in your 40s, you can expect to be the same in your 80s. Marked personality changes some seniors experience are due not to normal aging but to some related disease like dementia or stroke. This is something worth considering when you are planning to marry in your thirties – your future spouse probably behaves now the same way he or she will for the rest of his or her life. [Source]
The error: Sushi is raw fish
Sushi does not mean raw fish, and not all sushi includes raw fish. The usual Japanese term for raw fish is sashimi. The term sushi actually refers to the way the rice is prepared with a vinegary dressing. Toppings for the rice may traditionally include raw fish—but also cooked seafood, fish roe, egg, or vegetables such as cucumber, daikon radish, or ume plum. The dish constituting sushi and other fillings wrapped in a seaweed is referred to as makizushi, not sushi.
The error: In the United States, a policeman must answer truthfully when asked if he is a cop
Entrapment law in the United States does not forbid police officers from denying that they are police. It is more concerned with enticing people to commit crimes they would not, in the normal course of events, have considered. This is an error that is frequently seen in movies – or perhaps it is just that films are realistically depicting people who believe the myth – though I doubt it.
























November 23rd, 2009 at 1:36 am
Good thing to know about the cop, I always wondered if true
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:38 am
good list
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:40 am
i always thought sushi’s raw.
why aren’t cellphones allowed in flights anyways.
am i first?
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:41 am
guess not
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:43 am
Oh and what about the treasure that lies at the end of the rainbow?
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:44 am
I disagree with number 5, although its possible for large populations to live harmoniously, our effect on the world, with the population increase could very well, with the advent of unsafe global practices end in our demise.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:54 am
number 7 gave me a small headache
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:06 am
My grandma always warn me to don’t do any running after eating or you’ll get appendicitis.
Nice list!!
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:06 am
Great photos, even a couple of hotties!
“Roy G. Biv” was taught to me by an Augustinian monk. It would be a good phony name to use on the internet!
Please tell me that what you allege about St Bernard dogs is wrong. I need to hold onto that myth!
Darwin read Malthus and asked himself who would survive.
So the 20-year-olds with the perfect bodies are gonna change?
Every 20-ish hottie in Chicago loves sushi and the ones I know drag me to Sushi Wabi! Is that how they stay slender?
It is well-known in prostitution circles that cops will lie about being a cop.
I love the myth-buster series!
Well done, Jamie!
Mike
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:09 am
No 1 – the myth comes out of how any evidence arising out of an undercover cop situation may be used in court. Under many legal systems world wide, an individuals confession may be expelled from evidence if the individual would have not confessed or said something completely different. This is why cops use non-cops to get confessions to avoid these problems.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:14 am
people who believe the cop one are idiots, if that were to be true think of how many dead undercover officers there would be, those that believe that are also the ones that believe speed traps and radar guns are entrapment as well, sorry no one made you speed
another myth should is saying you are number one or close to the top makes you special, sorry only your school teachers and the sign on your classroom door say you are special
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:15 am
Ok few. I thought you were going to say that cops are good people. If someone were to say that, then next they’d be saying how great the insurance companies are.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:24 am
eloquently and interestingly explained. kudos!!!!
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:39 am
my friends and I were just talking about #1. thank you Jamie for proving that I was right!
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:01 am
Excellent list! This is more like it. This more than makes up for the below par lists the last couple of days.
Keep it up!
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:01 am
I have a doubt about number 9. Is the spectrum continuous or is it discrete cuz i thought that only certain frequencies are permited but not all of them
@jfrater when will you post those submarine stories
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:01 am
I’m pretty sure the traditional internal senses you mention (memory, imagination etc.) aren’t actually senses i.e responses to stimuli. They certainly aren’t mentioned in the Wikipedia article you refer us to.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:10 am
Here I was hoping my husband was going to mature. There goes that fantasy lol
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:13 am
Thank you.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:14 am
nice!!!
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:35 am
Earth is overpopulated – at least if we’d want all the humans to have the same life quality as westerners, Earth could not bare it. There are not much habitable land and compared to that we’re in deep shit. Westerner families are getting smaller, but in under developed countries the rate of people being born is not decreasing. Human population is increasing.
In many areas we have exceeded the environment’s ability to sustain ourselves.
The room there is to hold people has nothing to do with overpopulation. There are large uninhabitet areas and some areas could arguably fit more. That there is room is irrelevant to overpopulation.
Overpopulations means exactly that ; are the resources enough to sustain our lifestyle. (And at this rate, no they aren’t.)
So #5 sadly is not a myth.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:36 am
Oh great, another one of them great american debates…. Re grumpy old men, age might not have anything to do with the grumpiness, but it has a lot to do with the treatment that is meted out to them when they become a ‘burden’ on us. Child is the father of man,isn’t it? …Or has it become the other way round?
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:37 am
Otherwise a good list. Hadn’t heard of all these myths either.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:38 am
the earth IS dangerously overpopulated.
you talk about space, but that really isnt the issue. the issue lies in the fact that there are not enough resources for those people. even if you can pack everyone into japan, that doesnt mean every one will be fed, cared for, etc.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:50 am
i was surprised at #8 – it always seems to work to keep me warm on a cold manchester night. what about mulled (sp?) wine, surely that would warm you up?
also, i love thomas malthus, he’s so miserable and pessimistic. his idea of “positive” population checks are stuff like war, famine and disease
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:52 am
The population issue is to do with resources rather than space.
Having X amount of square feet per person is meaningless when that X amount of square feet doesn’t contain the necessary resources to support that person’s consumption. The amount of land on earth which can be utilised for the production of food, for example, is a tiny percentage of the earth’s total land area due to the simple fact that most of the surface of earth is unsuitable for growing crops or farming animals. Mountains, deserts, infertile soils and climatically unsuitable areas account for most of this.
Another less well appreciated issue is the total energy available to humans, which is provided entirely by the sun (neglecting nuclear and geothermal processes). Given that the earth has a finite surface area available for the fixation of this energy, a situation occurs in which the total energy consumption exceeds that which is available in a sustainable way. Humans have gone past this point, and we have gotten away with it so far because we have ‘amplified’ the total energy available to us by burning fossil fuels, which are basically a stored form of energy from the sun. When these run out, which they will, humans will find themselves in a situation where their total energy requirements exceed the energy available to them. With a global population of almost 7 billion, this WILL happen; and that’s why the generally accepted sustainable population on earth is around 2 billion, if we are all living a confortable western lifestyle.
In short, there IS a population problem. A big one. This planet CANNOT sustainably support 7 billion people; over 1 billion are already starving.
Side note: Only 0.014% of water on the earth is actually available for drinking. It’s not hard to appreciate the worrying implications of that.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:08 am
The five senses are ways our body inputs information. Imagination and common sense and so on are NOT. They are thought processes using information gathered by our other senses not senses themselves. Pain and temperature are part of our sense of touch. It is all info being sent up our nerves to our brain.
I also have to argue against the population one. Sure if everyone in the world was crammed into japan there might be a little room to move around in, but not enough to grow food, and sanitation would be a problem. Also, A large chunk of the world`s land is not suitable for human habitation, ie. Desert, mountain, swampland, etc…the real problem with population growth is that it creates conflict. If a group needs resources and someone else has them there will be a fight over them eventually.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:10 am
Re #3: Speaking as an increasingly cantankerous 40-year-old, you are more likely to express your negative opinions because you care less and less about upsetting people as you get older.
But really, what is it with the music the kids listen to these days? And why don’t they pull their trousers up properly?
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:12 am
@Emmett Brown (26): I take it you are an mba student,right?
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:24 am
The Mountain Bothies Association?!
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:28 am
#4 was featured in one episode of Mythbusters. They concluded that there was reason for airlines to ban cellphones aboard planes because cellphones operate in a wide range of frequencies whose potential effects on the plane’s electronics haven’t yet been comprehensively studied by the authorities. This means that we do not yet know if cellphones are indeed harmless to planes or that we are not yet aware of which cellphones frequencies interfere with that of the planes; the airlines simply aren’t willing to take the chance.
My take on overpopulation: I agree with what others have already mentioned about the problem having more to do with resources rather than space. Additionally, if we project the global rate of population growth into the future but maintain our current techniques of gathering, harnessing and distribution of energy and natural resources, then obviously we have a big problem. I think the key here is keeping the rate of population growth at par with research & development of more efficient and sustainable methods of getting energy and making use of our natural resources like aeroponics, in-vitro meat, solar power, thermonuclear fusion and recycling.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:29 am
@Butterfish (28): Exactly how I feel about bellbottoms and tight shirts with extra large collars.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:31 am
I have long thought that the colour “indigo” in the rainbow was pretty redundant. I figured that “purple” could pretty much cover the ground currently covered by “indigo” and “violet”. It would also make the rainbow correlate with the colour wheel: red+blue=purple; blue+yellow=green; yellow+red=orange.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:34 am
I was also surprised at # 8, I thought they gave sailors rum in the good old days when it was very cold out at sea.
Mayby it was just the warm sensation of the neat rum going down. Great list Jamie thonks.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:39 am
@astraya (33) – this is probably just another myth, but i heard someone included indigo as well as violet because they were superstitious and wanted there to be 7 colours in the rainbow, and for some reason its stuck.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:53 am
I’m a bit concerned with the senses and the population one. The five senses are supposed to be physical ones while imagination can’t really be considered a sense. As one commentor (Rob, I believe) said above, things like memory are given to us through the initial five senses, and temperature and such are touch as well, although in a different manner. The population one doesn’t really make sense, how can 7 billion people all fit in an area the size of two states?
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:11 am
Glad to see the reactions on #5, I was really worried when I read this “myth” because it is harsh reality!
In fact we exceeded our sustainability in the middle ages. This issue goes further than living space and food resources. Soil and resources (if possible!) need time to replenish, this means that this “space” can not be used and has to be left alone. That’s why the European Union has issued the fishing quota to allow these fish to gain population and escape extinction.
Another fact on these fish; because only the big ones get caught and the smaller ones (of the same species) escape through the net (don’t know the exact word here…), the species itself is getting smaller, and that’s just evolution… Survival of the fittest, smartest or just survival of the one with the best odds of surviving! In other words, just genetics.
Anyhow; earth might be a big place, but it’s getting seriously crowded. Possibly not where you live, but take a look in India, Brazil, South Africa, … just to name a few. Not exactly my idea of a nice place to come home to. Can you imagine all these people having the same living standards as we (in the Western world) do? … Check out the ecological footprint, it may surprise you…
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:24 am
“The error: Sushi is raw fish
Sushi does not mean raw fish, and not all sushi includes raw fish. The usual Japanese term for raw fish is sashimi. The term sushi actually refers to the way the rice is prepared with a vinegary dressing. Toppings for the rice may traditionally include raw fish—but also cooked seafood, fish roe, egg, or vegetables such as cucumber, daikon radish, or ume plum. The dish constituting sushi and other fillings wrapped in a seaweed is referred to as makizushi, not sushi.”
Yes, thank you!
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:27 am
I disagree with no. 5. True, we would be able to squeeze ourselves onto a few countries, but not all the land on earth can sustain life.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:40 am
“We are, no doubt, all familiar with the old phrase “Roy G. Biv” used to remember the colors of the rainbow: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet.”
I’ve never heard of that in my life….
I’m just good at remembering colours haha
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:04 am
Cool list, JFrater!
I knew of all but one of these and that was the 5 senses. That was kind of neat to know. I have been studing up on Japan with my kid and I alread knew about the sushi myth but friends still tell her that it’s sushi and not sashmi.
Also, if older folks who were already grumpy during their lives then have a stroke or get dementia, then will it worsen their already grumpiness?
Got parents with both and the answer is yes. Yay for me.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:10 am
#5 IS mythical with the present way we operate. We could feasibly put everyone in Australia. We could use the remaining land for cattle, crops, etc. Energy could be nuclear, tidal, wind and solar. There’s plenty of fresh water in the form of ice and snow as well as springs. Water sustains other forms of life for food.
We could feasibly clone animals and plants for food.
Of course this would require something resembling global socialism or that preposterous Zeitgeist movement, which I oppose vehemently.
The question is whether all these techniques would/could upset the balance of nature and whether it’s a smart idea to concentrate the entirety of Earth’s population into one specific area, increasing the likelihood of extinction. And of course farmers, cultivators, pickers, ranchers, bottlers, etc would have to live close to the food sources for cultivation, slaughter and butchery.
No, none of this is really feasible, but it also is ridiculous to think that this planet cannot sustain itself or the lifeforms which reside upon it.
And I always thought that one would feel warmer in the cold by reducing their body temperature.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:11 am
this list rocked my world.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:16 am
i have previously forgotten to turn my phone off during a flight from London to Moscow and it recieved a call (voicemail – so a missed call) when we started to decend and the plane didn’t rattle. so i think Nokia N95’s are ok for British Airways 747’s (i think).
eitherway, if it was a choice of ‘possibly’ crashing and not recieving a phonecall for a few hours i know which i’d choose.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:18 am
Agree with number 5……the population alarmists sound like a page from Erhlich’s diatribe.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:18 am
we COULD put everyone together, but think of the magnitudinal effort we would need to make a sewer system for 6 billion people, whatever goes in must come out…..
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:24 am
Those concerned with overpopulation, our governments have been practicing population control for a while, wars, giving babies shots, flouride in the water, sterilization agents in water, aids, cancer, SWINE FLU SHOTS, the first case of swine flu was reported in New Jersey in the seventies in an army camp… maybe they should’ve tested in a third world country first, oh wait….
And besides, you’ll be a long time dead before overpopulation really becomes a problem. And the Illuminati have plenty of space for everyone
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:27 am
@Joanne (31):
In fact, it takes a lot of energy to recycle, more than the energy saved from recycle. The best option are the other two: reduce and reuse. Wich are cheaper and more useful.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:28 am
Ha! I always knew the 10th one until venom.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:36 am
Here is a fun fact: if people say they are going to have a drink “to get warmed up” and you point out that alcohol does not really warm you, they don’t like it. Most people are not information junkies like me. They like alcohol better than they like having their misconceptions corrected.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:02 am
No 5…. the truth is that the Earth is able to sustain about 4 billions using current intensive agricultural methods.
Using traditional agriculture without nitrate fertilisers and pesticides, less food is produced and fewer people sustained, perhaps in region of 500 – 1000 million.
Hence we are already over-populated
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:13 am
So I wonder is there’s a term for the ‘myth of no myth’, really, the fact that declaring something not a myth is in reality the basis for creating the same myth effect, only in reverse.
I really do wonder about the definition of ‘myth’ in this post. Of course, I’m also very very propaganda paranoid and don’t rely on much information unless I see some transparently reliable data. I’ve been on the internet for most of my adolescent years and into adulthood and have learned when to disbelieve and be leery of information I see. Complacency kills, and I refuse to believe or chase after ‘the easy way out’.
Most notably, 8 5 and 1 could easily be reasoned away to the honest. No, drinking does not allow you to go outside in the snow without a jacket, you dumbass. However, It is a convenient excuse for a drink if you want it to be. Yes, it’s easy to say there’s plenty for everyone when we live in squalorous abundance, so don’t worry about those ‘other people’ who just can’t figure out things for themselves, right? I mean honestly, can we please stop allowing ourselves to strain resources on crap that serves very little purpose otherwise when there’s necessity to be met? And yes, wouldn’t it be wonderful if such a question could give such easy free-reign to criminals to pursue as they like without incriminating themselves.
So yeah, it’s easy to try and think everything’s easy and carefree when the problems seems too immense or out of your hands. I’d encourage everyone to think on that.
And yeah, as #31 pointed out, cellphone use is banned these days because cell companies would shit themselves at connection rates for a single call placed within range of hundreds of towers. No engineer would allow himself the embarrassment of creating a device that could easily kill any number of people by turning on a massively popular and pocket-sized device.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:15 am
After reading that I have to point out that I feel it was terribly proof-read and not at all edited, apologies.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:18 am
Excellent list certainly has me thinking!
On the topic of overpopulation, even if you had everyone in a tiny place and used the rest of the world for farming, power etc…who does the farming? If the people were in texas/nevada and the sheep were in switzerland how do you get them?
People that are saying that pain and temperature are felt through other senses, how about a headache? Or a fever? Not sure how they work. Interesting topic though.
Roy G. Biv may be an American thing, I learned ‘Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain’
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:28 am
Oh you worrisome wilsons, stop being so anxious about the overpopulation scenario. Come Dec 21, 2012 and the problem will be long gone before you can say hay. Yay!
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:39 am
#2 THANK YOU for finally explaining this to the masses!
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:41 am
#5 – plenty of room here in canada for everyone if the world population gets too high haha
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:44 am
@Miss Info: Yes you are correct. Im sure the Illuninati have everything under control. Same with the Rothschilds. O well nothing to do but wait till we all slaves. Caaaan do.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:46 am
@PirateXxEsque(40)
I’d never heard that either. In our school we learned ‘Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain’ It’s always stuck so i guess it works!
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:56 am
I found out that we had more than five senses when I was doing research in order to teach the five senses to a bunch of 5/6 year olds, was an interesting fact to find out. That things like the sense of balance and knowing where you limbs are without looking at them are senses also. None the less I still taught the basic 5 senses as these are the ones that we use to explore our world most commonly.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:57 am
You should have included global warming on this list
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:02 am
9 out of 10. Fun to read.
The ‘over/under population’ issue needs more than a cursory paragraph to be treated with a least a measure of respect. Population isn’t simply a matter of cramming billions into a given space and assuming every other square inch could be farmed. That view is myopic if not downright dangerous. Harmony, balance, natural resource depletion, quality of life…just a few of the many issues to be considered.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:04 am
I don’t think I agree with #3 (grumpy old men). As we get older new pains develop, backs go out, knees hurt, energy levels are down….and I think that the natural degradation of our bodies causes some to be less pleasant. That’s not to say that the best of us don’t overcome it and stay chipper, but I think those most affected or less inclined to work at it will indeed come across as grumpier.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:04 am
Earth is definately overpopulated.
Why you are just counting the humain being, take all the living creature in account. Earth do not belong to humain alone.
Just compare the situation now & 500 years back & notice the diffrence.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:17 am
Excellent list, Jamie, even though I know most of these already.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:18 am
*knew*
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:22 am
I am tempted to put together a list consisting of 10 reasons people are so dumb that they believe the world will end in 2012! What a load of twaddle!
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:24 am
For the first two, you’re pretty much just arguing semantics, no?
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:35 am
There isn’t a population problem – there’s a problem with greedy people who take more than they need and use those beneath them to get more than they could possibly ever use. There is plenty of land and plenty of food for any number of people if we would be fair. But forget about that – fear the spectre of socialism!!!
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:39 am
#6…. I’m not too sure but I’m pretty sure the reason why “they” say that you shouldn’t go swimming after eating is not because you’re likely to drown, but that it’s not particularly good for digestion. If I go swimming after a big meal, well one I’m lethargic and two it makes me nauseated and feels like I have a huge stone in my gut. Lesson being, let your food digest first before you go swimming.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:43 am
my friends mom used to make me sushi and real good sushi, she used to put hot dog meat with tiny pieces of lettuce, rice obviously, and something else.
i never believed the airplane thing, ever since i was little, last year in september when i went to florida i was playing my ds and listening to my zune when the flight attendant told me to put it away.
i said why and she told me that it would cause interference and i said ok. she left and i started using it immediately so when the flight was in the air she walked by and said it wasn’t safe for me to be using it. i said sorry lady but the second you were out of my peripheral vision i pulled it right out and continued to use it and we are still alive. she was upset but she was hot so it was ok.
the alcohol one was stupid and i always called my uncle stupid for believing it and i always swam after eating just to get my mom mad when nothing happened.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:52 am
never heard of #1
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:53 am
“Any feeling of warmth experienced after drinking alcohol is explained by the fact that this flow of blood to the surface warms the skin and the ends of the sensory nerves in the skin, and these convey to the brain a sensation of warmth.”
So it warms you up.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:56 am
Great list! =] I love these myth list, they are awesome!
Oh and Shashimi is great! Its simple – all sushi has been prepared in some way or has something added to it; Sashimi is really just…raw…and yummmy!!
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:57 am
Yes we could all live in Texas if all we did was hunt gather and slept… not if we wanted to do anything fun.
A few of the things that will run out
-Jet fuel
-car fuel
-aluminum
-uranium
need I go on?
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:12 am
#5 is highly debatable but good list none the less!
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:27 am
Why are most of these even considered myths ?
You need to get your dictionary out again
And to say over population is a myth is stupid !
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:33 am
#5 is pure jackassery. It’s not about elbow room, its about the planets ability to sustain a certain number of people without environmental degradation. It doesnt matter if your democrat, republican, liberal or conservative there are simply a finite number of humans that the planet will support. The ONLY argument is whether we have reached or surpassed that number, or are we still a long way off. Only time will tell.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:37 am
#5 is wrong with respect to many other factors besides straight area. the type overpopulation we are talking about is resource based… like not enough fresh water. this has been shown to be true countless times and with many resources. thinking of overpopulation as people living on top of one other is comical though. great list otherwise.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:55 am
Ignore the posters that can’t accept that we are not overpopulated. The submitter flat out spelled out how much space we “need” to live. The rest of the world could be used for food production. Over population is definetely a myth, if you don’t think so then you don’t realize how big the planet is. Get over yourselves Greenies.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:58 am
On number 5, the population explosion.
Yes, if we wanted to cover every inch of the planet with houses or food production, we could grow some at the rate we’re growing now. We are exploding, and if we continue to explode everyone won’t be able to fit “in Texas and Nevada combined” (a statistic I’d like to see proven). If we continue to grow we won’t have any nature at all. AT ALL! I’m not a member of the ELF or anything, but I think that would suck not having any nature or any wild animals. I don’t want every inch of our planet to be like Mumbai or New York is what I’m trying to get across.
On top of that we have massive unemployment. If our economy can’t make more jobs, then we could use voluntary birth control (not like China) to keep our population at a level where less people would be on the dole.
Bad item.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:30 am
“The submitter flat out spelled out how much space we “need” to live.”
You are flat out wrong. The submitter spelled out how much area we need for people to have x amount of room. The submitter said nothing about the food resources or the energy resources needed to sustain the worlds population.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:31 am
The population one is seriously flawed reasoning. People need much more than just space to survive. They also need food… this means more space has to be used to grow this food. Add to this the fact that there are generally no farms in and around big cities which thus requires energy to transport the food and you’re looking at more space needed to produce power or process oil for gasoline… I could go on and on btw. This is called ghost acreage and it is usually left out of population discussions (generally by nut job evangelicals but also by people who dont do any serious research into the subject).
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:45 am
@Gav (42):
I pretty much agree with everything you are saying. I believe the Earth has enough of everything to go around so that no one need be hungry or cold or without shelter; however, human nature being what it is, everything stays nicely bollocksed up.
We can make enough food, but we can’t get it to everyone.
We can build enough shelter, but we can’t get everyone it them.
Greed is a big part. If people were satisfied with “enough” lots of the problems would go away, but “enough” is seldom “enough”. “More” usually wins out and, even though I am a Westerner, I have to say that we are probably the most guilty. Of course the superuberrich oil sheiks and their kin and the odd African or Asian warlord also are to blame for unbelievably conspicuous consumption. So theoretically, it’s all good. Practically, eh . . . not so much.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:03 am
@Tom (80):
Look pinhead, coming up with some hypothetical notion that all the human race could fit in my aunt Dorothy’s rent-controlled apartment on the Lower East Side with room to spare for extra Hindus in her kitchen is NOT reality. Sure, maybe if we DID build some gargantuan megalopolis somewhere the entire human race could fit in it. Whoopee. That ain’t the world we’ve got though, is it now, creep?
The simple fact is that overpopulation IS an issue (and I’m sorry Jamie, you were dead wrong on this one) not primarily on account of food production—which has increased over the decades markedly—but more because of the rising energy demands that our inflated numbers result in. Food is an issue too, of course–as is, even more critically, fresh water–but the more pressing issue is that we live in a world with clearly dwindling energy resources and astronomically rising demand.
Furthermore, the spread of humanity AND the push for growth and higher quality of life has led to a critical attack on the habitats of wildlife—which you might scoff at, not being a “greenie,” but in fact spells problems for the human race in the long run. The food chain and the relationship of animals to one another and their place within the environment are delicate matters largely beyond our scope to control, manage, or even fully understand. We could potentially reach a point where the diversity and the very structure of the biosphere is severely compromised, which in turn could lead to mass extinctions and the runaway growth of animal and plant forms which WE find harmful or unfavorable.
The earth can handle only so many of us. Every estimate I’ve seen puts it at about 10 billion to maybe 12 billion or so human beings. Beyond that point things begin breaking down critically—and there’s good reason to think it could happen long before, from the evidence we’re already experiencing. We’re not just talking about food. We’re talking about that AND the access to drinking water AND access to energy and other resources.
The earth and/or nature in general WILL solve this problem for us if we let it go too far. But we won’t like it. Disease and famine are not fun. Neither are the man-made disasters we could bring upon ourselves if we push matters too far—war being only one of them.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:05 am
Fitting everyone in one place would automatically result in crowding. Hell, I wouldn’t want to be living in conditions with 10 people in 1 small house.
I guess the key issue is that humans are slowly populating the planet to overcrowding. We can’t possibly take up all the space for housing, or for agriculture or entertainment… humans are but one of the millions of species that live on this earth: our population has displaced and made extinct a lot of terrain and organisms. Look at Japan, whilst there is ‘frontier’ as such… most of the country is quite concrete or industrialised/agriculturalised.
It would be a shame to transform this entire earth into a complete human-friendly environment because that would just confirm our greed as a species, disregarding others.
Nevertheless, great list!
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:05 am
This overpopulation argument is cute. Here in America there are several places farmers are paid by the government NOT to grow food to keep prices from dropping to low (that was one explination) Look under “subsidies to farmers not to grow” there are a myrid or other minor reasons given but the point is still, “Here is money, don’t grow food” reasons too but we are not running out of food or places to grow it.
There seems to be an emotional attachment to the overpopulation /food myth. This is dangerous becuase an emotional attachment to a belief inhibits and corrective action for a real problem that does not fit that belief.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:06 am
I don’t think I buy into this overpopulation gig.
The people starving in Africa and other parts of the world aren’t like locusts that just devour everything in sight, they live in harsh environments prone to drought and/or have terrible governments, if there is any government or stable government at all. It’s total chaos. Poverty, sickness, starvation, and war ensue. Some can go off and eek a living off the land or area, only to get raped, pillaged, or slaughtered for what they have. Dig them a well for clean water, and a local warlord comes along and seizes it.
I do not think it’s overpopulation, I think it’s humanity without any law or order and little education. And we all know how evil humanity gets if left without any moral order. Rather than focus on overpopulation, I’d rather help out my fellow beings who need some food and clean water and education.
I’ll get flamed for this I’m sure, but I have noticed a trend that some people can go overboard and become so pro-eco, they actually become quite anti-human. It’s trendy. The cool rebel with a cause.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:09 am
Nice list!
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:11 am
88 mouseinthehousemi
Overpopulation and starving Africans living in failed states are not mutually exclusive. It is not illogical to suggest that the world is overcrowding, and that there is a political aspect to starvation across the world.
However, both are intrinsically linked to greed and resource-scarcity.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:11 am
Yep, good list chaps!
In school I learned ‘Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain’ as opposed to ‘Roy G. Biv’, as a commenter has already said.
What about the song ‘Red and yellow and pink and green, orange and purple and blue’? I have heard many Americans sing ‘Red and yellow and pink and green purple and orange and blue’. What’s thd correct way?!?!
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:18 am
Yes, Tom, you are a moron. Randall pretty much said it all. I would like to add, that simply using the example of japan, was very ironic of the poster. Approximately half Japan is hills, and loose terrain. They are regularly having slides and avalanches, which is one of the reason that so many people crowd into the cities.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:18 am
The cop one is clearly the dumbest. I just don’t get how anybody would believe if they even thought about it for more than 10 seconds.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:20 am
90 archangel
Also, if we only think of overcrowding in terms of human needs, then we fall into the trap of anthropocentrism, and would thus fail to account for the other organisms living on this planet needed to sustain the vast array of ecosystems across this globe.
How dull would if the whole world became reserved for supporting humanity be it agriculturally or through shelter? The world would become less friendly to many other organisms, resulting in massive losses of diversity and habitat.
Who would want to live in a world full of humans, or human supporting land, but no diversity of animals except for those we need for our stomachs, or those we managed to salvage in zoos?
Seems like a grim and dull world to me.
On a sidenote: this can already be seen through the effects of ‘human-induced’ climate change and logging. The more we turn this earth selfishly for our needs (without catering for the others that reside in it), the more it will harm other organisms (loss of reefs, loss of forests)… and in turn, perhaps, retribution?
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:22 am
@mouseinthehousemi (88): @nathan (87):
Oh for the love of Christ.
It pains me to see what poor critical thinking skills people have in this day and age, and how ill-informed people are.
Let’s get it straight here, okay? Overpopulation is NOT primarily a “food” issue. It is a RESOURCE issue mainly–specifically ENERGY as a resource. (It’s also a water issue, which is not as simple a thing to address as food production. No cheap and sustainable method for desalinization of water has yet been perfected–the methods that do exist remain prohibitively expensive and thus confined to those countries that meet the criteria of both needing it badly AND being able to afford it—primarily oil-rich Middle Eastern lands). We are CLEARLY reaching the end of the era of cheap energy, with fossil fuels gradually running out at the same time that demand is rising astronomically. As the population of the earth increases, the demand for energy is going to increase. And not just energy to power TVs and cars and video games—but energy to simply PRODUCE things—food, material essentials, etc., and energy to make vital infrastructure items function. Remember, the more people, the more you need services to support them. Add on top of that the desire for many people to increase their standard of living, and you have geometrically increasing demands for energy.
Wind, solar, geothermal and hydrodynamic can NOT make up the difference. It’s unlikely, given our current technology, that they ever will. And it’s all well and good to say “let’s build more nuclear power plants,” but nuclear power is EXPENSIVE. I’m all for more plants but that is NOT a solution to the problem. Moreover, the supply of uranium is NOT infinite, and production of plutonium in large quantities presents far more dangerous problems.
We have to take the next technological step, and find a way to increase our energy supplies to meet our demands—or you can bet your ass this is going to end badly.
THAT is why overpopulation is a serious problem.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:28 am
@archangel (90): I concur. The area overpopulation, scarcity of resources, and politcs are all factors. Greed and scarcity of resources compound the problem.
What to do about it is beyond me, I’ll admit. I just help where I can. And if an opportunity arises to give help to a school in an impoverished country, all the better.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:33 am
I always wondered about that cop thing too. Guess you can’t trust anybody.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
I have to disagree with #6: every year many people die because they go swimming after lunch. The WORST possible timing is right after 30′ when digestion is fully working.
If the temperature outside is very high, which is quite common in summer, the sudden drop of temperature caused by the water can indeed subtract a lot of blood from your stomach with consequent congestion and loss of consciousness, pretty dangerous when you’re in the water.
This occurrence is relatively rare, but when it happens you can’t really learn the lesson because you just drown like a dumbass. Most of those who die have done it for their whole life with no problems and used to laugh about it.
One wrong time is enough, and it’s silly to risk.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:38 am
In Britain, we have a comedy quiz show called Q.I (short for quite interesting) in which comedians are asked questions by Stephen Fry (a very funny genius actor)which have obvious answers that are actually wrong, mixed with interesting facts. It is a must for all Listverse fans and I’m sure you, Jfrater, would love it! You can find it on YouTube, I recommend starting with the first episode because there are a few running gags in the show.
Great list, btw!
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:42 am
@Randall nice to see you back, cracking the whip, I know some of the comments are very lame and the blood pressure gets up – take a deep breath a good gulp of G+T and mayby a puff or 6 off a good cuban cigar. You will feel a lot better – enjoy your comments – Ithink Im going to call my grandson Pinhead from now on. Cheers Pal.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:47 am
@Randall (85): “Disease and famine are not fun.” Word. I basically agree with everything you just said. However, you mention man made problems, including war. Do you think that war is more likely than any other crisis?
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:53 am
I have a good SENSE of Humour!!! haha
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:56 am
@Randall (95): I had a paragraph in the works regarding new technologies. I deleted it to remain on point. But of course, overpopulation causes more than just hunger and dirty water.
I was referring to localized overcrowding and the fighting and troubles that come with the consquences. I think it is safe to say that the overpopluation and problems of Ethiopia do not have an overbearing impact on the fleeing population of Michigan. One could argue however that this is only a forshadowing of global chaos caused by over crowding.
But I am an optimist. Rather than focus on doom and gloom, I look forward to new discoveries and technologies. Rather than condemn the human race, I have hope that we will overcome our problems. To my detriment, I have a soft spot for early Star Trek.
Doing my part to solve the world’s problems on Listverse!
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
jfrater: (others should read this too)
I hate to take you to task on this Jamie, but you did get this overpopulation thing completely wrong.
The consequences of runaway overpopulation for the human race–and for other species–are clearly disastrous.
It is NOT, as I’ve already said, primarily an issue of food. That’s the mistake people make. In point of fact, a lot of doomsayers in the 60s and 70s were making grim predictions about overpopulation focused primarily on the presumed inability of food production to keep up with demand. Of course none of these great prophets foresaw the great strides that were already underway, and would soon come, in regards to more efficient food production techniques of various kinds. Today we’re feeding more people than we ever thought possible. It’s a great thing. And no, mass starvation is not right around the corner.
But as I said, this is NOT mainly a food issue. Of course, more and more efficient means of food production might not be continually found. We may reach a point where we can’t push the envelope any further. That’s a strong possibility. But let’s leave food out of this for the nonce.
What about drinking water? As I’ve already pointed out, potable water is NOT as simple a problem to address as food (which is NOT simple, by the way—let’s not pretend it is… but at least we’ve addressed it). The main thing that has made food production a success is that we’ve increased efficiency while keeping cost down. But there is no “cheap” way to create drinking water. Water management is a volatile topic because it varies in cost so much from place to place—but we already know quite well that there are great swaths of the earth that are more prone to water problems than others. These problems are seemingly compounded by global warming, too—but let’s leave the controversial global warming out of this as well, just to keep things simple. The simple fact is that drought is a regular occurrence in many parts of the world. MOVING water is expensive the further you try to move it, and let’s face it—the question is, is there really enough freshwater to go around for all of us, even if we COULD find a way to share it out equally?
But let’s remember—we don’t LIVE in a world where things are shared out equally–no resource, be it water, fuel, or food, is shared out in that manner. We CONTROL resouces on the local or national level–we do not share them freely. Would any of us be willing to make do with far less water in order that everyone gets some? I’d bet not—no more than all of us would be willing to make do with less food so that everyone gets fed. That just isn’t (sadly) the way humanity has operated up to now, and I see no way of practically changing that.
But the BIGGEST issue that overpopulation impacts on is ENERGY.
Let me lay this out simply for everyone: A hundred years ago, global population was much lower, and energy–then in the form of fossil fuels–was plentiful, and therefore cheap. Add to that the fact that much of the world was still not making use of this kind of energy, but was still living a largely pastoral existence.
Today, population has increased hugely, and the fossil fuels are running low. Thus, energy production becomes more and more expensive—in part because demand has increased (greater population overall, plus more people as a percentage of the entire population are using that energy). Now… every study made of the problem shows clearly–and let’s be TOTALLY clear on this—that there is NO WAY for solar, hydrodynamic, geothermal and wind to make up for the difference. They simply are NOT as efficient as fossil fuels. EVEN if we add nuclear fission into the equation—there is STILL a shortfall. Nuclear is not a renewable resource–it is finite—and even if we build more plants, we face other problems: nuclear is HUGELY expensive to build and maintain. It is HIGHLY dangerous. Creation of breeder reactors (which can stretch out the energy production capabilities) means producing Plutonium–which is HIGHLY toxic. Also, more plutonium in the world means more chances for some of it to be drained away for use in nuclear weapons.
But let’s leave aside all the dangers inherent in nuclear, and just remember this: no matter what it is EXPENSIVE.
The age of cheap energy, therefore, is over. And yet, we don’t seem to have enough, in the future, to meet the projected demands.
All because there are too many people in the world.
Now yes, one solution is to bring population into control. But guess what? The problem is already here.
Controlling population is only one key to the solution. We also HAVE to find a way to increase the amount and efficiency of energy production, or we’re in trouble. And there’s a potential deadline for this.
More about that in my next comment.
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
I would go nucking futs if someone next to me is on the cell phone the whole flight… Texting is fine and all… But talking all loud ugh rude and in a closed space not cool….
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
What’s the deal with number 10?
- Pain and temperature are part of touch, as is pressure. All other touch related sensations are combinations of those three.
- Balance is associated with the vestibular sense; it’s not an entity its own.
- What about the kinesthetic sense?
- Memory and Imagination are thought processes/neural processes, not senses, at least not in the context in which we’re discussing them, which is as a method of perceiving stimuli.
Or are you trying to group perception senses in with other uses of the word? Cause that what it sounds like…
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
@Randall
Most of your comments regarding energy being central to the overpopulation debate are accurate, but the one statement you make that bothers me is
“Wind, solar, geothermal and hydrodynamic can NOT make up the difference. It’s unlikely, given our current technology, that they ever will”
This is just too ridiculous a statement to make, especially given the validity of your other points. Yes, current technology in alternative energy sources couldn’t replicate the energy output from the fossil fuels we use now. But its not as if fossil fuels are going to be running out tomorrow and we will need to lean heavily on those sources. Current forecasts predict that fossil fuels will be insufficient to cover our energy needs in roughly 70 years. If you look at past energy crises (although, this could potentially be the greatest energy crisis of them all), human innovation has allowed us to obtain the energy we need and make do with what we can get. Its almost as if people expect for us to find a single source of energy to replace fossil fuels- the truth is that in the future, our energy will be mixed and matched from all the sources you listed above, and even some we don’t know about yet.
The real energy crisis will be solved when we can transform energy from the sun into usable, high quality energy. The energy from the sun that hits the earth in one minute is more than enough to power all human activities on earth for an entire year. It is so spread out that we haven’t developed solar cells able to harness it yet, but recent technological advances suggest that we are on the right track. For this reason you can’t cite current technology as a reason that alternative energy sources won’t or can’t make up the difference
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
#5: Sorry, but the space needed for people to live has really no relavance on the ability of the Earth to sustain the resources for all these people. I have never even heard of space for people being an issue, where did you come up with this? We can build skyscrapers all over the place and have space for an infinite amount of people, but that still doesn’t mean that we can feed them.
Earth is overpopulated and is a very serious threat to our future. As countries continue to become more industrialized and prosper the resources will deplete even faster. This is a very irresponsible addition to the list and complety wrong….because OVERPOPULATION is a real problem NOT A MYTH!
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
I love the Myth-busting Lists too !
BTW, I dont get No.4; if cell phones do not disrupt the flight, then why aren’t they allowed ?
And about No 10; kids here in primary schools are still taught that there are five senses. Maybe they are talking about “out-wards” senses and not the subtle ones.
And another question: doesn’t menopause has something to do with the grumpiness ?
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
HAave you eever observed the behavior of rats when their population is allowed dto grow unchecked? Yhey become more aggressive and (eventually) cannibalistic. I’m just sayin’…
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Oh Randell,
You know better, or you ran out of your meds. Your integrity is, sadly, dependent on the latter. People were talking about a lack of food and I addressed that and provided a way to verify. Your statement (?) is full of lofty platitudes with little information behind them.
What mechanisim for producing even just electricity is cheaper per, whatever unit you would like to use, on a large scale than nucular? So where does the EXSPENSIVE part come in?
Who’s ill informed if you didn’t know that farmers are paid not to produce? Even if that is not all of it,it is part and not one you were apparently aware of.
As for the other issues, there is scarsity, which is one issue and distibution which is another. Then there is a theory of a growing disparity between the number of people producing and those consuming. This would create ascarsity but that would be to underproduction, not over consumption.
Loft platitudes may be great for your ego but no world solutions are going to be achieved if those who choose to join the discussion don’t bother to educated themselves. There are problems in this world but Randel, you contribute to the problem, not the solution.
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:30 pm
JFra- Really, #5? You actually wrote that. I have to wonder if over-population denial goes with being a christian because if the world is overpopulated doesn’t that contradict God’s message “to multiply.” I only ask because I can think of no other reason that such a clearly smart man would have written that paragraph. I mean, not just the idea, but the argument was so shockingly shortsighted.
Holy shit, man! Did we just witness a moment where a very intelligent person had to subvert his thinking acumen in order to be consistent with his faith?
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:30 pm
@Emmett Brown (26): Randall and a few others:
I wanted to tackle the population issue but have very little extra time today. Excellent explanations, thank you!
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:31 pm
@Emmett Brown (26): thats not because there aren’t enough resources but because some people take more than their fair share. The population will actually decrease as people have less baby’s in western countries contrary to popular belief which is fed by the need to pretend we are destroying the world around us.As George Freedman said with new ways of birth control and the fact that its more expensive to raise a kid we will see a gradual decrease in industrial nations. The average number of kids in 18th century was 18 now its 4.
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Some good items on the list – but some MUCH better responses. It’s really good to draw attention to some of these issues and with this debate going on, it’s also a lot healthier education too. (Healthier than, say, listening to a single point of view in the media/classroom.)
Kudos to everyone who has stuck their brains into gear and actually thought about these. I’ve learned a lot.
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Okay…. so here’s the rest of it people. This is the important part, and the long-range part.
We humans are used to thinking small in terms of our own existence. In short, most of us don’t look past the lives of our children and grandchildren, towards the future, and into the past we don’t look much beyond our grandparents. We therefore live in an envelope where subconsciously we think of our existence stretching loosely across about a century, give or take a couple decades. We weren’t there to SEE the 19th century or the early 20th, but we kinda get it. Our grandparents experienced it (at least those of us who are older, like me). We can imagine it. And we know that our kids will succeed us, and their kids. We’ll probably see them if we’re lucky. But that’s it.
But of course the human species is much more than that. It’s stretched into the past for thousands upon thousands of years.
But really even all that is NOTHING compared to the age of this planet and the length of time which other great animal groups have ruled before we came along. We are very much newcomers still–babies.
And yet… we’re the first species that we know of on this earth to KNOW that we’re in danger—we’re aware of the risks that are inherent in existence. We know because we’ve seen it happen, in the fossil record. We know that there have been cataclysmic mass extinctions every few hundred million years, and smaller extinction events in between. We don’t know what caused all these extinction events–but we know that some have been caused by massive comet/asteroid impacts. Some others may have been caused by climatic upheaval driven by events on the earth itself–volcanic eruptions, continental drift, or what have you. AND we know that these things WILL happen again. FOR CERTAIN.
Underline that. FOR CERTAIN. There is no doubt about impacts–they happen, and will continue to happen. We know of a HUGE number of earth-grazing rocks in space already that are large enough to do untold damage to the earth’s biosphere. We know for a FACT that sooner or later another rock will come that will be AS large or LARGER than the KT rock which wiped out the dinosaurs. We KNOW for a fact that there were even larger extinctions in the history of our world—when even more species were wiped out.
It IS coming. Period. There is no argument about it or doubt. The only question is… when?
NOW… the last BIG impact that caused an extensive general species extinction was 65 million years ago. The next one is therefore due–though, it could come tomorrow or it could wait for another 30 million years. The likelihood is that it’s coming a lot sooner than that, but we just don’t know.
The key to this is, however, that we have an advantage. We’re smart. We have brains. And so we can not only anticipate the impact—but we can hopefully find a way to prevent it. Same goes, hopefully, for other natural calamities we might face.
BUT… here’s the sticking point. PREVENTING such calamities requires HIGH TECHNOLOGY. Which is EXPENSIVE. And it requires ENERGY. In short, an energy surplus which can be diverted to projects which are NOT related directly to food production, water and shelter.
We have been indulging in these projects for quite some time—engineering projects to build railways and roadways. Cities. Machines. Tools. And space travel. And so on.
All of them take energy in vast quantities… but we’ve had enough, up to now, to spare for this even after devoting energy to food production and water and such.
BUT… now the demands for energy are outstripping the supplies.
Sooner or later, the supply begins to run low. What happens then? Well, there are two ways it can go: One, we find a way to increase energy production–through the development of greater technology. Fusion, perhaps–though this will still be expensive. or, Two… we fail to increase energy production–and we slowly run out of resources and our ability to produce needed products from them—not only for surplus, but for the necessities.
The latter is not a pretty picture. We won’t go gently in that good night. It’ll mean war, disease, famine… it’d be nasty. It means falling back from a high technology to a low one. It’s a bad scene.
Doom and gloom? Maybe… but the facts are the facts. Energy supplies given current resources and technology only equal so much. Energy demand increases daily. You do the math. More people and more demand means the energy runs out quicker. We are on a deadline.
Because if we wait too long to push technology beyond its current limits, there’ll be no way to push it later. We simply won’t be able to devote the time and resources to it. There’ll be no more CERNS (which might lead us into new directions of discovery—and the more we learn about existence and its secrets, the better off we are—we’ll never know where the key to our survival will come from) no more space exploration, no more fusion experiments. We won’t have the resources or energy to devote to these.
And if we fall back like that—even only gradually—then we forfeit our ability to affect our own destiny as a species.
IF WE ARE TO SURVIVE, we need to GET OFF this planet and colonize other planets, because this is the only sure way of guaranteeing our invulnerability to calamities that strike the earth. The more places our species lives, the harder it is to kill off. But if we get TRAPPED here on this planet—we’re surely done for. We might never have this chance again, to be where we stand now. The classical Graeco/Roman civilization fell only 1500 years or so ago. But that civilization, for all it produced, had no means of saving itself from species-wide extinction. It did not make use of high-energy production. But we, in only about two hundred years, have used up nearly all the fossil fuels. There will be no more for some future successor civilization to ours, if we should fall. They won’t be able to build on what we leave them—because while we may leave them knowledge—we won’t be leaving them any energy to make USE of that knowledge.
The other thing we need to do, then, in order to survive, is to act NOW to turn the tide of this energy problem. That means, YES, that we can no longer afford rampant population growth. But it also means that we have to keep PUSHING technology ahead, or we’re done for. We’re in a race to find better energy production methods BEFORE our current energy levels begin to falter. It’s fucking serious.
If you think all this is a joke—some science fiction BS…. think again. Look around you. We know damn well that the fossil fuels are running out. Now, sure… it might not happen for decades. Even a hundred years. But how long is that? It’s NOTHING. Nothing in the age of the earth overall. And LONG before they run out, we’ll have reached a point where the expense of them will create HUGE problems. Remember–demand is increasing. We all have to know damn well that we’re in a pickle.
We can no longer afford the luxury of blather about the cost of research and technology. CERN cost billions—oh well. It may unlock the keys to the universe for us. Even if it’s just a start—those keys could come, and we need them. We need to find out how we can provide the energy we need.
The earth can support us, yes. But the earth… or more accurately NATURE…. is capricious. It’s sometimes friendly to us and sometimes indifferent… sometimes openly hostile. It WILL do us in sooner or later. If we let it.
So the danger of overpopulation is quite simply that we are shooting ourselves in the foot. We are limiting the already limited time we have left. By making more people, we shorten the deadline.
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Agreed with all the criticisms of #5. Thinking about things in terms of how much space humans take up entirely misses the point. The issue is the limited quantity of arable farm land and the amount of usable water that exists to drink and grow crops. Unfortunately, as the global population increases, both problems get worse, as climate change pushes threatens to alter the growing season for various crops and more and more of the earth’s drinkable water is transferred to oceans. It is possible that technological advances will pull our collective butts out of the fire, but as it stands, the human race is growing at an unsustainable rate. We’re already seeing the beginning of the problem, there are a number of countries that depend on international aid to feed themselves. Pointing out how small we can be if we cram into the metaphorical telephone booth doesn’t really have any relevance to the dangers of the population boom.
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:49 pm
@matt (107):
Matt, you simply miss the point I was making. I am all for alternative energy sources, and yes, you’re right—there’s no telling what level of efficiency we can create from them in the future—but that’s what I was getting at—we NEED to push that technology NOW. It can’t wait. The more population increases, the less time we have.
So you see, I WAS speaking about alternative sources—AND others we may not yet know about. I simply meant that given the CURRENT level of technology, they won’t make do. We don’t KNOW that there IS a way to make any of them work more efficiently—but we have to try, and we have to try to create other means as well.
The basic point I was making was that we can’t rest on these or just glide along hoping that they’ll get better with time. Time is something we don’t have in abundance.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Ah! Finally, it’s put somewhere that sushi is in fact, NOT raw fish.
I took Japanese in high school, as well as World Geography. My Japanese teacher told the class that sushi wasn’t raw fish, and being that she was from Japan, as was her aide, I believed her.
In World Geography, I had a group project that involved bringing in food from differant asian countries, and I brought in sushi. When I took the leftovers home, I got in an argument with a girl on my bus, as she absolutely refused to believe that sushi wasn’t raw fish! I told her that the sushi I’d brought had no raw fish on it, and she insisted it wasn’t sushi, then, and refused to listen when I said it was sashimi that was raw. I had nothing to prove to her other than my Japanese teacher’s words that she was wrong, so I finally just got annoyed and gave up.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
@nathan (111):
LISTEN TO YOURSELF. You can’t even SPELL “nuclear” (or were you just trying to be “cute”?) and you’re going to criticize MY logic and reasoning on this?
Listen pimple… there are no “platitudes” in what I had to say–there is simple FACT. It’s all supported by research and extensive studies… exhaustive studies. I work at a MAJOR fucking academic institution where this shit is hammered out by some of the best brains in the world. I know these people, I work with them, I’ve spoken to them, I’m cognizant of the research they’ve done along these lines. So don’t give me your uninformed lip on this.
“People were talking about a lack of food”
NO. People were talking about OVERPOPULATION and YOU and others focused on FOOD as the issue that negates overpopulation as a concern. And I was correcting you on that misconception.
“Your statement (?) is full of lofty platitudes with little information behind them.”
LITTLE information? The information is THERE jackass. You can’t read? What do you want, numbers? Footnotes and ibids? If you want to read a journal article on this, go pick up a New Scientist or a copy of Nature. This is List Universe. I’m distilling for the masses. YOU, as one of them, should shut up and listen, instead of getting smart-mouthed over something about which you clearly have NO knowledge.
“What mechanisim for producing even just electricity is cheaper per, whatever unit you would like to use, on a large scale than nucular? So where does the EXSPENSIVE part come in?”
I can’t believe I have to explain this.
Okay, jerk. LISTEN. NUCLEAR fission is cheap in THEORY, yes… on paper. But the practicality of it is that it is EXPENSIVE. The estimates to build enough nuclear power plants to even get close to making up our potential shortfalls runs into the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS. If not more.
YES, if you count only the cost of generating a kilowatt of electricity ONLY from the cost of direct production, nuclear is relatively cheap–in some cases very cheap. But that is NOT the only cost of nuclear, moron. Nuclear power plants are FAR more expensive to build than any other type. They’re far more expensive to maintain. Largely this is due to the danger. There are all kinds of higher costs associated with nuclear, everything from simple infrastructure to insurance. And then there is the cost of waste. Storing it. Moving it. Simply DEALING with it. We still have no means for doing this. And the waste itself is highly toxic–which creates more cost for storage.
I am no opponent of nuclear power. I say build more plants. All I mean is that we need to be realistic about it. Nuclear fission is NOT a panacea. It can offer us only limited respite.
If nuclear were as cheap as simplistic buttheads like yourself make out, we’d have no problem—at least for the present—we’d have built plant upon plant upon plant from the 50s on. But the FACT is that it soon became obvious, by the late 50s/early 60s that the COST of nuclear power was NOT as low as it had seemed in theory. And the perceived danger of it kept it from being popular. Was the danger hyped? Sure. But then again, we’ve had a few nuclear accidents, and they have not proven to be simple and cheap to clean up after.
Don’t give me this bullshit that nuclear is cheap. It isn’t. I’m all for it, but I face the facts—and the facts are it’s not “cheap” at all. It’s efficient, but risky. It has a lot of expenses tacked on to it.
“Who’s ill informed if you didn’t know that farmers are paid not to produce? Even if that is not all of it,it is part and not one you were apparently aware of.”
What the fuck are you talking about? Who said ANYTHING about farmers, let alone how they’re paid to not produce? I made NO mention of it. You’re trying to stick me with a false accusation, jackass.
I was talking about ENERGY issues. NOT food. Remember?
“This would create ascarsity but that would be to underproduction, not over consumption.”
Production of WHAT? Are you still going on about food? Or are you referring to production in general? I am NOT talking food.
Are you actually making the retarded argument that we can “produce” ourselves out of this potential mess?
“Loft platitudes may be great for your ego but no world solutions are going to be achieved if those who choose to join the discussion don’t bother to educated themselves.”
Yeah, let’s start with you, trailer trash. You can’t even form a coherent sentence. Read that quoted bit again. My point is made… or rather, in a way, yours is—but what you’re wrong about is who is educated here. It’s me—not you.
Not shut up and go away. You aren’t worth the time I wasted responding to you.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
EXCUSE ME… that last sentence in my last post should read:
NOW shut up and go away. You aren’t worth the time I wasted responding to you.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
I don’t know if entrapment necessarily means making someone commit a crime they otherwise wouldn’t – I feel like that would only happen under duress. You wouldn’t normally shoot a person unless they were about to kill your mom or something, but at the same time no one can “make” you sell drugs or rob a store unless they were holding a gun to your head and that *would* be duress and would not hold up in court. So a lot of the crimes people commit are crimes they *would* commit, entrapment or not. The police just happen to be the drug-buyer at the time, or whatever else.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:15 pm
At #10 – Thanks for the explanation; makes sense if you are undercover to reveal yourself as such.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:19 pm
We only have 5 senses, all other “additional” senses are products of the 5 senses.
sense – a general conscious awareness
imagination – the formation of a mental image of something that is not perceived as real and is not present to the senses; “popular imagination created a world …
imagination is a manifestation, an invention that can be molded into reality by the 5 senses.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Enjoyable list nonetheless
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:24 pm
[footnote] imagination can only be created with the company of the 5 sense.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
The issue being here is, that if you leave a car door open in a vacant parking lot, you are leaving [bait]for anyone to catch. This includes people who don’t normally commit these offenses who happen to just check out the scene… The idea of entrapping a suspect is the belief that “we’ll get em off the streets quicker” when in reality they recruit people at random who may have no history of offenses. Law is not a game and it is not a sport either, so the idea of baiting potential villains isn’t a correct way of sustaining order.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Wow. I’ve been reading these lists for quite awhile now, and have NEVER seen as much pontificating puffery as the “save the wales, save the world” crowd in here today.
Yes, some areas of the world suck as to living conditions. Reminds me of the the old (and fantastic) Sam Kinnison routine – “MOVE TO WHERE THE FOOOOOOD IS!!!!”
The planet itself is FAR from overpopulated, and we have the resources to provide for a LOT more people. So oil runs out. We either figure out how to efficiently use solar or go back to candles and horses. But we can still eat, and there’s PLENTY of water (and we’ve figured out how to filter and recycle it pretty spectacularly as well).
The reason it seems overpopulated is because people are social animals, and like to cram themselves together.
I’ve got a great, Sam Kinnisonian solution for all you greenies that are terrified of sustainability or overpopulation of the Earth. Leave.
That way the rest of us have more room and won’t have to listen to your whining nonsense.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Yeah, #5 is an outright mistruth as presented here (and much has changed since Malthus). At this point, the concerns are, in order: depletion of arable lands; disruption of elemental and climatological cycles in order to avert depletion of arable lands; health effects 9acute and chronic) or disruption of elemental and climatological cycles. Add in somewhere in there the estimated 80,000–130,000 synthetic and persistent industrial chemicals that now permeate the biosphere and the absence of their known effects, singly or in combination (hence research programs like the NTP, REACH, TSCA, and EDSP) and you have many unanswered questions about health and development across the spectrum of living things. Additionally, the summed global population continues to inflate unimpeded, in spite of the mild recession of population replacement in industrialized nations like Italy and Sweden.
Do better homework. Maybe consult people who work on these issues instead of only Wikipedia.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
@Randall (116):
Get off this planet? You serious? Where do you suppose we go? Mercury … too hot, mars … nothing there to use, venus … too dangerous … the moon … too cold … see a pattern?
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
The world is on an obvious track collision with depletion of resources. With that said if we continue to exhaust natural resources (that are not a complete necessity of sustainability) we will have quite a deal of trouble when trade comes into the picture. If a situation were to occur that global trade became absent [world trade] we would have to sustain ourselves to survive, due to grocery stores lacking in restocks. people already are molding their own farming communities in their own backyards to maintain life once oil is finally gone, or if the continual imperial battle for it has a catastrophic end that will hit home [instead of the "rag heads" in the dusty bowls of iraq]. It’s a damn shame to hear people really lean up against something and have pride with an establishment that really has no care for who or what you are unless you aid them in their self centered and distorted goals.
Life on this planet is completely fulfilled by ego and its contamination with community, on a personal scale to a national one. this lifestyle has its outcomes, kind of like the way a parasite overkill’s its host.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
If you honestly believe we are not over populated take a stroll in sao paolo, brasil. its where im from. It may just be one city on the planet, but there are cities scattered around the globe like confetti.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:55 pm
@robkellyj (128):
So… when they were handing out brains, rob, you were wandering around looking for candy?
Listen moron… it’s all well and good to take a blase attitude towards serious problems, but all that makes you is a waste of space, NOT a functioning member of society–let alone the human race as a whole. Nobody’s asking you to cry for starving children in Africa or to get worried about the extinction of the great horned owl. All that’s expected of you is that you stop for a minute and THINK. I realize that this might be a great novelty for someone such as yourself, who is clearly a piece of driftwood. But if you try it once, who knows… you might get the hang of it. Even come to like it.
“The planet itself is FAR from overpopulated,”
And what do you base that retarded averral? Glenn Beck told you so?
“and we have the resources to provide for a LOT more people.”
Name these resources. Where are they? I’ll give you a hint–you’re onto something. The resources DO exist. But guess what it takes to get at them? ENERGY JACKASS.
“So oil runs out. We either figure out how to efficiently use solar or go back to candles and horses.”
Oh, nothing to worry about then. Sure, we’ll just go back to the 19th century. Nobody’ll have a problem with that.
“But we can still eat,”
LISTEN, pinhead! The REASON we can feed ALL these people thus far is BECAUSE of our high technology. Take that away as you so blithely put it—go back to “horses and candles,” and we won’t BE ABLE to feed everyone anymore. GET IT?
For crying out loud—some days it seems like the average IQ of the average citizen is lower than shoe size.
“and there’s PLENTY of water (and we’ve figured out how to filter and recycle it pretty spectacularly as well).”
WRONG. Jerk.
In fact there is NOT “plenty” of water. Water, in fact, is scarce. Happen to notice how, this past summer, it was rare in Georgia? GEORGIA of all places. We’re not talking about Ethopia here, but in the Peach State (or whatever the hell Georgia is). Water is a constant struggle in some parts of the world–even in the developed world–even in the US…. because it is NOT easy to deal with shortages of it. Yes, we can clean up nasty waste water well, given ENERGY and TECHNOLOGY. But take away that energy and technology (see your earlier blather about “going back to horses and candles”) and lose a lot our ability to clean up the water. Not to mention that converting salt water to freshwater is EVEN now a prohibitively expensive process. Imagine it when things are worse.
“The reason it seems overpopulated is because people are social animals, and like to cram themselves together.”
NO… the reason it “seems” overpopulated is because it IS…. because demands for resources and energy are outstripping supply and our ability to produce them… and this is not getting better, but is getting worse.
“I’ve got a great, Sam Kinnisonian solution for all you greenies that are terrified of sustainability or overpopulation of the Earth. Leave.”
I’ve got an even better, and far more sensible solution, slimeball. YOU leave. You’re dragging down the level of average intelligence and probably polluting the gene pool.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Good list, Jamie!
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
@Taylor (130):
That’s a long-term solution, Taylor. Yup, you’re right, it might not be possible. We might not be able to use Mars. We might not be able to get out of the solar system to find other planets out in the cosmos. But I think better to try than to just throw in the towel when we don’t even know what’s out there—don’t you think?
Anyway, getting off the planet simply spreads us around so we don’t all get clobbered by a single calamity. The real solution is to keep advancing technology in terms of energy production so that we at the very least we can continue, for the foreseeable future, to defend ourselves from said calamities.
Maybe we can’t settle other worlds. But it’s worth trying.
The main thing, though, is to not take a blase attitude towards our problem. It’s a serious one. Extinction is the end result if we take the attitude of gliding along, hoping it all just “work out.”
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Very good list! Fun to read!
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Disagree with #5…
People take up so much resources and it would be one thing if everyone just had a building to live in. It is another thing for people to have corporate buildings and mini-malls.
We’ve already lost Tigers in the wild.. I ANTICIPATE more species will be lost due to human encroachment.
Also, #5 states that a lot of countries in the West are experiencing a population implosion. Uhm… which countries? So by decrease, do you mean from the normal family of 10 kids went down to 7 kids?
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Ah, ad hominem – the last refuge of one who is so wedded to an argument or ideology that they can’t possibly open their eyes enough to admit they are wrong.
I’m not going to argue with you – it would certainly be amusing, but ultimately a time waster. I’ve debated obtuse idealogues like you before. It’s always the same old “whaaargaarrrrbl…”
And I’d pit my IQ against yours ANY day, kid.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:18 pm
@esamutash (112):
This is an interested question:
Do people not want to accept the fact of overpopulation because it goes against what some religions tell us?
i.e.: There are some christians out there that claim the earth is only a few thousand years old and humans walked with dinosaurs. This belief only comes about becuase it inhibits there followers from asking “how come the bible doesn’t mention dinosaurs, or how come the bible says we came from Adam and Eve when my science teacher says we evovled”.
In the bible God does tell us to reproduce…so the overpopulation argument again throws science in with religion. This may be a far strech from the evolution vs. creation standpoint but I can totally see were it would be conflicting.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
@robkellyj (138): What does IQ have to do with anything? It’s not competency, it’s being learned. And obviously, you are not.
And, fyi, “Ah, ad hominem – the last refuge of one who is so wedded to an argument or ideology that they can’t possibly open their eyes enough to admit they are wrong.” is also an example of ad hominem argument.
G’day.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
So the tiger issue is building up all the land that tigers live on and not poaching?
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
@robkellyj (138):
rob, you’re a card. A moronic, piece of shit of a card… but a card. Sadly, it isn’t intentional. But it’s more fun to laugh at than with you anyway, loser.
“Ah, ad hominem – the last refuge of one who is so wedded to an argument or ideology that they can’t possibly open their eyes enough to admit they are wrong.”
Uh, no. Wrong. Apparently you don’t know my reputation on this site. I use ad hominem attacks all the time. It’s my charm.
But please—let’s not try to take the moral and intellectual high ground here, you who got only as intellectual as quoting Sam Kinnison, and who’s solution was for us all to go back to “horses and candles.” That’s some brilliant thinkin’, there, Lou.
“I’m not going to argue with you – it would certainly be amusing,”
For me, perhaps, yes. For you it would be crushing.
I nevertheless invite you to try. Go ahead, twerp.
“but ultimately a time waster. I’ve debated obtuse idealogues like you before. It’s always the same old “whaaargaarrrrbl…””
Is… that supposed to be clever in some way? Hmm.
Nah. On reflection it’s clear there’s no cleverneess about you.
“And I’d pit my IQ against yours ANY day, kid.”
HA. Kid. Nice. I’m 44 years old, jackass. And you don’t know WHO the fuck you’re talking to. I suggest you ask around about me before you go shooting your mouth off about pitting your IQ against mine.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
@Taylor (130):
I’m sure you’re unaware on how completely possible, and even plausible, it is to terraform a place like Mars. Sure it would take some time, however the concept behind it is relatively simple. Send up some bacterial organisms the thrive in Carbon rich environments that also release oxygen into the atmosphere, which there are, and let them do there business in making an atmosphere. This would take a considerably amount of time, however while this is happening this newly created abundance of oxygen would bind with the random little Hydrogen atoms that occupy 98% of our universe and make some water. Before you know it, actually a relatively long time, you have an oxygen rich atmosphere, the kind in which plants thrive in. See where we’re going with this? At this point send in some plants and give them another lengthy amount of time to spread throughout the planet and create an atmospheric cycle very much similar to earth’s.
This is something that NASA scientists are putting a lot of thought into trying to make work. However it’d be incredibly expensive, and the question is whether or not it would take too long to be successful. I mean we’re talking about building an entire planet with just raw materials here. It could take more time than we have. I tend to think, however, that it’s definitely worth a shot.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
@Randall (135):
I’m not trying to be balse, I’m just being realistic here. Maybe instead of focusing our efforts on leaving this planet we can focus our efforts on controlling the population, which I don’t even think is an issue at the moment.
And like I said before, there’s plenty of room here in Canada for everybody.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
@Taylor (144):
Taylor, the point is that we cannot start abandoning technologies which might lead to new discoveries. Yes, by all means lets address the population problem… but we’re already at a level where our energy needs are being outstripped. You’re not going to solve the energy problem that way, by ONLY focusing or mainly focusing on population. There isn’t time for that.
Space, physics research, biomedical research, nanotechnology, etc. etc. etc.—all or any of these could lead to discoveries that could open up our energy possibilities. To walk away from any of them is taking the risk of suicide.
To abandon space is to run the risk, also, as I pointed out earlier, of getting trapped here and condemning our species to certain eventual extinction.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
overpopulation is when the resources are insufficient to support the people present. As more and more people start living like the americans the world becomes more and more overpopulated. I would research my facts before presenting such an article with such assurance. We would need 6 earths to support us if everyone lived like in america. at the moment there are not enough resources to support us. the surplus resources in some countries do not outweigh the lack of them in other countries.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Great List.
Since I’m borderline omnipotent, I was suprised that even I was mislead by some of these facts. especially the first one!
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
@robkellyj (138): LOL
Let us see what my Crytsal Ball predicts. Rub… rub… Swirl…
A user called round ass, no randass, Andy All?, something close like that says, “Hey ASSHAT, I KNOW what ad hominem means, MORON! Don’t TRY to sound smart because you are STUPID!”
Rub… rub… rub… Oh, I see more…
“You THINK the END of the WORLD is AMUSING? F@#K OFF MORON! This is F%@KING SERIOUS! We are running OUT OF TIME you SHITHEAD!”
My goodness, what’s this? It’s forming slowly… Through the foggy glass I see…
“You won’t last more than 3 SECONDS debating ME, F@$KTARTD! I don’t debate CHIMPANZEES and I work at an ACADEMIC INSTITUTE and have FACTS and STUDIES to back ME up, you PRESCHOOL ASSWIPE!”
Crap, the crystall ball went dark!
What does “whaaargaarrrrbl…” mean, anyway? OK, now to refresh and see how accurate this old bowling ball, I mean Crystal Ball is.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:41 pm
@dim (146): I was waiting for the Anti-American asshole to show up. Almost made it to 150 comments before then.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:42 pm
I’d wager that it’s common knowledge that alcohol does not warm you up and eating before stepping into a pool will not give you cramps. Smart-asses have been pointing these things out for decades.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:43 pm
@renegade01 (143):
I agree with you, it is possible for sure. I was watching a documentary about the solar system and it said one of the moons of Jupiter, Titan i’m pretty sure, might be our home some day, which is a cool thought, but it’s not gonna fix the population problem. You might be able to get some people to another planet, some people with money, but not everyone.
But it is for sure a long way off, and it might work for the world’s elite but not the masses.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:45 pm
@FortuneTeller (148):
You mock me?
I, at least, am funny. You, on the other hand… eh. Not so much.
Care to step up to the plate and address any of the points I made, the actual intellectual points that ought to be the topic of discussion here? Or do you want to just sit there and play cute? If the latter… don’t waste our time.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Twerp? Maybe my Crystal Ball needs to get polished at the local alley.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:47 pm
@Taylor (151):
Again, Taylor… the “getting off the planet” thing doesn’t really have much to do with the population issue—it was a tangent I went off on. The point is that it spreads humanity around and prevents us, therefore, from getting knocked off in one blow.
The reason I even brought it up is because it OUGHT to be a very serious and real goal for our species—BUT if we wait too long to work at it and developing better energy technologies, we’ll be screwed, and end up stuck here.
Get it?
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Unicorn Farts: I was responding to the fact that he (Randall) questioned my intelligence and character. That’s why I brought up IQ. I’ve read his posts many times, and he fancies himself an intellectual, but is really just a anal-retentive blow-hard.
My “argument” (statement) was not an attack on his character – it was a description of how people (such as Randall) often resort to ad hominem attacks – because they are generally so narcissistic that cannot possibly accept that someone else may believe other than them (or are smarter, less ignorant – take your pick).
Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: \(ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem, -nəm\
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
Date: 1598
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
So, good day yourself.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:50 pm
@Randall (145):
Abandon space? I didn’t say that, I love space actually, it’s one of the most interesting aspects of life, I just can’t see how even 1% of the world could ever leave this planet based on money, politics and greed of those who have compared to those who have not, and those who have aren’t gonna be the ones in need of leaving the earth anyway, they’ll buy big places to live, lot’s of oil to use once we run out, etc, then they will leave if they have to, before everyone else that is.
Living on another planet is a good idea in theory, but then again so is communism.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:53 pm
@Taylor (156):
Eh, Taylor. I think you’re making too many assumptions. Getting off the earth is a LONG term goal. We’re not saying it can happen tomorrow.
By the time it CAN happen, we have no idea what the socio-political makeup of the earth—not to mention the economic—may look like.
At any rate, the idea is to keep working towards it as a goal NOW while we still can. AND to keep up our ability to defend the planet against impacts—which is an even more pressing necessity.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
@robkellyj (155):
I note with interest, rob, that you can take the time to call me an “anal retentive blowhard” who “fancies himself an intellectual”… but you can’t take the time to refute any of the substantive things I’ve said.
Clearly this is because you can’t.
I use insults as a form of finesse, to amuse and entertain. Others, such as yourself, try to use them as a subsitute for anything of value or worth to say.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:57 pm
The good news is that Randall isn’t going to get any grumpier as he gets older. The bad news is that he is going to be this grumpy for the rest of his life.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:02 pm
@astraya (159):
You read that article too, huh? It’s reassuring in a way, isn’t it?
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:04 pm
@astraya (159):
Sorry, duh… that was one of the items on the list. I forgot that. It was also in an article online I saw the other day.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
@Randall (157):
You just like to argue eh? I don’t even really care about this but it’s fun pushing people’s buttons haha
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
@Taylor (162):
You’re not pushing MY buttons, Taylor. I couldn’t care less if you get behind my plan for saving the human race.
But that’s the difference between Americans and Canadians. I GOT a plan. I’m thinking ahead, I’m all for trying. You, on the other hand, just wanna give up and have us all over for a brew.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Randall: “but you can’t take the time to refute any of the substantive things I’ve said.
Clearly this is because you can’t.”
Another of your (many) leaps of logic.
Personally, I don’t care that your ignorant – it’s not my job to educate you. If you are unwilling or (more likely) unable to educate yourself, then my embarrassing you online is certainly not going to help.
And the difference between Americans and Canadians is that we really don’t give a shit WHAT you do in your ice hole. Only fit for penguins and moose.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:26 pm
you’re – before Randall jumps all over my typo
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Some sushi is raw
Old people get grumpy because they realise they have wasted their life and that they are going to die soon.
Cell phones can interrupt the communications systems on a plane.
Considering that the majority of resources belong to the top few percentile of wealthiest people, then yes; the world is overpopulated beyond belief.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
@Randall (157):
In 2009, a man who was so unbelievably self important that he fancied himself as some sort of fortune teller, said this:
‘In point of fact, a lot of doomsayers in the 60s and 70s were making grim predictions about overpopulation focused primarily on the presumed inability of food production to keep up with demand. Of course none of these great prophets foresaw the great strides that were already underway, and would soon come, in regards to more efficient food production techniques of various kinds. Today we’re feeding more people than we ever thought possible. It’s a great thing. And no, mass starvation is not right around the corner.’
I wager that in 2059, a man who is so unbelievably self important that he will fancy himself as some sort of fortune teller will say this:
‘In point of fact, a lot of doomsayers in the 00s and 10s were making grim predictions about overpopulation focused primarily on the presumed inability of energy production to keep up with demand. Of course none of these great prophets foresaw the great strides that were already underway, and would soon come, in regards to more efficient energy production techniques of various kinds. Today we’ve got more energy available than we ever thought possible. It’s a great thing. And no, mass energy shortage is not right around the corner.’
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
#5? Ummm…. We are dangerously overpopulated.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
@robkellyj (164):
“Another of your (many) leaps of logic.”
Hardly. You’ve had more than an enough time and opportunity to address, directly, the substance of what I said. You have failed to do so. To assume, therefore, that you cannot, is not at all a “leap” of logic. It is, rather, quite logical.
If you can refute me, do so. If not, admitting it would be the manly thing to do.
“Personally, I don’t care that your ignorant – it’s not my job to educate you.”
Well, it’s convenient to say it’s “not your job.” But still, rob… if I’m SO ignorant… do, please, illustrate how I’m ignorant. Correct me. Refute what I’ve said.
“If you are unwilling or (more likely) unable to educate yourself, then my embarrassing you online is certainly not going to help.”
AGAIN, rob… I INVITE you to “embarrass” me here. Do so. Clearly you’re confident that you can. Please… go right ahead.
The fact is, asshole, that you can’t. You’re all bluff, and you have nothing to answer anything I said.
“And the difference between Americans and Canadians is that we really don’t give a shit WHAT you do in your ice hole. Only fit for penguins and moose.”
I’M AN AMERICAN JACKASS. TAYLOR is the Canadian.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I will admit that I was wrong: I did not know you are American.
I did, and do know, however, that you are a douche.
Keep going on about “your” plan to “save the world,” Batman – they serve good pudding in the asylum.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
i love these lists and have to say that i can see the argument in support of the number 5 suggestion for dealing with over population as to actual space available for inhabiting the planet.
questions such as – how would you build a waste system for all these people in one area? how would you take the food to japan? how would these people be sustained when fossil fules are being deplinished? make it sound as if there would be a sudden mass exados to these areas, and we would some how have lost all our planes ships and advances in renewable sources of power?
these are all things that could be taken care of with time and planning in preperation for such a move i would have thought.
so i can see the logic behind the statment of over population being a myth.
said great list
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:10 pm
I love the way people with self professed high IQ’s obviously have very large egos as well. I will say no names because I’ve been visiting this site and leaving my own comments for some time and I chose the high road and simply don’t go after others that post and leave comments that differ from my own views. Even if someone directs a comment toward me I laugh it off because instead of wasting time going back and forth with someone that isn’t my intellectual equal I can just post facts that back up things I’ve posted and do it all without aiming said post at other people. People throw their age out there for others to see as if this is a way to justify their claims of being more mature in both intelligence and reason. When in reality it does just the opposite. Let’s stick to facts about the list we are discussing and quit attacking each other. If anybody reads this and wants to respond then please do so. But don’t aim any negative banter toward me directly because I won’t respond and you’ll just be wasting your time. Oh yeah! Nice list and good thing to know about the cops. The last few list haven’t been the best.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Great list!
However the explanation of the “overpopulation myth” is highly oversimplified.
No one is arguing we don’t have space to house all of the people on earth, the problem isn’t one of space, it’s one of resources, namely energy and food.
Right now we don’t have enough food for everyone on earth, and we’re approaching the point we may not have enough petroleum, each of these problems is solvable but the solutions may be mutually exclusive: the use of biomass-derived fuels would theoretically solve the problem of energy but it would take a vast portion of our arable land away from food production. The problem isn’t housing space, it’s resources.
In addition the kind of density mentioned in the list is likely undoable, some studies on animals have noted a drastic increase in aggressive behavior as population density increases, personal space is not the only issue, but also communal space and unused “buffer space”.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Jfrater: About the eating before swimming article…
My father went swimming after eating on a Sunday afternoon… He did not go deep.. In fact, he went deep enough for the water to reach his shoulders and he did mknow how to swim…
Enough said.. He got a bad cramp…He drowned..
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
*he knew how to swim..
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I guess it really depends on the circumstances…
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
I think the overpopulation thing has to do with more than land, sure, there is enough physical land to accompany a bunch more people, but there are certainly not enough resources, which is the big problem with overpopulation in the first place.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:58 pm
while alcohol doesn’t truly warm a person, the right kind most certainly lends a warming sensation (whiskey, bourbon, etc).
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:59 pm
@Randall (95): applause!
The availability of water is a huge problem where I live. It’s so bad that no new water meter permits have been issued in the last 10 years, and there is no chance, at this point, that any will be issued in future.
No permit, no new building.
A desal plant has been up for vote year after year, but the cost skyrockets year after year(and was absurdly costly to begin with). Our little village can’t afford it.
I do believe that there will be found ways to increase food production in land that is now not suitable for agriculture.
#6 made me laugh! I have always heard this, but I am living proof of it’s absurdity. All during my childhood my brother and I would swim every day it was warm enough and mum would bring our lunch to us poolside. We didn’t even get out of the water. I did the same for my kids. No one ever cramped.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
@Randall (121):
“NOW shut up and go away. You aren’t worth the time I wasted responding to you.”
Of course, this is AFTER the bloviating. Simply priceless.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
I just thought of two more senses. An Artistic sense, and a sense of Logic. I have seen both of these running very strongly in families, as if they may be carried on the DNA.
Both Artistic and Logic cover far more territory than it would be reasonable for me to address here, just let me say that both senses are wider by far than what usually comes to mind when you first think of them.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Food for thought…………
According to the U.N. Population Database, using the historically accurate low variant projection, the Earth’s population will only add another billion people or so over the next thirty years, peaking around 8.02 billion people in the year 2040, and then it will begin to decline.
If true, then depopulation may become an issue. Don’t think or assume depopulation is good. Most of our social systems are built around the idea that the population will continue to grow and support such systems. See Social Security in USA as an example, and Europe will have many issues in the near future as their populations are already declining.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Archiealt,
Are you actually suggested that because some amazing technological inventions were made in the area of food productions that we should just assume that more will come in the future and that they will come in other areas as well. That is an insane suggestion. How do you think those food technologies came about, in a vacuum. No, it was because of the concern. No one is suggesting that some great person might solve the energy crisis. You are absolutely right to say that. However, that in no way implies that we should not in the mean time, make the kind of changes that might give us the time to reach this technology. It is dishonest to say that all the people on this list don’t believe that there is a possibility of a cheap, efficient and massive source of renewable energy, we are only suggesting that counting on such a discovery would be insane. Its the equivalent of suggesting that AIDS education and proactive prevention be tabled because someone may possibly someday offer a cure.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Randalll, yoou don’t have tp worry about anyone embarassing you on this site…uou’ve beaten us to it. Seriously, ,an, you are rude. Maybe you’re getting cranky from being older now,hm? Really now: crank it down a notch.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:13 pm
@Dark (172):
Well you’re just a perfectly smug type aren’t you?
“I love the way people with self professed high IQ’s obviously have very large egos as well.”
I love the way humorless dicks think everyone else in the world is as humorless as they are.
Now, you know what? I usually couldn’t care less when some sanctimonious piece of wood criticizes me for my style here. But I’ll tell you what’s got me kind of riled up about this. (And this isn’t addressed solely to you).
Over on another thread, there is a a person—perhaps two—who are trumpeting their skepticism in regards to the Holocaust. I said my piece over there and then left it. I know that such people really only crave attention and never truly listen to logic or reason, or the facts. But it angers me nevertheless. I have familial reasons for it angering me, along with reasons of pure morality.
Now, we come over here on another thread, and I, along with many others, was critical of the inclusion of “overpopulation” as a myth on this list. Naturally, as is always the case, the yahoos come out of the woodwork to snipe at me—not attacking the substance of what I said–oh, they almost never do *that*—but simply to attack ME. Now of course, sure, I invite some of it upon myself by employing the persona I use here, which is an abrasive one, and is, as someone once described it, “the Don Rickles of List Universe.” So I freely expect some degree of hostility towards my comments, when they address controversial issues. Of course as I say—the substance of what I said is almost never addressed—just a lot of personal attacks upon me. I do a little name-calling, mixed in with some substantive points, facts, informed opinion… and frequently what they do is come back at me with nothing more than insults. I defend myself… and so it goes. It entertains a lot of people, they come to watch the show.
Of course I feel I provide more of a service than that. I offer up what knowledge I have to the site… I’m a professional historian, a writer, and I consider myself to be rather an expert on a handful of subjects, and pretty well-versed in several others. So sometimes I genuinely help out with information–and that too is appreciated by some people here.
But all that aside, I must confess it sickens me to leave some Holocaust denier to prattle on on this website that I consider to be a kind of “home,” though at the same time, I know quite well that the result of trying to deal with such a person will only be wasted hours on the computer.
Of course, a few of us stood up to this liar, this deceiver… (and actually, as I say, there’s more than one in operation over there). But you know what galls me? What really pisses me off and has me writing this particular commentary? It’s that none of the smug, self-satisfied little assholes here, such as you, such as a few other people I could mention—and I don’t even mean people who have been on THIS thread in particular—none of them have been over there standing up to this latter day fascist revisionist.
There are people here who will go on about how “List Universe” is their little internet home away from home. But you know what? They’re not over there. Now, okay, like me they might feel–what’s the point? They might say to themselves, like me, that the Holocaust denier won’t stop just because we respond to him—and after all, it’s just what he wants—responses. We won’t dignify him with responses. Okay, maybe so. But there’s ways to show your displeasure, your disapproval, ways to take a stand against offensive rhetoric and offensive ideas without actually lending dignity to the source of those ideas. A barrage of comments ABOUT the odious message these people are peddling would at least show that the audience of this site cares about the truth and cares about NEVER letting those who want to softsoap the history of the worst evil ever perpetrated on the earth get away with it.
But where are any of you?
Okay, it’s just an internet site. It’s just a lot of words on a screen. Doesn’t mean anything. But then why do so many of you keep coming here every day? Why do you speak glowingly of the site and act like you “own” a tiny piece of it?
Well… I AM being defensive I guess. Ordinarily I don’t let shit like this bother me. I couldn’t care less what your opinion of me is, “dark.” But it’s interesting how there’s a lot of people on this site who will take attitudes like yours from time to time—but when there’s an opportunity for them to say something that takes an IMPORTANT stance that’s really ABOUT something—they’re nowhere to be found. Okay, some might not know what’s going on. I’ll give you that. Some don’t come here every day, and they lose track of what’s going on. Some might not be able to find the words to express what they feel.
It just kind of galls me that I’ve got to defend myself to trivial little nothings like you who can take the time to make smug pronouncements about other people… but can’t be bothered to do anything else around here. Not, anyway, anything that matters.
So good for you sport, you got to toss some barbs my way. Make you feel good? Of course, nothing YOU had to say had anything whatsoever to do with the list either. It was, actually, just another personal attack. Yup. You take the high road.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:17 pm
@EVACREEKD (184):
I agree with you. Randall thinks he’s charming, and he’s the exact opposite of charming. Why is he allowed to vomit his vitriol?
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:28 pm
@Steelman (182):
That’s the LOW variant. The range is from the low up to over 10 billion for the high. The accurate variant is now considered to be the middle, at 9.2 billion.
I don’t know where you get the statement that “after that, it begins to decline.” I have not seen anything to indicate that in the reports I’ve read.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:30 pm
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6038
“…Yet Zlotnik said that overall population growth “is inevitable.” As a result, natural resources such as fossil fuels, timber, minerals, and water will likely be severely depleted in many regions. Population growth also compounds global challenges like climate change and biodiversity loss.
Feeding the world’s expanding population will increase water demand 70 to 90 percent by 2050 without improved agricultural methods, according to the U.N. World Water Development Report. This is the case even though many regions are already reaching the limits of their water resources, said the report, which is being released at the start of this week’s World Water Forum.”
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Great list!!!
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:43 pm
@bryainiac (71): Regarding your disregard for the authority of the flight attendant: I think it’s important that you know that, in the US at least, it is federal law that you must comply with any and all instructional signs or placards as well as all crew member instructions. Failure to comply can result in hefty fines, or even being arrested.
Isn’t it possible for Randall to be both an “anal-retentive blow hard” as well as an intellectual? if not, I’ll have to rethink everything I held to be truth!
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Another myth commonly believed and even taught in schools is that there are three states of matter are solid, liquid, and gas. There are actually at least six (NOT counting dark matter). The original three that everybody is familiar with and three more.
First is the Einstein-Bose condensate. This is when matter is lowered to such a low temperature (infinitesimally above absolute zero[-273 degrees C or -459 degrees F]) that the atoms no longer move at all and only vibrate.
The next is plasma. Plasma is when an atom is heated to such high temperatures that the electromagnetic force between atomic particles is overcome and the electrons are ripped away leaving only the cores behind. This is what the sun and other stars are composed of.
Finally is neutron-degenerate matter. This is only found in neutron stars. In this, gravity overcomes every force and crushes atoms so tightly that electrons are fused with protons creating neutrons and the only thing preventing the formation of a black hole is the Pauli Exclusion principle which says two particles cannot occupy the same space. Although composed of ten times more matter than the sun (which is itself 1,300,000 bigger than the earth) a neutron star is only about ten miles in width.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:49 pm
LOL #2!!!
I thought nobody would think sushi means raw fish,
so funny and cute at the same time.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Actually number 3 is true, just look at Randall! Haha just bustin your balls dude.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Incredibly bad argument against overpopulation. While the other myths I enjoyed, the population “myth” made me surprised jfrater would publish this list. The fact is that overpopulation is the cause of many of the world’s problems such as hunger, pollution, destruction of the environment and even traffic congestion. There is no doubt to me the world would be a better place with 1 billion or far less people.
Jfrater, I’m disappointed in you.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
@Taylor (151):
Well actually I tend to disagree with this assertion. I mean sure, at first all of the rich wealthy people would be sent up. But then what? Most of the people aren’t going to know how to grow/gather food. They aren’t going to know how to build a home from nothing. They aren’t going to be able survive without help from less wealthy individuals, such as farmers, hunters, builders, etc. In order for a civilization to survive beginning on a new planet they’d HAVE to bring up the less wealthy.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:14 pm
167 archiealt
Archiealt, the point of the matter is… the world is quite overcrowded right now. Such technology to limit our human need for space has not arisen yet. If it has, congratulations to us. But it still does not leave out the fact that such conceptions of overcrowding are anthropocentric.
How many species has humanity laid waste to in its quest for self-sustainment/greed?
November 24th, 2009 at 1:06 am
People always go on about Africa and overpopulation, but here are a couple neat numbers that should make one think about what the real problem in that continent is…
Africa surface area: 30.2 million km² (11.7 million sq mi)
Africa Population: just about 1 billion as of 2009
Europe Surface area: (excluding most of russia)10,180,000 square kilometres (3,930,000 sq mi) A THIRD OF AFRICA’S SIZE
Europe Population: 731 million NEARLY THREE QUARTERS OF AFRICA’S
The vast majority of food and resources consumed in Europe annually are also produced there, yet there is nothing close to starvation and destitution amongst the 731 million inhabitants living there. In fact, European agricultural policy is deliberately designed to stifle food production in order to keep prices higher (American farm subsidy style.
Despite the fact that Europe is one third of Africa’s physical size, but with nearly 3/4 of Africa’s population, and inhabited by a population that consumes far more then the average African; Europe manages still to largely sustain itself while Africa is full of poverty.
The reason for this? Get over it you simple minded eco speweing ignorants, but what Europe has is better technology, better resources, a more efficient system of producing and distributing resources, and a rule of law that allows these activities to be done and advanced further in safety and peace. Africa largely lacks these things, thus Africans inefficiently use their resources. That is why there are problems with destitution and starvation in this world; too many places like Africa.
Instead of going on about lowering populations, we should think how best to allow people the procuctivity which could allow them to live like europeans. Then we would see just how much of a paper demon “overpopulation” is.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:17 am
If everyone would squeeze into a piece of land, as densely populated as Singapore at 6800 people per km2, then 1000000km2 is enough to house everyone on earth. Take note that Singapore leaves spaces for airports, 4 airbases, large live firing areas, tourism, commerce, tropical rainforest, reservoirs and some greenery. That would leave the rest of the world to be used for everything else. The whole world would fit in 1/2 of Indonesia where it’s surrounded by water or maybe Egypt. The thing is that not many countries have that kind of money or technology to house that kind of number. But still, there would only be 45 people per square km2 if everyone was spread out evenly, so everyone would have a 150m x 150m piece of land, considering that all land is can support human life.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:13 am
@EVACREEKD (184): @seneca (186): I agree with the both of you. Randall drags the comments section to a new low every time he throws a temper tantrum. I’m going to drop a message to Jamie and crew. The lists are great but the comments section is getting vulgar and mean spirited. Nobody needs to put up with that. Otherwise, just steer clear of people like that.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:32 am
I got an impromptu lecture from an extremely drunk marine biologist about a week and a half ago and found out about no. 10, though whether some of them should be classed as senses was open to debate.
Another thing I learned was that a barnacle has a penis 50 times the size of its body, making it the animal with the biggest penis, relative to body size.
Feel free to use that one to impress your friends and co-workers. I have and it works!
November 24th, 2009 at 6:44 am
@Stephan (197</a
Overpopulation a "paper demon?" Okay, Stephan, tell you what. Let's hypothetically give those one billion people in Africa a European lifestyle. Now they're consuming resources at a far higher rate. Requires energy. Because now they have food distribution, water (we'll skip just HOW they got all that freshwater for the time being–but obviously it alone requires a great cost in energy) massive infrastructure, etc. etc.
Where does the energy for all this developed lifestyle come from, Stephan?
Overpopulation is NOT a "paper demon." It is, in fact, a very real issue, because as population increases, the drag on our ability to produce enough energy to service and satisfy all these people increases. As I've already pointed out, we're already creeping towards a crisis where our energy production rate cannot keep up with demand. Hand another billion people on the planet a developed lifestyle, and you can see where this goes.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:45 am
@Stephan (197): Overpopulation a “paper demon?” Okay, Stephan, tell you what. Let’s hypothetically give those one billion people in Africa a European lifestyle. Now they’re consuming resources at a far higher rate. Requires energy. Because now they have food distribution, water (we’ll skip just HOW they got all that freshwater for the time being–but obviously it alone requires a great cost in energy) massive infrastructure, etc. etc.
Where does the energy for all this developed lifestyle come from, Stephan?
Overpopulation is NOT a “paper demon.” It is, in fact, a very real issue, because as population increases, the drag on our ability to produce enough energy to service and satisfy all these people increases. As I’ve already pointed out, we’re already creeping towards a crisis where our energy production rate cannot keep up with demand. Hand another billion people on the planet a developed lifestyle, and you can see where this goes.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:12 am
Why does this article uses the imperial system? Do everyone live in the United States now?
November 24th, 2009 at 7:35 am
@Next Step (203): In fact we do. Don’t you know we are overpopulated!!!
November 24th, 2009 at 8:13 am
197 Stephan
Let’s look at Europe now. Most of the continent has become human-land for human-purposes. A lot of European species have been decimated. The continent used to be quite forested or had large grasslands, but nowadays… none.
Sure! Europe can sustain itself. Europe can fit its human population into a tiny space, and use the rest of the land for agriculture to support its populace. It also sucks up energy from the Middle East and the Urals. And consumes much of the world’s resources. What if Africa did that? What if Brazil did that? Where would the Amazon go? Where would the Congo go? What could possibly be left as habitat for the other species we share this planet with, let alone recycle the carbon we emit in the atmosphere?
I’m not being a greeny here. I’m just not guilty of anthropocentrism – which, by the way, means human-centric. The universe does not revolve around humanity. Indeed, the very fact that a lot of the comments here focus on what humans need, and leave out the rest of the planet highlights the culture of greed and self-centredness humans have come to embody.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:29 am
11. WTC 7 collapsed into its footprint in 6.5 seconds because of “thermal expansion”.
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/barry-jennings-speaks/
November 24th, 2009 at 9:54 am
were not running of out space, it’s the food, fuel, and other natural sources that’s getting scarce.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:33 am
@EVACREEKD (184) & the rest of you whiny babies:
Randall is the brightest, most knowledgeable poster on LV. When someone presents an argument without foundation, without basis in logic, without facts to back them up, he points out their failings.
When someone uses circular arguments based on false ideas, he points out their failings.
When someone starts to discuss History, and woe to him who gets it wrong, he will absolutely point out their failings; Randall is an Historian.
Some do not like the way in which Randall interacts with those who fail to think through their argument before posting, but it really is an excellent life lesson. Randall is teaching you how to think! You should be grateful.
Sure, you may feel he goes overboard sometimes (I don’), but ignore that part and embrace the lesson. You’ll end up a better human being…except for those idiots on the other list who are beyond help.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:39 am
I’m glad the rest of the list was good, because #10 is simply not true. Balance is not a sense in the same way that taste, smell, etc. are. Temperature and pain fall under the same category as touch. Imagination is not a sense because it is not an involuntary interpretation of a physical stimulus.
Please change that to something else.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:42 am
@Tom (194)
I totally agree with you, the population one alone killed this list. Anyone with basic knowledge in ecology knows that there is only a certain number of of plants or animals an ecosystem can sustain before all of the resources are gone. On grander scale, the earth will one day run out of resources if we continue to comsume them the way we do.
There is usually always a good list to read but this one……..
Jfrater, I’m disappointed in you
November 24th, 2009 at 11:08 am
I’ve been reading Listverse articles from the very beginning so I think I have at least some right to say this: articles like this keep the Listverse from world domination. Seriously, this list has amateur hour written all over it.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Wow! Without saying names I end up being attacked and called names and I get spoke down at. My point gets proven because Mr Ego just couldn’t stand it and assumes he and he alone is who my comments were referencing. My comments were not meant to single out only one person.But looking at the response I got I can see why some would think that.Yawn! I also can use big words and fancy jargon to criticize others. But what’s the point? Come on man! Just let it go. And for the record those that deny the Holocaust sicken me also. How bout a truce? We are much better than this. Well,I know I am.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Overpopulation has nothing to do with land space…
November 24th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Good nice research, I felt better when I read about the world population because I’ve accepted that myth since ever!
November 24th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
@seneca (186): Because Randall takes the time and care to flavor his vitriol with BAJ.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
@segues (208):
‘Randall is the brightest, most knowledgeable poster on LV.’
But he is also a retarded ass bandit. It’s like a dog salesman saying,
‘Look at this dog isn’t he brilliant, look at those two beautiful legs, there probably the best two legs i’ve ever seen on a dog!’
‘What about the other two, they’re all broken and mangled. In fact one of them isn’t even a leg, its a potato’
‘Well don’t worry about that, he may lack two but look at the two he has got, boy they’re something’
Randall may be intelligent in some areas, but he’s also a dildo-chief. This means that as a human being, Randall has Failed.
Game Set and Match.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Randall–so your behavior onthis site is a” persona”,acopted I suppose, for your amusenment, and to stir the pot in what passes for discucssion when you are around? How sad. You and I could meet,say, in a pub and never know of our hidden lives on the net, and I would depart saying,”What an nice guy: personaable, affable, and above all, reasonable.” Man, this adopted persona is interefering with your communication attempts, and what is left is hard feelings, angry words, and epithets. Hardly the high-water mark of civilizaation, as we know it.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
@archiealt (216): You are one of those who need the lessons Randall is teaching as much as anyone, and more than many.
There is no Game Set and Match to you, you little cretin, you haven’t the smarts to know the game.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
@EVACREEKev (217): If you have so much trouble with Randall’s “persona”, how come I don’t? How come a lot of us don’t? Maybe you just have to be adult enough to understand who he is.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
@segues (218):
Are you being serious? The ‘Lessons Randall is teaching’, he’s not Mr Miyagi. It’s the fucking internet sweetheart, and Randall is just another bog standard internet loser. Deal with it and move on.
And I know perfectly well what the game is, it’s the game of ‘Not being an internet fag’. I’m winning. You? Not so much.
Royal Fucking Flush.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
@segues (218): I know that game too and archiealt is losing. He just doesn’t know it. He’s also a troll. No need to bother with him, dear. The rest of us know who and what Randall is.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Regardless of ANYONE’s personal opinion of Randall, it must be admitted that his comments often bring a more rounded and extensive bit of knowledge to the table.
I welcome his comments….they often give me opportunity to Google on my own, making the “grey” of a conflict a little less so.
He brings up aspects that were not included in an item listed. Today’s subject of overpopulation and all that it encompasses is a prime example.
He DOES have a wide variety of knowledge, and oftentimes I find myself wishing he had something to say on a less volatile list subject when I find no comments of his there.
Yes he is opinionated…aren’t we all. But isn’t that the joy of the internet.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
@segues (219): I’ll jump on the anti-Randall bandwagon while it’s going by. He isn’t all that you proclaim he is. It’s sad that you and Ian and one or two others around here consistantly look up to him so much. A 44 year old father acting like that? I’ve said enough.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
@Petie (223):
‘A 44 year old father acting like that? I’ve said enough.’
BULLSEYE.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
The one about swimming after eating was invented by parents that didn´t want to go swimming after eating, and much rather have a nap!!
November 24th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
The sushi one is a common annoyance to me. I know a lot of people who will say a cucumber roll, etc, isn’t “real” sushi because it doesn’t contain raw fish, and refuse to listen to me when I try to explain it refers to the rice.
The earthquake myth is common around here as well, since I live in Southern California where there are a lot of earthquakes. Most people I know are more likely to believe that lots of small earthquakes are fortelling a big one, though.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Anuy chance you could give us your sources next time? I want to believe you, I do… but need some evidence!
November 24th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Does anyone know how many people Earth’s potable water supply can support? I mean we’ve discussed food, but what happens when the water runs out?
I seem to recall someone, maybe a pundit, but maybe a historian saying the next war will be fought over oil, but the one after that will be the last one and it will be over water.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
About war on water, wow…have people even thought about so far? Preserve as much as we can should be the effort. Over air pollution might change nature to some extent and may cause weird rainfalls or no rainfalls. But i’m sure since people have evented faux diamonds why not water?
what say..?
November 24th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
If Randall has anything intelligent to say, it cannot be seen because of his name-calling and the way he diminishes those who disagree with him. Calling others names means one does not have a real argument to stand behind.
There is something very wrong about someone who needs to spend so much time fighting on the internet with strangers. That is not normal.
Most of all, the dread of seeing him here makes one not want to come to ListVerse. He drives people away. We do not come here to read the personal venom of the disturbed.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
@EVACREEKev (217): this adopted persona is interefering with your communication attempts, and what is left is hard feelings…
@archiealt (220): And I know perfectly well what the game is, it’s the game of ‘Not being an internet fag’.
@Petie (223): I’ll jump on the anti-Randall bandwagon while it’s going by…A 44 year old father acting like that?
@seneca (230): If Randall has anything intelligent to say, it cannot be seen because of his name-calling and the way he diminishes those who disagree with him.
OMG you all are a bunch of fucking crybaby pussies, obsessing about meaningless bullshit. Grow up. If you are so intent on putting Randall down, then refute his fucking points! How many times have we heard him ask that of his detractors? Simple enough, yet no one has the resolve about the subject at hand to take him up on that challenge. Pathetic character attacks aren’t going to get it done, so stop bitching about his online personae. “Oh boo hoo Randall hurts our feelings, he shouldn’t act this way, I don’t want to come to Listverse anymore.” LOL give it a rest already. Why can’t you simply wade thru the so-called “interference” and read what he is actually saying? And then attack the meat of his arguments if you don’t agree with him. He offers up PLENTY of that to chew on, but instead you all get so caught up in, as archiealt puts it, the game. As the saying goes – if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Whining about it is not going to change anything.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
@Maggot (231):
The fact is that many cannot stand Randall.
We come here for the lists, the writing, and the positives.
Let Randall start a blog of his venom. See who shows up. Why does he have to bring it here?
START A BLOG OF HIS VENOM!!! SEE WHO SHOWS UP!!!
November 24th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
@Maggot (231): Thumbs up
November 24th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
@seneca (232): The fact is that many cannot stand Randall.
So? Why is that anyone’s problem but their own?
We come here for the lists, the writing, and the positives.
So then, take those things from the site. Why are you letting someone, ANYone, stop you from achieving that desire? Take control of your own arena instead of letting your perceived distractions control you.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
@seneca (232):
The only thing wrong with Randall is that he doesn’t suffer fools lightly. Hell, I should know . . . I posted a list with some pretty bad errors and he proceeded to put both feet and half an arm down my online throat. Did it hurt my feelings? Hell yeah. (of course, my feelings are on my sleeve anyway) Did I deserve it? Hell yeah. I screwed up my numbers, he called me on it, I got smart assed about it and he went off on my ass.
Randall can be abrasive, but I don’t think it’s venom so much as passion. He’s a professor. If you’ve never been in education, you don’t know what it’s like to look at a room full of freshman with a decidedly reptilian haze on their faces and realize “these people will be the generation that changes my diapers in the nursing home.” It’s easy to get frustrated and sometimes, the frustration comes out online, but when you think about it, we all need to blow up sometimes and if we can’t blow up at each other, who the hell can we blow up at?
November 24th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
@Shannon (235):
I totally disagree.
There are codes of conduct for living in society. He does not follow those codes.
He needs to be moderated and treated like the child he posts as.
If he has points to make, why cannot they be made without attacking and diminishing others?
I find him entirely boring and not worth reading. I see his venom at others, and wonder why he is given a platform for such.
WHY IS HE GIVEN A PLATFORM FOR SUCH?
I have been a paying member of another board where people like him were allowed to run rampant. They destroyed that board and drove the civil away.
Now, finally, thanks to strong moderation, the National Board of that website is once again flowering. The state/city boards have not yet recovered.
Randall drives readers away.
He does not have the right to insult others.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Randall, how do you find the time to devote to all of these posts you do? Don’t you feel it’s time ill spent because if there is one thing more sure than overpopulation it’s that you seldom if ever change the mind of someone you debate with on the internet.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
@seneca (236):
“I find him entirely boring and not worth reading.”
Then don’t read him.
“WHY IS HE GIVEN A PLATFORM FOR SUCH?”
Well, I guess because we kinda like his curmudgeonly attitude.
“I have been a paying member of another board”
Why pay to be on a board?
November 24th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Shannon (235)–
ok, you’re right. I give. I just came here for a good time, but you’re right. Sorry Randall, I didn’t mean to be a brailess, pinhead whiny baby (Medicare starts next month, god willing) I sincerely didn’t mean to be drawn into a flaming match with a man of your calibre. I apologize.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
@seneca (232): Many also enjoy Randall’s presence here, and some others simply ignore it. I actually tend to be somewhere in the middle of that. Like a few have already stated, Randall is very well educated, and often has quite a bit of really great info to offer in addition to the basic list content. For that, I love Randall’s presence on this site. He also can be incredibly funny (go find some of the back & forths between Randall & Buc), and for that too, I love his presence here at LV.
On the other hand, I don’t particularly like the way he argues. He does jump quickly to the name calling & swearing, and he has a tendency towards the “if you disagree with anything I say, you are a stupid idiot” type attitude. Because of this, I simply choose to ignore those parts of his postings. When I see his posts changing from “informative” to “mean” I stop reading them through, and instead begin to scan for the more interesting comments. I also scan past the people who choose to engage in the mud slinging & name calling.
Overall, I’d rather have him here for the knowledge & perspective that he brings to the table.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Randall, How would Africa get energy? Like Europe does, through a market infrastructure, people would find more efficient ways of finding sources for the liquid so that it gets to where it is desired, AS LONGS AS they are allowed to live in a stable enough society to do this as the Europeans have. If there is a demand for something, and a stable system in which peiople can try to meet that demand, they will do so, and effectively.
The same can be said for the energy for this lifestyle. What people forget about things like energy and other resources is that their price reflects their scarcity. Thus, if energy were truly at risk of “disappearing” its price would start rising heavily. Since it hasnt (speaking aside from arbitrary taxes) then energy is still quite abundant.
The same mechanism that rations and distributes energy so efficiently in Europe and many other places could easily exist in Africa, and in many other places.
If these people began to become more affluent, demand would cause prices for energy to rise, thus increasing incentive to find alternative sources of it which profitably fill that demand. The prices (rising meantime) would naturally ration use so that it stays in line with availability. Later as new technology becomes available to cheaply provide more energy, people would use it more, until the cycle repeats itself. This is how we have been consuming resources for centuries (yes, even when the first malthusians screamed about how England will starve due to “overpopulation”)
This is called a price mechanism idiot, learn about it instead of just bleating “where does the energy for all this developed lifestyle come from!!!!?” Where did all the vastly greater energy consumed today vs. during the middle ages come from? From human innovation.
Medeival Europe could never have supported 731 million people, not even close, its efficiency in utilizing resources wasnt up to par. But today it is, and it will become more so as populations rise further still. Humans will naturally find ways to do this, otherwise they will stop having kids. DONT overlook technological development, or human innovation.
Archangel, Since were not going to kill ourselves off The best way to save species is through greater sophistication in a civilization. For example, In India, where many people still use wood stoves to cook food, there are virtually no forests left. In the United States, many of the forests cut down during the 19th century have regrown because there is no longer a need to utilize their resources; the far more advanced modern American civilization has found more efficient ways of providing those resources, thus sparing more of the forests. Europe still has woodlands, Im from there, I’ve seen them! They are growing as well, since logging isnt quite so important any longer.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
@Stephan (241):
“What people forget about things like energy and other resources is that their price reflects their scarcity. Thus, if energy were truly at risk of “disappearing” its price would start rising heavily. Since it hasnt (speaking aside from arbitrary taxes) then energy is still quite abundant.”
Stephan, I agree with you to a point, but here’s the thing, energy has been cheap and is still relatively cheap AND abundant, but it won’t ALWAYS be that way unless we find some new sources of energy to replace fossil fuel.
Right now, a huge portion of the population of developed countries takes ALL forms of energy for granted. We think nothing of walking into a room and flipping on a light, never realizing what it took to turn that light on.
Here in America, that light is most likely the result of a coal fired power plant, and America has HUGE reserves of coal that can still be had relatively cheaply. We have to watch the environmental impact, but we have coal to keep our lights on.
Iceland is a very geothermal country. I don’t know exact figures, but they use a tremendous amount of geothermal energy because it’s what’s available.
However, mining coal and developing geothermal power grids takes research and development and too many people don’t see the need to be PUSHING R and D, not just puttering along with the status quo.
My Papa, before he died, always said, “You don’t miss the water until the well runs dry.”
Well, we’ve had so much cheap energy for so long and it has become such a huge part of our modern lives that we’ve begun to take it as a birthright and eventually, it will run out and when it does, no electricity, no internet, no computers . . .
Now, it may not happen in ten years or a century, but it WILL happen. The “well” will run dry so we need to get the ball rolling on some viable alternatives or else we, as a species, are going to be hurting somewhere down the line.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
I totally disgree with No3, my father-in-law has been a grumpy old prick since for the past 30 years and he’s just turned 74. He didn’t need to wait till he old to turn ibto an old ^&%$.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
(91) ChineapplePunk: Those are the lyrics/words from “Joseph and the Amazing Colored Dream Coat.”
November 24th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Sheesh…ANOTHER thread discussing Randall? Honestly, Randall, I know your superpower is the ability to hypnotize people to adore you or some weak-ass Batman-esque “ability” like that, but the more I have to read people discussing you, the more and more I feel the urge to become another Randall-stalker. I’m not one at the moment. The life-size cardboard cut-out I have of you underneath my bed is strictly to enhance house decor. So what if I photoshopped yours and my face on the bodies of some cheesy historical romance novel cover? Strictly house decor.
These two fellas in the balcony are why I enjoy Bucslim and Randall. Or rather Randall & Buslim (Randall always seemed more like a Statler to me)
November 24th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
@Stephan (241): Fear not! For we will nuke each other well before we run out of resources.
Those are the current running odds.
Occam’s Razor.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
i agree with #8
experienced it.. lol
November 24th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
@Shannon (238):
This “Board Stuff” is not new and revolutionary. It’s been worked out elsewhere, with failures and successes. I discuss below a Board founded in 1999.
The decline of the referenced Board was discussed on their Washington, DC site. The website, especially the National Board, is coming back because of strong moderation. I give you part of the discussion of November 18:
Morphius poses the question and receives answers below.
Morphius: “What causes the Death of a Discussion Board?”
Krazeediogenes responds:
“I’se seen da enemy, it’s us.
Your DC board was hijacked by the self-righteous that thrived on attacking everyone that failed to live up to their bogus pretentious standards. Note: every post has some Googled french, Italian and even German occasionally. Stop trying to impress others…… You tolerate too much crazy sh!t“
Zaphod Beeblebrox responds:
“What I used to like (and would hope to see again) is that when I got back to my hotel room I could open the ol’ laptop and read the posts on this board. Somehow that sense of ‘loneness’ was always washed away as I would see posts of brethren and feel ‘connected’.
There was a time though that it became quite the opposite when I would ‘tune in’ and see a board awash with posts by a few idiots, mostly just mouthing off, beating their chests or spouting stupidity. Fortunately, those cretins are now off on their own little desert isle and no longer being the ‘thorns’ that they were on this board.”
Galahad is a former employee of the Board and possibly one of the four current owners.
Galahad responds:
What did not happen over the past couple of years, what should have happened, was newer posters were not encouraged to become part of the culture. We had a handful of people who the minute someone showed up on this site managed to drive them away with negative comments and they were particularly hard on some of the newer women.
Additionally DC, as do most areas of the country, has its share of people with agendas. For the most part they seem to be gone now from this board, but they still tend to lurk and do what they can to make everyone as miserable as they are with their own lives.
In the end the older folks have had their say. It is time for some of the young guns to find this place and step up the activity.
Now Seneca writes to Shannon:
So Shannon, I submit that, if people like Randall are allowed to run unchecked with their name-calling and swearing, ListVerse will be eventually left with a small clique who thinks that stuff is funny while wondering where everyone is.
No one is calling for Randall to be muffled. I think he should be allowed to post ONLY with respect for others. Is that too tough a task for him?
If he is so fascinating and talented, let him start his own blog and see what readers he gets! He can’t! He must feed off the gentle life-force of Jamie to have any audience at all.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
In the pop cantata “Captain Noah and his floating zoo”, the British composer Joseph Horowitz sets the rainbow to waltz time:
“Vi-o-let, in-di-do, blue – and green,
Yel-low, or-ange and red”.
In “Joseph …” Tim Rice describes the coat “of many colours” (another misconception, acutally), twice. The first time is “It was red and yellow and green and
brown and blue”. The second time is “It was red and yellow and green and brown [and 24 additional colours, building in volume, with orchestration and chorus] and blue!”.
(The first two websites I looked at both have those 24 colours twice. I suspect that that is mistake.)
November 24th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
@seneca (248): seneca, your submission, “if people like Randall are allowed to run unchecked with their name-calling and swearing, ListVerse will be eventually left with a small clique who thinks that stuff is funny while wondering where everyone is.” is based on a fallacy…several, in fact, but let’s stick to the one in point of fact…you were not on LV 2 years ago when it started up.
Randall was.
Doesn’t look much like LV is left with a small clique, now does it? The only thing wrong here I think is your inability to understand him. You have to have a 3 digit IQ to grasp his intelligence and humor.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
@Stephan (241):
You have the gall to call ME an idiot, when you can’t grasp a simple point?
“The same can be said for the energy for this lifestyle. What people forget about things like energy and other resources is that their price reflects their scarcity. Thus, if energy were truly at risk of “disappearing” its price would start rising heavily. Since it hasnt (speaking aside from arbitrary taxes) then energy is still quite abundant.”
Are you fucking kidding me?
A) the cost of energy has risen steadily over the last thirty years–outstripping, at times, the standard inflation rate.
B) In my lifetime (I am 44) I have seen the cost of gasoline and fuel oil increase by a factor of TEN. Why? ON ACCOUNT OF DEMAND AND BECAUSE THEY ARE FINITE RESOURCES.
Re-read my first post in this thread. Fossil fuels are ONLY going to rise in cost. Alternative energy sources are great, but they do NOT make up the difference. Nuclear has its advantages, but it is EXPENSIVE and is NOT going to get any cheaper. I was advocating for continued and constant research NOW to keep looking for other sources of energy. BUT–given the resources we have at present, and the level of energy technology we’re dealing with, the situation will not stand increasing demand much longer.
“The same mechanism that rations and distributes energy so efficiently in Europe and many other places could easily exist in Africa, and in many other places.”
Stephan, when you’re dealing with a FINITE resource–and energy at present IS, at least in terms of fossil fuels and nuclear–what good is a MECHANISM for rationing and distribution if the MORE PEOPLE demanding it cause it to deplete faster and faster and drive the cost of it up MORE AND MORE?
AT PRESENT the energy sources we’ve developed that ARE renewable are not capable of covering the world’s needs AS IT IS, let alone if we suddenly added a few more billion people demanding energy at even HIGHER rates.
“If these people began to become more affluent, demand would cause prices for energy to rise, thus increasing incentive to find alternative sources of it which profitably fill that demand.”
No shit. But what you’re arguing for is letting the market determine this. That is not only shortsighted, but STUPID. Now I agree—as fossil fuels become more and more expensive, the incentive to find cheaper fuel sources will drive research and development–but how about telling me just what these cheaper fuel sources are supposed to be? And don’t give me this crap about “we don’t know until research uncovers them”—we know simple physics.
Wind, solar, geothermal and hydrodynamic do NOT make up the difference we’re facing between projected energy demand and energy supply. Their efficiency might be increased, yes, and probably could be—but every projection I’ve ever seen can find no way of efficiency in these alternative sources being developed to the point where it can EVER make up the difference. BECAUSE demand is CONSTANTLY increasing.
I’m all for research and development into alternative energy sources. That’s what I was saying. But increased demand due to increased population is going to continually outstrip supply, and to wait for the market to catch up to that is ABSURD.
“The prices (rising meantime) would naturally ration use so that it stays in line with availability. Later as new technology becomes available to cheaply provide more energy, people would use it more, until the cycle repeats itself. This is how we have been consuming resources for centuries”
You’re talking economic theory. I am talking FACTS and practicality.
Ration use? And at what point do we simply accept the rationing if it begins to cause increasing hardship?
The market is NOT the best determining factor for every problem. It DOES work well—BUT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS. And ANTICIPATING a solution before the market ever comes to it, if it ever does, is often a better way of managing problems. And that is the case with energy.
You have a house. You’ve been told that the cost of heating it is going to increase. It already is. You have an old furnace that is inefficient. Do you wait for the price of fuel to rise to the point where you have to start rationing, cutting back, suffering… before you switch to a different source and replace your old furnace with a more efficient one? Or is it smarter to make plans in advance, and replace that furnace BEFORE things come to a crisis?
“(yes, even when the first malthusians screamed about how England will starve due to “overpopulation”)”
I am no Malthusian. And I’ve never once said anything about food as an issue here except to say that it probably ISN’T going to be one.
There is, however, a huge difference between food production and energy production.
One last thing, jackass. I was CALLING for greater innovation–I was speaking on BEHALF of it. But the market does NOT always drive innovation. In fact it often SUPPRESSES it.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
@seneca (248): if people like Randall are allowed to run unchecked with their name-calling and swearing, ListVerse will be eventually left with a small clique who thinks that stuff is funny while wondering where everyone is.
You act like he’s the only poster that has ever “called names and swears” here on LV. Again, grow up. Mommy can’t provide you with a sanitized sparkly clean environment forever. Time to enter the real world. Why are you so hard over against his posting style and not the miriad of other useless and inane posts that occur here on a daily basis? Internet forums are a free-form entity. Or rather they should be IMO. They should reflect all sorts of personalities and viewpoints. If you have something to add, engage your brain and join in. If you don’t, move along until something else stikes your fancy. Stop trying to control things to your personal liking. I would agree with modding out spam and blatant trolling, but too much moderation can drive away viewers and contributors as well, you know. And then you are left with a bunch namby-pamby posts exclaiming “great list” and other such mind-numbing banalities. What fun.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
@gabi319 (245): I never saw the episode of the Muppets. That was hilarious! I have to share my favorite Waldorf and Statler quote:
STATLER: I wonder if there really is life on another planet.
WALDORF: Why do you care? You don’t have a life on this one!
@Maggot (252): Totally agree. LV would be boring as hell if we moderate it too much. We can do with out the trolls, but I always like to see who will catch Randall’s all seeing eye… and wrath.
I tend to think that the “haters” are just jealous.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
@seneca (248):
seneca, I’m oh-so-tempted to dismiss you with a much-deserved “fuck you.” And you DO deserve it. And I have no doubt that nothing I say is going to change your mind about me–and frankly I don’t care.
But here’s some facts for you:
I have been a contributor to this site almost since the very beginning. I’ve not only contributed countless times in the comments sections, but I’ve written several lists. I do NOT take credit for this–NO CREDIT AT ALL… but I’m sure Jamie would attest to the fact that in the time since he started this site, up to now, his audience has only increased. What I AM saying is that apparently, I haven’t yet “driven” anyone away or turned this site into the haven for my own little “clique.”
This an entertainment site. Or perhaps it’s better called an infotainment site. At any rate, it is NOT a serious professional venue. You’re talking as though it is. I HAVE worked at and contributed to just such sites. Naturally the “voice” I employed at those sites was different from the one I employ here.
Now. I could refrain from calling you a humorless stiff. But in my opinion that’s exactly what you are. You and a few others who’ve posted in this thread echoing your sentiments about me. As I say, that’s my opinion.
But here’s a couple more facts for you:
A) I am not going to change to suit you or anyone else. If you don’t like what I have to say or the way I say it, then ignore me. If you want to address the SUBSTANCE of what I have to say, then DO SO. But this bitching about my persona is going to get you nowhere. It wastes EVERYONE’S time. Yours, mine, the readers–and it detracts from the list where these discussions are carried on.
B) You and anyone else are welcome to write to Jamie to complain about me. Do it, if you feel that strongly about it. The day Jamie tells me I have to change, or leave–I will leave. Period. Jamie knows I respect him. But I have a little news for you–he respects me too. Now, I don’t trade on that. I don’t expect him to value ME above his own economic interests—and I would never do anything to hurt those interests. If he felt I was doing so, I’d go gladly to prevent it.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
@oouchan (253): I tend to think that the “haters” are just jealous.
I honestly don’t know what it is. People just like to whine I guess. Clucking about like helpless chickens when a wolf invades the henhouse. This freaking seneca guy has peed his pants over it for going on 4 or 5 posts now. Goddamn man, go here if you want everything to be saccharine sweet:
http://disney.go.com/index
November 24th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Thanks, everyone, for your support. It’s nice to have people stand up for you. I appreciate it. Sincerely.
There’s one thing I have to say to these attackers and complainers, though. A couple of them have made derogatory statements regarding my qualities as a father. They know who they are, and at least one of them has done it on more than one occasion.
Now, these people do not know me in the slightest. They know nothing of my personal life (except what little I’ve revealed here) though it IS a fact that I am a father to two wonderful, highly intelligent, snarky, witty girls. I’m immensely proud of them.
The insults directed at my status as a father do not for a moment wound me, because I am more confident of that than ANYTHING else in my life—I know damn well that I am a great father.
But just stop and think about it, all of you–these same people who lay claim to some sanctimonious high ground above me and the person I am—actually have the atrociously bad taste to make the most personal attack possible upon me—by disparaging my qualities as a father.
I ask any of you to judge that, and tell me that it ISN’T the most disgusting kind of desperate attempt at a personal insult there is.
If anyone needs to be “muffled” or “moderated”… or even driven off this site–it’s people who would do such a thing.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
@Randall (256):
So you’re calling for a Moderator when the attacks on you offend you, yet your name-calling and swearing is just fine, right?
November 24th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
@Maggot (255): @oouchan (253): @segues (250): @gabi319 (245): @Dk (240): @ianz09 (233):
Thanks, you guys are the best. If I missed anyone, I’m sorry.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Randall (all of the above) I think you’re great. Your mind is amazing. Id love for my kids to have you for an educator anyday. Keep posting.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
@seneca (257):
What did I say in my answer to you? If you want me moderated, then write to Jamie and ask him if he’ll do it. That’s your right.
But I’ll tell you something else. I missed a post of yours above where you called me “disturbed” and so on. So here’s what I felt you deserved earlier:
Fuck you.
And since we’re playing high and mighty here—are you going to tell me that you equate comedic name-calling—throwaway insults like “asshole” and “pinhead” and such–with disparaging someone’s qualities as a FATHER?
And for that matter, with calling someone “disturbed?” Someone you don’t even KNOW?
November 24th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
@Randall (260):
I know you can do these two things at once.
Continue your presence here in whatever form you are allowed.
Start your own blog ripe with your comedy and wit. WordPress is free and easy to set-up.
See how many readers you get.
You are living off the life-force of ListVerse, and will be unread on your own.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
@Randall (260):
This is all because I and others ask you to give up name-calling and swearing.
You act as if we put a stake through your heart.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
@Dk (240): Thank-you DK for the perspective on Randall. I agree with you 100%.
Mind you, I’ve just logged in and still have to catch up here, but yeah, 100 percent!!
November 24th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
awesome list, impressive info on overpopulation..
November 25th, 2009 at 12:03 am
@seneca (261): Sorrry Seneca, but if Randall decided it was time for his own blog… I’d be there.
And as for Randall’s name-calling, most times it is original enough to be worth reading.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:19 am
#5 is an obvious one. I mean, how many times have you desperately wanted to get a hold of someone who cares, and not been able to find anyone? How many times have you run to a farmhouse for shelter from zombies, to find it deserted? Overpopulated? I think not. What this world needs is more people!
_Creativmynd (creativmynd.wordpress.com)
November 25th, 2009 at 12:22 am
Aw, shit, I gotta get my two cents in. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, just so I can have my piece said.
I hate most of the bandwagons around here, the most prominent of which is being ridden by Randall’s haters. Look, the guy likes to argue, and enjoys his name calling. No, not a great way to earn respect and be liked. But, he has points to be made, and makes them intelligently. Maybe he calls you a needle-dicked idiot, but if he thinks you are wrong and can provide an argument for that, he will. Randall doesn’t taunt and put-down beyond what you give him. If you don’t like his attitude, don’t reply. He won’t call you out as a coward for not replying, and if he is smug in his victory, won’t dilute the thread by announcing it.
He is pretty cool, if you give him a chance. If you are respectful and present yourself without being stupid or arrogant, you won’t get flamed. I could be wrong, but I think generally I’m respected, at least liked, by a lot of the regulars around here. Randall and I have exchanged a few jokes, had some conversations, and even had a strong debate once. But since I was respectful and humble, he didn’t flame me, just said his piece. It’s simple. A lot of people around here come off as stupid and immature, and most of the ones that aren’t stupid or immature are arrogant to the nth degree. These things don’t sit well with many people around here, but Randall is the most vocal about his opinion.
And lastly, these personal attacks are bullshit. If you have a problem with him, attack what he has said, instead of flinging insults and assumptions willy-nilly. It is unnecessary, and really just makes you look bad. I hate speaking up so much on his behalf, because it makes me sound like I’m kissing his ass. But as a regular, I can say it is annoying as hell to wade through comments from 5-6 haters every thread, especially since Randall overall isn’t that bad.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:24 am
@seneca (261):
Typical of people like yourself, you make absurdly blithe assumptions while knowing NOTHING about me personally.
You don’t know if I already have such a blog (In fact, I do) but you assume that I don’t. And you assume that if I had one, I’d be unread.
I’d place people who make wild and apparently in-earnest assumptions about strangers on the internet as more the “disturbed” type than the sort of silliness I commit here on this site.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:39 am
@seneca (262):
“This is all because I and others ask you to give up name-calling and swearing.”
Uh, no, asshole. My response at 260 to you was because further up you said the following about me:
“There is something very wrong about someone who needs to spend so much time fighting on the internet with strangers. That is not normal.
Most of all, the dread of seeing him here makes one not want to come to ListVerse. He drives people away. We do not come here to read the personal venom of the disturbed.”
You only made yourself look bad with these invectives, not me. Nevertheless, I have every right to take offense, and do.
But I think someone who would say these kinds of things about a total stranger is more than a little weird. So I guess it’s tit-for-tat.
You strike me, however, as the type of person who thinks the characters in soap operas are real people.
In any event, you’re accomplishing nothing by all this. I’m a regular and an old-timer here, and am not changing my style, behavior, or the nature of my discourse. Certainly not for the likes of you.
I don’t see what else we have to discuss here. Your problem with me is best taken up with the owner of the site. Stop wasting everyone’s time, including mine. You may not value yours, but I certainly value my own.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:09 am
@Randall (256): I DO know exactly how you felt when you were falsely attacked as a bad father. I was told, I by Brian, NOT to “breed” so that I wouldn’t further contaminate the herd. As you know, I have 3 grown kids who are highly successful in their own fields, and of whom I could not be more proud!
If I have done only one thing right in my entire life, it was being a mother ( a single mother from their toddlerhood ). What’s more, THEY are proud of me. How’s that for a tribute?
These whiners, these babies, these know-nothings who carry on about you are to be ignored and forgotten. They are worth less than the time it took me to type this.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:17 am
@ianz09 (267):
I am new here.
I first became aware of Randall in this list when I noticed him name-calling and swearing. I am very surprised that this conduct is allowed and defended.
You write about “comments from 5-6 (Randall) haters every thread”. Doesn’t that tell you something?
Is it not better to get out of your clique, quit defending awful conduct, and condemn terrible conduct?
Randall’s conduct is not fit for normal society. Do you need the protection of your clique, or can you admit that his conduct is awful?
November 25th, 2009 at 1:48 am
@seneca (271): “I am new here.”
Doesn’t that tell you something?
Randall, oouchan, Maggot, ianz, me, a whole lot of others, we’ve been here for most or all of the 2 years.
Don’t you think we have a deeper understanding of what is going on than someone who has just shown up?
Randall’s conduct is far from awful. He can get under the skin of those who are ethically or morally bankrupt, and whose skin is thin. He demands logic in arguments, actual facts which can be substantiated, rather than arguments based on feelings, or something read in The National Enquirer.
Stick around for six months or so before you think you run things (and you won’t even then, Jamie runs things magnificently).
If you don’t like the way he writes, don’t read his posts. The problem, of course, is that you will be missing out on learning so much about whatever the topic might be.
You know everything already, though, don’t you?
November 25th, 2009 at 1:56 am
This comment is not aimed at Randall in particular, as he is quite the entertaining and knowledgeable fellow. He is very pompous and, I suspect, generous with the truth regarding aspects of his personal life but that’s fine this is the Internet after all. His comments are a fine contribution to what is an enjoyable website nonetheless.
However, what a bunch of groveling sycophants segues, Shannon and oouchan are. What a bunch of pathetic arse kissers you are. You have nothing of worth to offer yourselves so you immediately agree with whatever Randall posts then giggle and “high-five” amongst yourselves at your (perceived) cleverness. segues: Try to offer your own thoughts if you have any, although I suspect you don’t.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:24 am
@DoctorAnoose! (273): Then your suspicions would be wrong, assweepay, so very, very, wrong.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:59 am
To which suspicion do you refer? Randall’s private life or your lack of original thought? Or both? In all fairness I really can’t qualify casting doubt on Randall and his private life. I hope it’s as full as he suggests. And to be fair you have offered up the odd pearl of wisdom here, your fondness for ice cream for example. Well done I say, have someone write that down, frame it and hang it on your wall so that you don’t forget your cleverness.
Now, I can’t for the life of me find out what the dickens “assweepay” means. Please enlighten me but I suspect… (wink)… that you have leveled an insult at me. I hope I HAVE offended you because if indeed I have I’d like you to think of how that felt when you mock others through quoting smarter people on this website that yourself.
November 25th, 2009 at 3:29 am
Apologies… “than yourself”, not “that yourself”. Don’t I feel quite the fool for such a gaffe! Hawhaw!
November 25th, 2009 at 3:36 am
Randal,
I’ll sum up your main problem in as simple a fashion as possible: You have no good capacity to grasp the potential for human innovation ( especially if its allowed its maximal freedom, in a market system). Despite everything throughout all of history showing how we keep on going and advancing tremendously, and in ways that our ancestors could not even conceive of at all; you and others like you still gotta go on about how the sky is soon falling because A, B, and C are on the verge of collapse and there is no solution!
YES, I say that we should allow innovation to take care of it. Give individuals the freedom to exchange freely and they will do just that. Since there is only us to fix our own problems, whatever allows us to do it best is the only practical solution. If humans are too stupid to come up with solutions under the freedom of their own responsibility, what makes you think that any government (also staffed by people) would do a better job of things?
Im not talking about economic theory, I am referring my arguments to 8,000 years of actual human development, and most especially the last few hundred years, all of it basically vindicating the fact that human innovation finds utterly amazing solutions to things that at one time would seem impossible.
The couple billion people living in poverty today would not be suddenly added, it would be a gradual process.
The price of oil has not been rising constantly historically, a better description is that it goes up and down, such as 1998, where it was at a lower price then in 1946. http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Chart.htm)
With your example of the furnace you say that its better to find practical solutions quicker. That IS EXACTLY what the market system thats built our standard of living does, its what its always been about on a practical level (guided by the incentives of profit and better living)
200 years from now when we have moved ahead in ways that today has no concept of, there will still be unimaginative guys like you screaming about how A, B, and C are on the verge of….blah blah etc etc ad nauseum…
November 25th, 2009 at 4:15 am
i love the support that overpopulation is true is getting. I’m doing a paper on that now and am happy at all these input. keep them coming ^^
November 25th, 2009 at 5:24 am
@DoctorAnoose! (275):
I note, with interest, that almost every single person on this thread who has been criticizing me is someone I, for one, have never heard of before. You included. Strange, that all of a sudden a bunch of new people should just pop up, all yapping about ME.
Interesting, and strange too, that there seems to be a similarity in writing style amongst some, though not all, of them.
November 25th, 2009 at 5:26 am
@DoctorAnoose! (275): You’ve been here long enough to say that? I doubt it. You couldn’t have been here long and say that. segue has offered many helpful tidbits since I started here. So has Randall, Maggot, gabi, bucslim and others. Stick around and see or check out other lists. I defend those getting abused by trolls, such as yourself.
@segues (274): Another troll. Guess he didn’t want to get on the Randall hate wagon so he made one for us. I kinda feel special!
@seneca (271): 5-6 haters per thread that he joins on isn’t bad out of 100’s that post. The ones that go after him directly are mostly trolls. The rest are sincere in their stupidity so he calls them out on it. He just does it with both barrels.
November 25th, 2009 at 5:50 am
241 Stephan
“Archangel, Since were not going to kill ourselves off The best way to save species is through greater sophistication in a civilization. For example, In India, where many people still use wood stoves to cook food, there are virtually no forests left. In the United States, many of the forests cut down during the 19th century have regrown because there is no longer a need to utilize their resources; the far more advanced modern American civilization has found more efficient ways of providing those resources, thus sparing more of the forests. Europe still has woodlands, Im from there, I’ve seen them! They are growing as well, since logging isnt quite so important any longer.”
Ah, a good point, but it misses the bigger picture. Why is Europe and America able to sustain such a lifestyle? Why are Indians having to log-down forests for firewood, whereas Americans and Europeans can use electric stoves? Because Americans and Europeans suck-up the world’s resources. Oil and gas flow to the West, and soon, to the East. Oil and gas are transported to the West, used for energy, and such energy is utilised to become electricity. Same with logging. America and Europe can afford not to chop-down what little forest it has left because the rest of the world provides it with the wood it needs. I am not disputing the existence of forests in Europe. But Europe (by rough estimates) is the size of the Amazon. Imagine if Brazil did to the Amazon what Europeans did to Europe? We can’t all sustain such populations!
Sure, one can argue in favour of economics and note the re-balancing of the market through the invisible hand. Attempt to argue that the free market will raise the price of energy reserves. Great. But some people seem to miss the point after that! Tragedy of the Commons turned bitter my friend:
1. We all need energy.
2. Currently, the West sucks-up the world’s energy reserves.
3. Asia is rising; soon Asians will want to live like the West. This alone is problematic!
4. There is a finite amount of non-renewable resources we so dearly need.
5. Okay – no problem! Free market will raise the price of resources.
6. People who need resources can’t get to them. We are self-interested beings. This is a principle of economics itself.
7. Competition arises. Potential conflict. People will die.
8. Imagine this with Africa and other parts of the world seeking Western lifestyles and consumption? Worse?
So no problemo. It’s too doom-and-gloom. Unlike Malthus, modern economics can solve the problem using technology! Renewable energy can save us all! It, undoubtedly, can solve part of the problem. But don’t be fooled. The overcrowding problem is not restricted to resources. That’s but one part of it. Food, water, and shelter are parts of it too.
But most importantly, human expansion is taking up terrain traditionally habitated by other species which need such space for their ecosystems to survive. if we just transform each and every ecosystem to suit huamn needs (as with Europe) and leave just small ‘reserves’ for other populations, then we are definitely overcrowding this Earth.
The one thing economics forgets is that we don’t own this Earth, we share it.
November 25th, 2009 at 5:59 am
269 Randall
Maybe we need an online warning?
On the front of Listverse: “Randall is online”, then: “all users new and old prepare for potential online bashing”.
Sorry, could not think of another word right now other than bashing.
November 25th, 2009 at 6:03 am
@oouchan (280):
You write: “The ones that go after him directly are mostly trolls. The rest are sincere in their stupidity so he calls them out on it. He just does it with both barrels.”
Where you and I differ is that, for me, it is NEVER acceptable to abuse others as he does.
He is the Town Bully.
Do you realize that some are afraid to post their comments because they’re afraid of his attacks. Wouldn’t it be nice if EVERYONE, not just the ones acceptable to Randall, could come here without fear of his abuse.
Just scroll through the comments on this list. It is appalling how many people he abuses. How in the world can anyone find that acceptable?
He is the Town Bully!
November 25th, 2009 at 6:07 am
What really u shared about the Corp is for real and once again friend thanx for that concern research
November 25th, 2009 at 6:09 am
@Randall (279):
You write: “Interesting, and strange too, that there seems to be a similarity in writing style amongst some, though not all, of them.”
Yes, Randall, you’ve discovered us…… I mean, me……
Is a person paranoid if the world is really out to get him?
November 25th, 2009 at 6:15 am
@seneca (283): Scared of posting? Why? Because I’m not and never would be. He went after me once. (I was flattered) Even so, if you post stupid or blatant incorrect information then you deserve to be fried. We are not here to hold hands and be nice to each other.
What gets me is that you seem to think he would single handedly bring down LV with his comments. Not so. Many of us wait to see whats coming next.
So…enjoy the show or skip.his.post. Simple as that.
November 25th, 2009 at 6:19 am
This is getting kind of pathetic now.
It’s becoming painfully clear that for a lot of you, Segues, Oouchan, Ianz , Randall and the like, this is your main source of social interaction. I suppose you consider the people you ‘talk’ to on this website to be your ‘friends’. Savage, i’m sorry it’s gone that way for you.
Now I know it’s hard, out in the real world, to make friends, especially when you are as boring/humourless/socially inept as you guys and girls are, but seriously, what you are doing here is just pathetic.
You’ve carved somewhere out for yourself where you can be the ‘cool kids’. You’re the funniest, you’re the smartest, everything you do is filled with wit and humour, and everyone who disagrees with you is just not smart enough to get it. Randall, of course, is the coolest and it’s him you all look up to. It’s understandable, because lets face it you where never going to be the ‘cool kids’ in real life where you? While ever body else is out having fun, your the people who sit at home on the internet talking to your ‘real friends’ and reading obscure comic books, watching old horror films and telling jokes about electrons. Again, i’m sorry it’s turned out this way for you. I really am.
The fact that you keep bringing up how long you’ve been here as well, LIKE IT MAKES ANY FUCKING DIFFERENCE. This site is just as much yours as it is somebody who’s turned up yesterday and this is their first post. Why don’t you understand that. Again, because it all ties in with this world you’ve created. You’ve been here since the beginning, you’re the originals, and everybody should respect you because of that. Get a fucking life.
DR Annoose was spot on when he said,
‘ you all giggle amongst yourselves and high five when Randall says something funny’ It’s pathetic.
Comments like this,
‘Another troll. Guess he didn’t want to get on the Randall hate wagon so he made one for us. I kinda feel special!’
HAHAHAHAHAHAH LOL! You fucking retard, get a life.
Oh and Randall,
You’ve missed the point and always did. Nobody is calling in to question your ability as a father. The point is that you ARE a 44 year old father, and you STILL go about things the way that you do. Again, it’s just kind of sad.
It doesn’t mean you’re a bad father, just a bad person. There is a difference.
November 25th, 2009 at 6:28 am
@archiealt (287): bwhahahahaha! That was funny to read. Thanks for the laugh. That was impressive. You really thought that up on your own?
Sorry to disappoint you, but you are wrong…Then again, you are intitled to your opinion. Have a nice one.
November 25th, 2009 at 6:50 am
@oouchan (286):
This is the only place on the planet where a clique claims it’s okay to abuse other people. You’re flatly wrong.
I am still waiting to see the great Randall in action. I go after him, and he responds:
“F*ck you”.
Wow! You’re right. He’s really brilliant. I see why you hang on every word!
His other response was “I’m a father!”
Wow again!
It reminds me of the Nixon “Checkers” speech. “My cocker spaniel loves me, so I must be okay!”
“My kids love me, so I must be okay!”
Is he capable of making a point without abusing people?
November 25th, 2009 at 6:52 am
You all seemed to have hit the big red ‘nuke’ button in a state of aggravated fury, attempting to gain the upper hand against the other side with the ‘brightness of a thousand suns’. It started with containment and degenerated into Mutually Assured Destruction: Cold War redux, in Listverse (Or should I say WW3)?
Except the Americans and Soviets managed to avert destroying the very planet they both shared. MAD only wreaks havoc upon all. No one gains the upperhand, everyone loses. Savagely firing nukes across the disputed border with equal capacity and no restraint can never lead to compliance, only retribution.
Diplomatic tact and accomodation spared the world, and all its inhabitants, new and old, from armaggedon. Whilst Listverse may not be the world, it surely is one we all share. So we should all respect the safety and sanctity of its inhabitants from our own personal warheads.
Diplomacy works best. =]
November 25th, 2009 at 6:56 am
@archangel (290):
Just so I’m clear!
You’re saying “Diplomacy works best” and that’s aimed at all of us, including Randall, right?
November 25th, 2009 at 7:00 am
I make no distinctions.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:51 am
@Stephan (277):
“I’ll sum up your main problem in as simple a fashion as possible:”
Oh goody. And I’ll sum up yours: You’re obtuse, you don’t listen, and you manage to miss every point that’s offered up to you.
“You have no good capacity to grasp the potential for human innovation ( especially if its allowed its maximal freedom, in a market system).”
Okay, look. Can we stop the cheerleading for capitalism for a bit? You evidently think (at least it seems so) that I’m some kind of socialist. I’m not. Now come down from your Adam Smith/Milton Friedman high and shut up for a minute.
I have, as it happens, an EXCELLENT graps of the potential of human innovation. I work at a major university in the east, as it happens, which specializes in the sciences, and out of which a great deal of innovation has come. AND I was speaking on BEHALF of human innovation. My personal belief is that we can find a way out of the problem facing us.
So on that count, you’re blowing smoke up your ass. You’re dead wrong about me, and the reason you’ve made this blunder is because, as I said earlier, YOU DON’T LISTEN. If anyone here is failing to grasp the gist of a conversation, it’s YOU. The point is not whether we could “innovate” our way out of this or that conundrum. Probably, we can, given TIME and resources. But why PUSH matters to the crisis stage? The discussion was about whether human population is too great. My point was, yes it is, not because of food issues, really, but because energy resources are dwindling; and yet with more and more people living in the world who are pursuing a “developed” or westernized lifestyle, we’re only placing MORE demand on our energy resources–and it’s increasing exponentially.
NOW… I NEVER said we couldn’t find a way out of that problem. IN FACT I was calling for us to start doing something about it NOW while we can. I was CALLING for innovation, research, and investment in energy.
However, unlike you, I am also practical, scientifically realistic (which comes from my professional training) and I am not a blind optimist about “the market” or about human nature in general. I also understand physics and the nature of energy, and what potential solutions we have facing us AT PRESENT. And the FACT is that the era of CHEAP energy which we in the West have been used to for at least a century now is ENDING. Now, yes, we might… MIGHT… “innovate” our way out of this and find some magically cheap sources again. But SCIENCE and our current understanding of the situation says that’s highly unlikely. Current alternative sources do NOT add up to enough to cover the shortfall, especially assuming rising demand. We know that fossil fuels are dwindling, and that they’re finite. Unfortunately, THEY give us the MOST efficient energy returns for what we put into them, even now with higher costs. So consumption of fossil fuels isn’t going to abate. Nuclear fission helps to pick up some of the shortfall, but it is EXPENSIVE (and I notice that while you originally disputed me on this, you failed to answer my logical response to you about it. I take it, then, that you now acknowledge that nuclear fission IS expensive. Well no matter. It is). It creates huge problems of its own that are both COSTLY and environmentally (as well as politically) dangerous. Now, as I say, I’m all for pushing alternative sources–INCLUDING nuclear. But to pretend that we’ll have cheap energy again, at least in the near future, is absurd.
On the horizon we have the possibility of nuclear fusion being perfected—which is safer and more economical than fission, and promises huge returns. BUT—we haven’t got there yet. So far nobody’s been able to get it to work. Now, I’m confident that someday we will. But when? How long will it take? What happens in the meantime? And even then–let’s not pretend fusion is a panacea. People thought that about fission in the Fifties, and we know now that they were wrong. I have little doubt that while fusion will give back a lot more bang for the buck, it’ll also be hugely expensive to build and maintain the plants.
Bringing this back to the POINT of the discussion, the question is, are there too many people on the earth? And the answer is YES. At our PRESENT grasp of the energy situation as we know it to be, it’s clear that we’re coming to a crisis in the not too distant future where energy supply will NOT be able to keep up with demand. That is, IF we do little or nothing NOW to prevent that.
YOU are making an argument for sitting back and allowing the market to solve this problem. *I* am saying that’s a foolhardy attitude… because by the time market forces begin to truly work on it large scale, it may be too late.
RATHER, we should be doing all we can to A) slow population increase, and hopefully stabilize it, so that fewer resources have to be devoted to feeding, housing, and satisfying more and more people… and B) we should be pressing research and investment NOW into all manner of research that can bring us the possibility of returns.
We both believe there’s a solution to the problem (though I don’t think you really acknowledge there IS a problem, which is foolish). The difference is, you’re saying, “let the market deal with it when the market feels it’s necessary,” and I’m saying, “bullshit. The market can just as often suppress innovation as encourage it, and at any rate, many of the greatest innovations in human history didn’t happen because the market demanded them first, but because they were researched and discovered and invented and only THEN did the market take them up.”
“Despite everything throughout all of history showing how we keep on going and advancing tremendously, and in ways that our ancestors could not even conceive of at all; you and others like you still gotta go on about how the sky is soon falling because A, B, and C are on the verge of collapse and there is no solution!”
And again, more evidence of how YOU JUST DON’T LISTEN. I NEVER said there was no solution. I have pointed out again and again and again how there CAN be solutions. You, however, would rather wave the flag of the free market and say that’ll solve everything. Yeah, that’s some good thinking there.
I believe the market COULD help to solve this too. But it’s NOT smart to sit and WAIT for it to do that.
“what makes you think that any government (also staffed by people) would do a better job of things?”
Yes, yes, I know. There there, Stephan. Government bad. Yes, yes.
That mantra is past its expiration date. Long past. The fact is that governments CAN accomplish things, and sometimes they DO accomplish these things BETTER than the market. More importantly and more precisely, it sometimes requires GOVERNMENT to step in and do things that the market is UNWILLING to do, even though they turn out later to be necessary and vital, and immensely helpful. OR… just morally RIGHT.
The market HAS NO moral compass. It is a tool, like any other tool we use. Chainsaws have no control over what we do with them—they can be used as they’re intended, to chop up wood for our happy use—or they can be used by a crazy person to cut people up. The chainsaw has no say in the matter. It just waits to be used. Our intentions, behavior, attitudes and philosophies are what drives the use of the tool.
The market is the same; only much, much bigger and much more unwieldy at times, because it doesn’t just reflect the wants and needs of one person, but millions upon millions. Contrary to the belief of laissez-faire capitalists, the “self-correcting” potential of the market is highly exaggerated. It’s often required the intervention of government to ensure fairness and prevent corruption on the part of the market. And this, as I say, is because the market ITSELF has little or no “moral center.” It is simply a tool. A good one, yes. I love it. But left to its own devices? No. It isn’t a panacea, nor is it always benign and helpful.
“Im not talking about economic theory,”
On the contrary, it seems you are. You’ve repeatedly pushed the free market as the ultimate solution for this problem… and presumably for all problems–at least that seems to be your attitude. If that’s not “talking about economic theory,” I don’t know what it is.
“The couple billion people living in poverty today would not be suddenly added, it would be a gradual process.”
Uh, no shit Stephan. I know that. In the real world, yes… they’d be added gradually. But that is NOT the HYPOTHETICAL that we were talking about, remember?
“The price of oil has not been rising constantly historically, a better description is that it goes up and down, such as 1998, where it was at a lower price then in 1946. http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Chart.htm)”
OH COME ON. Are you telling me now that you can’t read a simple GRAPH? I can. Yes, the increase is not one steady line in a beautiful, swooping curve—but it IS a CONSTANT INCREASE.
“With your example of the furnace you say that its better to find practical solutions quicker. That IS EXACTLY what the market system thats built our standard of living does, its what its always been about on a practical level (guided by the incentives of profit and better living)”
Bullshit. Now you’re just shoveling it deep. Yes, sometimes the market works to address problems, and does it well. BUT NOT ALWAYS. That was the POINT of my example. The MARKET would have nothing to say about the furnace problem until LATER, when you’d be facing a crisis—more and more cost, mounting and mounting, until you’re FORCED to replace the furnace–possibly at the most disadvantageous time to do so—maybe at the same time that happens, you suffer some disastrous health issue. Or some other factors join in to cost you a great deal of money.
The point I was making was, it’s sometimes BETTER to take action in advance. And oftentimes we’ve done that, without waiting for the market. The market lagged behind and then later caught up and enjoyed the benefits.
Sorry Stephan, but if anyone’s “unimaginative” here, it’s you. Or, rather, no… that’s not correct. But what you have is a different kind of imagination. You believe in Santa Claus. I, on the other hand, don’t. I believe in taking action in advance, whether the market says to or not. That way YOU get your toys on Christmas Day.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Randall,
Here is how an adult (Jay Leno) treats those who do not live up to an expected standard. It is with affection and respect.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=59757075
November 25th, 2009 at 8:06 am
@seneca (289):
You’re not offered more than “fuck you” because A) you’re not WORTH more and B) you have thus far offered up not ONE logical point. You’ve in essence SAID nothing. All you’ve done is complain that I am rude, basically. If you have a point you would like me to refute other than that, then bring it out in the open.
And while we’re at it…
“Do you realize that some are afraid to post their comments because they’re afraid of his attacks.”
I demand that you provide proof to back up this statement. Who are all these people who are afraid to post here? How do you KNOW that such people exist? By your own admission you’re new here… so how can you even possess this information?
While we’re at it—how did you even KNOW that I was not one of the administrators of the site? You appeared on this thread and admitted you were completely new to the site. You had no idea who I was, but simply took immediate offense to my style of discourse.
You, like some others here, make sickeningly weird and UNSUPPORTABLE accusations and assumptions based on your own particular bias. AND look at the time you’re wasting in pursuing this. You’ve essentially hijacked this thread. And for what?
Meanwhile, I *AM* contributing something… I’m addressing ACTUAL DEBATABLE POINTS ABOUT THE TOPIC OF THE LIST with another commenter (Stephan). He and I aren’t agreeing. We’re hostile to one another. He probably thinks I’m an asshole. But you know what? WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF THE LIST. *YOU* are NOT.
So consider who is really being “rude” here. You’ve walked on to, yes, a public site…. but you’ve immediately decided to derail a thread on that site to post repeated comments about one of the people posting—a person you DO NOT KNOW and have NEVER encountered before—and you begin calling this person “disturbed,” “not normal,” and other ridiculously over the top epithets that are inappropriate for the simple fact that they are not supportable in any way, shape or form.
And it’s clear as things progress here that you have no argument whatsoever. You like, some other people, simply don’t like me, period, and you’ll employ whatever rhetoric you can to attack me.
I would therefore not continue with any hints at your greater level of decorum or maturity. Your actions here prove quite the contrary—you in fact are coming off as a small-minded, obsessive little whiner who has absolutely nothing to say and nothing to add to a conversation.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:27 am
@Randall (293):
What is the benefit of being thought of as an asshole?
I look at how you start that huge response to Stephan, and you simply bash him. There’s no comedy there at all.
When a normal reader sees how you begin that response, he assumes it is just a rant, and chooses to read no further. Do you want to be read?
Do you know that the source of arrogance is insecurity? I can provide some really nice links if you like.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:43 am
@seneca (296):
“What is the benefit of being thought of as an asshole?”
That’s my business, seneca.
“I look at how you start that huge response to Stephan, and you simply bash him. There’s no comedy there at all.”
I NEVER said it was supposed to be “comedy.” AGAIN–you are NEW here and don’t KNOW ME at all. If you read the response to Stephan, you will note that it is an ARGUMENT. It offers up points in response to HIS points. I don’t NOT simply “bash” him–there is MUCH more to that response in fact…. and if you can’t see that, you’re quite simply blind.
And more of this! I’d rather talk to a hundred Stephans than one of you–because this is POINTLESS. Stephan at least has something to say—he presents an argument, something to debate. He has his side and he feels he’s right, and it’s ABOUT the topic at hand. Good for him!
YOU, on the other hand, are accomplishing NOTHING and adding NOTHING to this topic or the reason why we’re here.
“When a normal reader sees how you begin that response, he assumes it is just a rant, and chooses to read no further. Do you want to be read?”
HOW DO YOU KNOW what response a “normal” reader will have to my commentaries? Do you not see the immense arrogance and smugness you employ by speaking for all “normal” readers? You have no right to represent yourself as the voice of ANYONE here BUT YOURSELF.
WHERE IS YOUR PROOF TO BACK UP THE STATEMENT THAT I “SCARE” PEOPLE FROM POSTING ON THIS SITE? You made the statement as a definite averral! Where is your support and evidence to show that it was justified?
“Do you know that the source of arrogance is insecurity? I can provide some really nice links if you like.”
I think the shoe is on the other foot here, and if anyone needs “help” of a certain kind, it’s you. Keep your links, examine the beam in your own eye before you comment on the mote in mine, and do us all a favor and shut up.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:46 am
@seneca (296):
Have you yet written to the owner of the site, Jamie Frater, to ask that I be moderated and controlled? Do so, and stop wasting everyone’s time.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:18 am
I am done. I feel like I’m beating up on a little kid.
Your clique represents you as the baddest ass in ListVerse, yet I find an empty suit.
I attack you and await your supposed rapier wit, and I get a “you’re not worth it” response.
A wag might suggest that the wit exists in the minds of your clique only.
You are easy to rattle.
Your need to attack, diminish, and denigrate reveals serious dysfunction. That is obvious to all but your clique. Your conduct is not within the boundaries of what is normal.
Should your clique think I’m hard on you, it’s because of the way you attack nice people who come here.
I deserve a formidable foe. That’s clearly not you.
The baddest ass on ListVerse is a wuss.
I’m done.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:28 am
The world IS dangerously overpopulated. It has been estimated that about 1.5 billion people would be the upper limit of a human population that could live on this planet without overloading the resources and the ecosystem. There are almost 7 billion od us now. If all the food on this planet would be shared equally, we would all be a little undernourished.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:36 am
@seneca (299):
Uh huh. Okay, Seneca. Sure.
Never mind that you offered up NOTHING. Yes, I reserve my wit for those who are deserving. Not for whack jobs who just come on here with nothing to say, who waste everyone’s time.
And interesting—I make points that you utterly fail to respond to—where is the backup for the statements you made that I “scare people” from posting here, and that “normal” readers are turned off by me? Your failure to offer up any such support speaks volumes about you.
Furthermore, you fail to answer as to whether you registered a complaint with site owner about me. Did you or didn’t you? If you didn’t… why not?
And let’s look over this “final” post of yours (would that it were ONLY so). You’re as much admitting that your real purpose here was to goad me–not actually make any intellectual points or offer anything of true value. And having offered up nothing, and having gotten, therefore, little or nothing in return, you try to save face by brave talk about how you came here looking for a worthy opponent, and found me an “empty suit.”
Uh huh. Okay, seneca. Let’s take a poll of everyone out there to see who “won” this little exchange between us. I’m quite confident of what the answer would be.
If there’s a hollow suit here, it’s you. From the moment you appeared on this thread you had literally NOTHING to say. You had no argument, just a complaint. And you used ridiculously childish, goading tactics, all the same, in your little game of trying to get my attention. But like a bratty child who stamps his foot wanting his own way, the only attention you get from me is to tell you to knock it off, because it isn’t going to work. You aren’t *going* to get your own way. And I’m not going to dignify your ridiculous little rants and wild accusations with more reply than to tell you to shut up and get lost—and point out the obvious and inherent shitty behaviour you’ve evinced since coming here.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:48 am
@seneca (283): Do you realize that some are afraid to post their comments because they’re afraid of his attacks.
Aside from the fact that you have no way of knowing this to be true, as has already been pointed out to you, I would like to add that when a person makes a post to a public forum offering their opinion or commentary on an issue, they should be prepared to support it if called to task on it. The only thing someone has to be “afraid of” is that their comment is not defendable. If that is the case, then they shouldn’t be making it in the first place. Their “fear” should be their own warning sign that maybe they’d better think it over a little more before putting it out there. Even if it is “just an opinion” that you’ll say everyone is entitled to (and I’d agree with that), if someone feels strong enough to state said opinion in a public forum, then they should expect it to be critically evaluated by the other participants and perhaps called into question. Yes, if someone doesn’t want their opinions questioned, then don’t publically declare them! You’re calling for moderation just because you don’t like one person’s demeanor, but you’re ok with people posting away unchecked with all sorts of unsubstantiated bs? Where do you draw the line? And don’t say it is at “being polite”, because that has absolutely no bearing on what is actually being discussed.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:24 am
@seneca (262):
I’ve taken Randall to task for such behavior as well, and his response was, well, 5-year oldish. What’s the purpose of starting out a post with, “Look asshole…” or “Let me set you straight shithead….” This is the standard Randall MO and is completely unnecessary.
What I do know is Randall writes well. Writing well does not necessarily mean you are intelligent. For all anyone knows, Randall checks every subject on the internet and proceeds to paraphrase as his own material. Who knows? It’s a legitimate speculation. But I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume his material and statements are of his own mind, as I do with everyone else.
I am not too small to admit that Randall has been a strong contributor to this site, and I find myself agreeing with him on many topics. However, no one (and I do mean no one) is an expert on every topic or issue. Add to this fact that LV presents many subjective topics, where we are all free to hold a varying degree of opinion. Unfortunately, this fact seems to elude Randall at times and his opinion, in his own mind, becomes salvational truth. I hope Randall is not so small as to have some self-reflection and realize what others are saying.
Now we’ll see if the flame is ignited……….
November 25th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Well isn’t this special. Another “discussion” board where people spend so much time bitching at one another that very little actually gets discussed. Sounds just like MOI kinda place …. LOL.
RAP
PS: Just for the record, I’ll look around, figure out who is legit and who is full of it, and clue you guys when and if MOI feels like it (until then, carry on …. BEEP BEEP).
November 25th, 2009 at 11:59 am
@seneca (299):…”Should your clique think I’m hard on you…”
@Randall (301): “Let’s take a poll of everyone out there to see who “won” this little exchange between us.”
No question, since seneca only baited you Randall, one could hardly say he was hard on you ( in fact, his temperament and intelligence seem to have the consistency of jell-o ), you win, Randall.
seneca just didn’t have the facts or the knowledge to debate you. All he was interested in ( under whatever name he was currently using ), was to degrade you.
I keep coming back to the word he keeps using “clique”. It’s such a high school word that it makes me laugh every time he uses it.
Far funnier, to me, is his assumption that all of us have no life outside of LV! What a surprise he would get if he only knew the truth. My lips are sealed.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I don’t care where y’all go just stay the hell outta TEXAS
November 25th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
The one about overpopulation is incorrect. I’m not debating that there is enough room for humanity to expand for the foreseeable future, what we do not have enough of is fresh water. There is a shortage of freshwater in almost every country including the US. Unless we can find a more effective way to desalinate seawater we will reach a population limit within the next century. Its not a matter of space it’s a matter of resources.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
@Howdy (306):
“I don’t care where y’all go just stay the hell outta TEXAS”
Gladly. I make a concerted effort to avoid Texas at all costs. You stay the hell out of New York and we’ll both be happy.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
@seneca (299): Excuse me, I’m actually not part of any clique. I don’t come on here to wipe people’s asses, I am my own entity on the site. Just because I am on the good side of most of the regulars doesn’t mean I was kissing shoes and rings. Before I knew who any of the regulars were, I was posting whatever I wanted to say, and lo and behold, people on here liked me. I couldn’t give a crap about if Randall likes me or not. If he wants to bite my head off, he may very well do so. I’m not argumentative, and would probably just let it slide. Here, watch this:
Randall, you are a taint-licking ass bandit who smells like doodoo feces. I hope you wear a paper bag when you go out in public, because I can tell you are ugly and stinky.
I post my own comments, submit my own lists. I don’t kiss people’s asses, I don’t make any efforts to get people to like me. It just so happens that I am liked, and in return, like certain people. Randall is one of them, and I felt like standing up for him, whether he needed it or not. So, maybe when I am getting flamed relentlessly, somebody can be courteous enough to do the same for me.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
How old is that pic of Harry Reid-tard? Judging by the way that decrepit old Communist looks today, I’m surprised that pic isn’t in sepia
November 25th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
#10: “…imagination…”
This NOT A SENSE! Sense is something our body receive from outside influences, not make up!
November 26th, 2009 at 12:22 am
#5 is incorrect!
Glad to see no one is agreeing with it. Over population causes the following problems:
1. Unemployment (too many people competing for the same job)
2. Food (if we utilize the entire land area to stand, where will we cultivate food?)
3. Water
4. Carrying Capacity (read Wiki!)
5. Crowd management
6. Energy consumption (includes fuel, electricity etc)
7. Wealth distribution (Per capita income pure math)
8. Population concentration (cities vs. country side)
9. Crimes!
10. Last but not least ROAD TRAFFIC!
There are several others these should be top 10.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:50 am
@Randall (279):
DoctorAnoose! is indeed a long time lurker first time poster. But what of it? I don’t care for the suggestion that I have made other posts under other names sir. Take it up with the administrator if you suspect otherwise. Or don’t. The issue is of no consequence.
oouchan: 280
In the 6 months I have spent enjoying this site, particularly in the last few, I have observed a cacophony of applause and (baffling) self-congratulation from segues et. al whenever a good argument sparks. The exception I have taken here is at the gleeful howls of “you’d best not argue with…” from you twits. Such unfounded smugness raises my ire more than the fact that apart from a brief commentary on icecream these days you are offering nothing – but still thinking that you are. Kipling’s Bandar-log springs to mind*.
Yes, these are the first thoughts I have offered and I admit that they are trollish. At the very least however they are not an awful arse kissing.
*(in the manner of chattering halfwits rather than the locals of India).
November 26th, 2009 at 7:33 am
Funny and intresting….I’ve always been wondering why weh have to switch off the cellphone when we’re on board…Cops! U have to see them here..all young guys and there behaviour here…shame on them!
November 26th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
@DoctorAnoose! (275):…”Now, I can’t for the life of me find out what the dickens “assweepay” means. Please enlighten me but I suspect… (wink)… that you have leveled an insult at me. I hope I HAVE offended you because if indeed I have I’d like you to think of how that felt when you mock others through quoting smarter people on this website that yourself.”
****
How delightfully amusing. You don’t know whether or not I have insulted you, but you hope I have.
The idea that you are in a dither over this conundrum is so jolly that I have no intention of letting you know one way or the other!
Regarding the idea that you are smarter than I (which is what you meant when you said :”… smarter people on this website that yourself.”), I can guarantee you, dear pseudo-Dr., that you are certainly NOT smarter than I.
You aren’t witty. You aren’t original. You aren’t very bright.
I could mock you, it would be exceptionally easy, but because it would be easy I won’t. You can continue to bait me, it won’t matter to me, my response will be silence.
November 26th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
@Shadow Lord (312):
Sorry, you are incorrect on a number of items on your list. Employment, as you imply, is not a zero sum game. As the population grows, so do jobs.
Water is actually a management and energy issue. For one, we do not build enough resevoirs to hold the natural run-off of fresh water. We could solve a lot of draught issues simply by building or expanding current resevoirs. We can also desalinate ocean water, but of course that takes energy. Water issues can be overcome.
Crowd management and population concentrations are really “choice” issues. People choose to live in city/urban areas – the social beings that we are. Road traffic is due to poor planning by our wonderous DOT agenecies.
Really, the only issue that you bring up that is the real head scratcher is energy, primarily for transportation (i.e gas). There is no immediate replacement for gas.
November 27th, 2009 at 12:01 am
I thought these were all common knowledge O.o
Anyone who didn’t know all of this before the list should just give it up and call it a night.
November 27th, 2009 at 5:50 am
@segues (315): segues, the suspicion was rhetorical*, clearly that went over your head. And no, my hope was that I have offended you, not you me.
My reference to “smarter people on this website that yourself” was actually a reference to Randall and whoever he has engaged in debate. Not me. This, as I have stated, was my first post.
My post was to suggest that you really don’t understand any topics being discussed here, aside from icecream. You have confirmed this. Thank you.
The dither is clearly yours segues. What an astounding lack of comprehension. I’ll wager that as children when we were all reading Animal Farm at high school you thought it was just a story about animals and nothing more. While you have attempted to be clever your confused comments have actually lent themselves to my argument, silly girl.
Your attempt has confirmed my point. Your silence will further confirm you are too dimwitted to respond.
*Just so you know what rhetorical means – it means that it was put there for effect rather than to get an actual answer from you. If you still don’t understand just ask another adult close by.
November 27th, 2009 at 5:56 am
JamieFrater: Surely post number 318 from PeRRoMaRRano should be deleted?
November 27th, 2009 at 10:01 am
@Randall (169):
I’M AN AMERICAN JACKASS
Sometimes what you say makes sense.
November 27th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Okay kids, it’s been a delightful lark here the last few days, but I have to leave now for a while.
I’ll be shooting for 10 days, with no access to the internet, so you can all just get along with out me for the duration. I hope Doctor Anoose will be gone along with Brian and ava and Lambrect and all of their hate and ego and trollism.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, for 10 days I don’t have to think about them, only about shooting!
Then, maybe some time off to play in Kauai…a bit of scuba diving to ease the stress of a shoot and realign myself with the pulse of the planet.
ta!
November 28th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
@Steelman (316):
Growth of population can never imply growth of job opportunities. How the job opportunities are created has more to do with the country’s internal and external politics and policies. How fast the opportunities are growing in proportion with the population growth decides whether unemployment is going to be an issue. Manageable population is the keyword.
What you mentioned about water simply implies that over population does force us to move to other alternatives to meet the demand. More investments. More politics. More destruction to the environment. Every problem has a solution, but the question is, is controlling population easier or finding more resources to support the over grown population is easier?
November 28th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
I think the over population is true no matter what. There is way too many people in this world right now.
November 29th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
The overpopulation is oversimplified. Our planet can become overpopulated, and the result can be famine. But this is not because too many people equals not enough food, but that when people get richer their demand becomes higher. Like right now South Korea just bought 50% of arable land in Madagascar. This has lead to fall in exports of food to neighboring African countries, and thus to higher chance of famine, and less food. So population is one thing, demand of food, economy and national interests another.
December 7th, 2009 at 6:26 am
Good list!
So usage of mobile phones should be allowed in airplanes. but I don’t think it would be possible while talking about international flights due to signal problems and less multinational companies who operate the same way as they do in one caountry. or am I wrong?