Nature

[Soak A Toa]

A digression from my other thread, Ideal World.

What is nature?

Religious fanatics and zealots cling to this word when claiming something morally reprehensible. "It's UNNATURAL!"

Many things are considered "unnatural." Homosexuality, one of our favorite political debates today, came up as one of them.

I paraphrase The Daily Show, "How can something that exists in nature, be not part of it?"

[Ydirre]

It depends on what people define as nature indeed. Most people, if they are religious or not, believe humans are 'above' nature. And it is true in some ways, as we have the most developed brains (do we?), societies, technology etc etc.

What I think religious people mean by unnatural, is that it's not what their God wants, not in his plans for us, his special creatures. We are the only ones that are able to know he exists (or discuss about that), so he has other rules for us than animals, as they can't help it they don't know him. So they are talking about human nature and how it's meant to be in Gods view (or well... How they interpreted Gods view). Also atheists usually mean human nature, not nature in general.

But when you look at us from a biologists view, we surely are so very divers in our own species and yet all so very similar to animals, it's almost impossible to say something is not part of our nature. What most mean though, is that as we can control and think about ourselves, we should do so, as we are not just animals roaming around living from day to day. That goes for all our behaviour, not just our sexuality.

We often are driven by quite the primitive urges, found in all species. We are mammals, herd animals, our bones, blood, cells, everything of our body and most of our behaviour is nothing special really, actually quite inferior when you compare to animals. All we have extra are our brains, but even those are very similar to other species, we just have somehow some extra things up there.

Where do you draw the line, when are you referring to nature, or human nature in specific? When you talk about homosexuality, well yes it's also found in animals. So in that way it's natural. But religious people find it's not natural in their Gods plan for humanity, as we are different.

(I find that discussion one of the most pointless, there are so many things more important but anyway, this is what I think they mean and why they feel it so strong).

[puppyroach]

A digression from my other thread, Ideal World.

What is nature?

Religious fanatics and zealots cling to this word when claiming something morally reprehensible. "It's UNNATURAL!"

Many things are considered "unnatural." Homosexuality, one of our favorite political debates today, came up as one of them.

I paraphrase The Daily Show, "How can something that exists in nature, be not part of it?"
I think alot of people who talk about being "natural" in essence refer to moral grounds created by religion, not nature in itself. Everything you see around you (even building, cars and such) are part of nature, as they are created by animals (namely humans). However, these are often taken away from the concept of nature, simply because they are creation, with a thought behind them, so usually you refer to everything that grows out of the ground by itself, animals, insects, bacteria, rocks, the sky, tha water and so forth.

[Soak A Toa]

So, with those theories in mind, would talking online be considered part of nature, on any of its levels?

Nature has many denotations and connotations.

I've always seen it these ways...

1. An innate characteristic
2. A perception
3. The philosophical idea that everything is the way it is and will be. Somewhat tied to fate and time.
4. An undefinable status of human consciousness.

and a 5th one that I've been playing with lately: a plane of existence where opposite forces combat, creating a balance.


Which one do you agree with, or don't agree with>

[vchampionl70]

Nature is simplicity, beautifully defined during the Romantic period.

[Flowstill]

What is, is.

Nature is defined as, that which is not altered or changed by humans or non-ideal humans, I guess. It's our definition. The problem is we all, whether human, plant or animal, are coming from the same place, whether it be from cells or God. I think nature should be defined as that which is, because that which is is here now, no exceptions. All perceptions, goods, evils, rights, wrongs, are natural. Whether you like them or not they are here, happening right now.

[mps]

What is nature? What is natural? What is unnatural? As if anyone could answer that. That's like watching 2 seconds of a movie then trying to tell someone else what it was about. We haven't been around long enough to even begin tackling such a question. But I'm going to try anyway.

Who would of thought that the earth would produce a species like humans? Seems rather 'unnatural' that the dominant animal on the plant not only asserts its authority over every living thing, but also systematically destroys any organism that the reaches of its technology can touch. One would have a hard time arguing that humans are natural creatures. We're just little too bizarre. Considering that the earth has not always been the lush-green sphere as we know it today, one must wonder whether or not the effects of our presence here will ultimately prove beneficial. That is the only way to prove whether we, as humans, are 'natural'.

When the planet was little more than a swamp of hydrogen, methane and water, the first life that arose was one that could exist in such harsh conditions (by modern standards). The cells that emerged from this primordial stew were able to live in an environment of such disarray, but not without consequences. Early life cells polluted the earth to such an extent that they methodically annihilated themselves. The contamination by-product of early life on earth was oxygen, and this was their downfall.

Funny isn't it, the first life was 'unnatural'. It exhaled oxygen, and oxygen was lethal. And that is quite similar to what humans are doing today. We are on the planet, but not without a new generation of consequences; we are polluting the water and air with substances that will methodically annihilate us. At the rate we’re going, humanity should logically be extinct within a few hundred years. That’s the bad news.

The good news is that life is persistent; it finds a way to carry on. And while humanity as we presently know it is undoubtedly on its way to extinction, one must wonder what type of life forms will arise in the wake of our supposed destruction and subsequent absence. Our actions are not proving beneficial to us, but perhaps the by-products of our existence will allow for a greater, more advanced civilization to bloom on this planet.

Such as the oxygen-waste of our cellular ancestry proved invaluable to the rise of human life, so too might the apparent harmful effects of project humanity prove invaluable for the future. Our legacy will be the only way to measure whether or not we are 'natural' or not.

I shouldn't post this. It's so lame.

[vchampionl70]

The good news is that life is persistent; it finds a way to carry on. And while humanity as we presently know it is undoubtedly on its way to extinction, one must wonder what type of life forms will arise in the wake of our supposed destruction and subsequent absence. Our actions are not proving beneficial to us, but perhaps the by-products of our existence will allow for a greater, more advanced civilization to bloom on this planet.

It's difficult for your opinion to seem credible when you are making assumptions as to our extinction. Unless you can establish a stronger relation between the primitive lifeforms that existed before us and humans, I don't see a pattern at all.

[You also failed to mention that other possibilities - volcanic eruption, asteroid, axel change - could have contributed to the downfall of the first species as well. Under similar circumstances today, your theory would be more solid.]

Also, you say that our actions do not prove to be beneficial to us. I disagree. For one, we've advanced to a point where we understand the harm we can do to ourselves. This sort of knowledge enables us to pave a path that is not predestined. Destruction is up to us.

More interestingly, an article I read on the internet claimed that fossil fuels are, in fact, keeping the world from heating up at a more rapid pace.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=570&ncid=753&e=9&u=/nm/20050113/sc_nm/environment_britain_warming_dc

Besides, in the event of the destruction of mankind, it would be literally impossible for another civilized society to exist. The fact that we have exhausted all primitive forms of resources (iron, coal, etc..) will make it extremely difficult for another people to develop even to the point that we are at.

I find your suggestion - as to our extinction - to be baseless and pessemistic at best.

[mps]

I hope you're not a young earth Christian, or else I'm barking up the wrong tree.

The young earth was volcanic, very active, and not hospitable to life as you think of it today. Very similar to the way Venus is today. Hydrogen air, methane gas clouds, all that great stuff. Lightning struck, it created protein strands and the building blocks of life; cells started dividing and soon there was a cellular life feeding off of the elements. It would take in the hydrogen and methane and exhale oxygen. Plants are like this today; they take in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. Back then, oxygen was lethal for a hydrogen feeding organism. When enough cells were around there was too much oxygen being pumped out to ensure their safety. The hydrogen cells started to die off, and some of them persisted and learned to adapt. Evolution in action.

Now, the correlation between that and humans is this: early cellular life took in hydrogen and spit out oxygen, which was lethal. Human life takes in oxygen, and because we are technology wielding, we spit out all sort s of bad things: carbon dioxide, oil-based products, green house gases, etc. The by products of early cellular life were harmful to them. The by products of human life are harmful to us. Our creations might look fancy, but they kill us. They give us cancer, nuclear bombs, aerosol cans, gasoline powered cars, etc. We are killing ourselves.

We know we are killing ourselves, but we don't care. We still use products that are deemed harmful. We smoke cigarettes knowing full well they give us cancer; we use aerosol cans knowing full well they destroy the ozone; we use cars knowing full well they pollute the air. We know what we're doing, but we're too addicted to stop. Destruction is up to us, but we're continuing anyway. That's extinction cause by society.

Now how about extinction caused by nature? The end of a chromosome is covered by a telomere that stabilizes it, like the tip of a shoelace. During mitosis some information about the telomere is lost, and as a species ages it loses the ability to stabilize its chromosomes. The consequence of this? Cancer and immune deficiency become widespread, and eventual species extinction. So, I find your suggestion - that our extinction is not imminent - overtly optimistic and ignorant. Any species that arises after us would not make the same mistakes as us. We are entirely dependant on finite resources.

Now, combat that with your packaged sanguine worldview so I can grind you to dust.

[vchampionl70]

Now, the correlation between that and humans is this: early cellular life took in hydrogen and spit out oxygen, which was lethal. Human life takes in oxygen, and because we are technology wielding, we spit out all sort s of bad things: carbon dioxide, oil-based products, green house gases, etc. The by products of early cellular life were harmful to them. The by products of human life are harmful to us. Our creations might look fancy, but they kill us. They give us cancer, nuclear bombs, aerosol cans, gasoline powered cars, etc. We are killing ourselves.

For starters, any follower of the scientific method knows that correlations and relations or patterns are different. What correlations produce are assumtpions. I'll give you an example. "Children whose families eat more tomatoes go to bed later." Does eating tomatoes have anything to do with the children going to bed later? No. It's just that families eat more tomatoes in the summer, when children happen to go to bed later.

You can see that correlations do not provide the factual evidence to support a point. Plus, you are associating the respiratory function of a primitive lifeform with innovation. The construction of nuclear weapons is very different than the exhalation of oxygen gas.

Also, as I said earlier, humans are different. We understand that things we do and create are harmful. This enables us to change our ways for the better. Since the 1970s, emissions of the pollutants are down drastically. Our new technologies - http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=5465752 - also enable us to change.

You obviously didn't read my article either.

We know we are killing ourselves, but we don't care. We still use products that are deemed harmful. We smoke cigarettes knowing full well they give us cancer; we use aerosol cans knowing full well they destroy the ozone; we use cars knowing full well they pollute the air. We know what we're doing, but we're too addicted to stop. Destruction is up to us, but we're continuing anyway. That's extinction cause by society.

And the usage of these things are way down compared to years ago. You ignore that; it makes it difficult to believe your article when you do. It's as if you push a hypothesis, while ignoring information that harms your conclusion.

Now how about extinction caused by nature? The end of a chromosome is covered by a telomere that stabilizes it, like the tip of a shoelace. During mitosis some information about the telomere is lost, and as a species ages it loses the ability to stabilize its chromosomes. The consequence of this? Cancer and immune deficiency become widespread, and eventual species extinction. So, I find your suggestion - that our extinction is not imminent - overtly optimistic and ignorant. Any species that arises after us would not make the same mistakes as us. We are entirely dependant on finite resources.

I don't think Cancer is going to cause the extinction of humans. You also do not mention the leaps that we are making to cure the disease and help those who have it. I would know, too, since Cancer is all too familiar in my family.

[tophizzle]

Oak Express is sorry if youre not from colorado you wont get it

nature is everything, everything we see, everything we create

[Karly]

You ppl think too much. Go get drunk or something! :D

[mps]

Oh I read your article; it says things like "could accelerate", "research suggesting". There's theory's to prove anything you want. A better way to measure the impact of human life is to look where we came from, and see if we are repeating the same patterns. All signs point to yes, we are.

What factual evidence am I missing? Are we, or are we not, creating harmful products? Is, or is not, every living system on earth in decline? How many species have been wiped out because of humanity's action? The death of birth is an expression for species extinction. The whooping crane is facing extinction, the marmot is facing extinction, the orangutan is facing extinction, thousands, and almost millions of species have gone extinct because of us. We are plundering something that's not ours to plunder; the planet isn't ours, it belongs to every creature, and we are killing them.

Ray Anderson is the CEO of Interface, the world's largest carpet manufacturer. He has some pretty interesting things to say. "Drawing the metaphor of the early attempts to fly. The man going off of a very high cliff in an airplane, with the wings flapping and the wind is in his face, and this poor fool thinks he flying, but in fact he's in freefall and he just doesn't know it because the ground is so far away. But of course the craft is doomed to crash.

That's the way our civilization is: the very high cliff represents the virtually unlimited resources we seem to have when we began this journey. The craft isn't flying because it's not built to the laws of aerodynamics, and it's subject to he law of gravity. Our civilization is not flying because its not built to the laws of aerodynamics for civilizations that can fly. And of course, the ground is still along way away. But some people have seen that ground rushing up sooner than the rest of us. The visionaries have seen it and have told us, it’s coming.

There's not a single scientific peer review paper published in the past 25 years that would contradict this scenario: every living system of Earth is in decline, every life support system is in decline, and these two together constitute the biosphere. The biosphere supports and nurtures all of life, and not just our life, but 30 million other species that share this planet with us.

We are leaving a terrible legacy of poisoning and diminishing the environment, for our grandchildren, and our grandchildren's grandchildren. Generations not yet born. Some people have called that 'Intergenerational tyranny', a form of taxation without representation, levied by us on generations yet to be. It's the wrong thing to do."

Our lifestyle is not sustainable. Pushing 7 billion people into a biosphere that can only support 3 billion is not sustainable. Certain pollutants may have gone down a bit in certain areas, but any pollution is harmful and deadly. Any at all. Your articles are bullshit. We can use our shirts to power our cell phones? Wow! How do you suppose we would go about making our shirts, or our cell phones for that matter? Cotton and plastic? Thought so. If it’s not sustainable, it doesn’t pan out in the long run. Our civilization isn’t sustainable. The Indians had it right; but you folks annihilated them. Way to go!

The usage of harmful items is not down. It's up. There's more people than ever before on the planet, using things that harm it. If it was 3 billion people using 2 items each that harmed the environments but its not, its 7 billion people using 1 item each that harms the environment, that's still pretty fucking bad. More cars are being made, more gasoline is being used, more emissions, for CFC's, more of everything. We consume faster than ever before. What we use hurts us, and the evidence is everywhere. Cancer rates are at all time an all-time high. 1 in 3 women get cancer, 1 in 2 men get cancer. And that's just one disease. Auto-immune diseases account for another large chunk. Our bodies turn against us; they go out of whack and start killing healthy cells and tissue. All because we want to use harmful products.

And sure, we could stop using them. But we won't. Sure we could cut down using them, but the damage is already under way. Not only do we have to stop doing what we are doing, we also have to work to fix it. We're not. No diseases are being cured. None of consequence. Humanity will become extinct by it's own hand. It's parasitic, and that's what parasites do. They leech off the host. In this case, the host is the Earth. Once we've exhausted our resources, well... game over. But don't chalk this up to pessimism. You should know by now that everything will die. If you're not living your life as if the world was ending tomorrow, well, there's something wrong with you Bruce.

[vchampionl70]

What factual evidence am I missing? Are we, or are we not, creating harmful products? Is, or is not, every living system on earth in decline? How many species have been wiped out because of humanity's action? The death of birth is an expression for species extinction. The whooping crane is facing extinction, the marmot is facing extinction, the orangutan is facing extinction, thousands, and almost millions of species have gone extinct because of us. We are plundering something that's not ours to plunder; the planet isn't ours, it belongs to every creature, and we are killing them.

Every living system on eart is not in decline. Scientists are finding new bug and aquatic species every day. Obviously humans aren't in decline, and the more pertinent species (cows, chickens, etc..) are not in decline either. Extinction has been going on long before we inherited the Earth. It is natural.

Ray Anderson is the CEO of Interface, the world's largest carpet manufacturer. He has some pretty interesting things to say. "Drawing the metaphor of the early attempts to fly. The man going off of a very high cliff in an airplane, with the wings flapping and the wind is in his face, and this poor fool thinks he flying, but in fact he's in freefall and he just doesn't know it because the ground is so far away. But of course the craft is doomed to crash.

This is unproven conjecture. Anyone can predict that the end of the world will happen. That doesn't make it so.

We are leaving a terrible legacy of poisoning and diminishing the environment, for our grandchildren, and our grandchildren's grandchildren. Generations not yet born. Some people have called that 'Intergenerational tyranny', a form of taxation without representation, levied by us on generations yet to be. It's the wrong thing to do."

I agree. I think it's a major problem. But, we have begun to take measures to stop it. If you're expecting a major shift in policy almost immediately, that's unrealistic. However, gradual shifts over the years will correct the problems that have been made. I don't like the situation any more than you do - I for one think nature is a beautiful thing that should be preserved. I am not willing to cause major economic problems for millions to do so.

The usage of harmful items is not down. It's up. There's more people than ever before on the planet, using things that harm it. If it was 3 billion people using 2 items each that harmed the environments but its not, its 7 billion people using 1 item each that harms the environment, that's still pretty fucking bad. More cars are being made, more gasoline is being used, more emissions, for CFC's, more of everything. We consume faster than ever before. What we use hurts us, and the evidence is everywhere. Cancer rates are at all time an all-time high. 1 in 3 women get cancer, 1 in 2 men get cancer. And that's just one disease. Auto-immune diseases account for another large chunk. Our bodies turn against us; they go out of whack and start killing healthy cells and tissue. All because we want to use harmful products.

Population is too high. What would you suggest we do about that? Nature should eliminate the weakest of us. Besides, many scientists believe the Earth can easily support 9 billion people on today's technologies.

The remarkable breakthroughs that science has given us is only the beginning. That article I posted showed that even our friends North of the border are capable of creating something productive. The new solar cell they developed can harnass 30% more energy. That will make solar energy cheaper and more affordable for you and me. I only imagine that improvements like this will better our world in decades to come.

[mps]

Quality, not quantity, Bruce. Humans are in decline. Sure there's more of us strutting around the planet, but we are sick. Very sick. When 1 in 3 women get cancer, that's an epidemic of mass proportions. And yup, scientists are finding new species everyday - in isolated regions far far away from the reaches of humanity. We kill what's around us, so it moves. When it moves it adapts and breeds new species; species that have learned to adapt with the poison we emit. Sure extinction has been going on for as long as species have existed, but not at the rates seen today. There is nothing 'natural' about the number of species that humanity has driven from existence.

Anderson's endgame scenario doesn't seem like conjecture to me. When you build a civilization around finite resources, what is the logical conclusion of that society? Say you needed plutonium to continue your way of life; what happens when you exhaust the plutonium? Don't you think you'd have to change things and rework society so that it could use something other than plutonium; something renewable maybe? We can use solar power, wind power, etc. but only if we start working now. We need our current manufacturing infrastructure to build the required items now. Our knowledge will be useless in the future when we have neither the resources nor the energy to implement our solutions.

But no, we haven't taken measures to stop it. And I'd like you to give me a source of someone who thinks the Earth can support 9 billion people. The only way that is possible is by feeding off of our finite resources. We might be able to support everyone for a little while, but we'll just exhaust things faster. Like I said, 3 billion, tops.

And the article you linked to, Canadian breakthroughs. Well, I'm Canadian, and yes, we are developing some fantastic things; but they are all built out of finite resources. They're band-aid solutions that don't address the real problems. I wouldn't place too much hope into them as solutions. Want to know how to live cheaply?

- plant, grow, and raise your own food
- walk or bike instead of driving
- read books instead of watching tv

Those three things will cut your expenses at least in half. If you don't have to buy food, pay for gas/insurance/maintenance for you car, or pay hundreds of dollars a year to look at a box, how much simpler would your life be? With the money you save you could easily afford to retrofit your home with solar panels to harness energy that can power a computer, home heating, and refrigeration. Or, you would be able to work less and enjoy life more. Going to do any of those things?

[Dozzi]

But no, we haven't taken measures to stop it. And I'd like you to give me a source of someone who thinks the Earth can support 9 billion people. The only way that is possible is by feeding off of our finite resources. We might be able to support everyone for a little while, but we'll just exhaust things faster. Like I said, 3 billion, tops.

If 3 billion is the top, why do we have 6 billion people living on this planet, and still have room to support more. Not just room, not just the fact that half of the land on this planet is uninhabited, but also the ability and availibility provided by this land for us to create resources which you claim are finite, but I say are renewable (i.e. trees, fruits, vegetables, livestock, etc. etc. etc.). And you may say, "Guh, what about places like marshlands and colder areas in which it may be too cold for planting." I say to you, that the technology you claim is killing us, will make it possible for us to turn these lands into stable working areas.

And the article you linked to, Canadian breakthroughs. Well, I'm Canadian, and yes, we are developing some fantastic things; but they are all built out of finite resources. They're band-aid solutions that don't address the real problems. I wouldn't place too much hope into them as solutions. Want to know how to live cheaply?

- plant, grow, and raise your own food
- walk or bike instead of driving
- read books instead of watching tv

Those three things will cut your expenses at least in half. If you don't have to buy food, pay for gas/insurance/maintenance for you car, or pay hundreds of dollars a year to look at a box, how much simpler would your life be? With the money you save you could easily afford to retrofit your home with solar panels to harness energy that can power a computer, home heating, and refrigeration. Or, you would be able to work less and enjoy life more. Going to do any of those things?

There's a difference between living cheaply and being frugle. To plant, grow, or raise one's own food, where does one find time for his job? He needs money in order to support himself. Take the case of John who lives in the city. Would you like John to plant his food in that backyard of his. Oh wait John cannot. And what about when John needs to go from downtown to up town, hundreds of blocks. Would you like John to risk his neck riding up and down the streets, or waste his life walking the several miles? I know if I were John I'd find it cheaper, in the way of energy, to hail a cab or drive myself. As for that box, it is more than just a box for some people. I'm not saying it runs their lives, but it is a vital tool for one's ability to just relax. Reading for some does not do it, but being able to turn down the lights and watch a movie? Forget about it. That's hard to beat. To enjoy life one needs the monetary compensation to do so. Through that he has a job, because of his job he is unable to do certain things, I.E. plant a garden. So he deals with it. And for those who have a garden, and those who have livestock from which they feed, it is the motorized back hoe, the wheat thresher, and the milker, brilliant technology which is "killing us", that keeps food on those and our tables.

And Vchamps name ain't Bruce. If you want to be regarded as remotley intelligent, ask him his name, don't just assume. Because when you make an assumption, you make an ass out of you... and umption.

EDIT:

I went and destroyed my mind with your post one more time and stumbled upon the first sentence which I guess I forgot to retort to.

Quality, not quantity, Bruce. Humans are in decline.
I beg to differ, find me one statistic that states in any way of life that humans are in decline, be it quality of life, length, amount, etc.

[mps]

Succinctly, technological agriculture. The current infrastructure is run entirely on oil, and with its introduction came the resources to produce food on the mass scale. Silos, tractors, fertilizers and everything else used to manufacture large quantities of food is directly dependant on it and this in turn has allowed the population to grow. Oil is finite, in case you didn’t know. That’s why the population exploded over the last 40 years; that’s why we are pushing 7 billion people on the planet.

As for your discourse on cheapness and frugality, it’s really simple: what need is there for a city when there’s no economical infrastructure to support? You work to make money, you use money to buy food. Well, it’s easier than that: grow your own food. Our lifestyle is very, very new. It’s an experiment really. And it didn’t work. Time to get back to basics.

But I’m well aware that vchampionl70’s name isn’t Bruce: I just find his moniker lame, and a pain in the ass to continually type out, so I’ve chosen to call him Bruce. I haven’t heard him voice his displeasure over it. If he does, I suppose I could change it to something else, or stop addressing him all together.

And your last point: find me one statistic that states in any way of life that humans are in decline, be it quality of life, length, amount, etc.

- cancer rates up
- auto-immune disease rates up
- poverty rates up

You’ve noticed those too, right?

[vchampionl70]

Succinctly, technological agriculture. The current infrastructure is run entirely on oil, and with its introduction came the resources to produce food on the mass scale. Silos, tractors, fertilizers and everything else used to manufacture large quantities of food is directly dependant on it and this in turn has allowed the population to grow. Oil is finite, in case you didn’t know. That’s why the population exploded over the last 40 years; that’s why we are pushing 7 billion people on the planet.

The infrastructure is not run entirely on oil. My state, for one, has two or three nuclear reactors. The population explosion that you mention is merely a product of the population boom that occurred nearly 200 years ago. While factors certainly play an important role in agriculture, new fuels will be developed to continue production in the event that oil supplies become slim.

As for your discourse on cheapness and frugality, it’s really simple: what need is there for a city when there’s no economical infrastructure to support? You work to make money, you use money to buy food. Well, it’s easier than that: grow your own food. Our lifestyle is very, very new. It’s an experiment really. And it didn’t work. Time to get back to basics.

Go ahead. Start by getting off ebaum's world and planting a garden. :lol:

I mean, come on! I don't want to give up air condition, the internet and television, or my massaging chair. While a simple life is great for some, it's not the top choice for many - like you and me.

But I’m well aware that vchampionl70’s name isn’t Bruce: I just find his moniker lame, and a pain in the ass to continually type out, so I’ve chosen to call him Bruce. I haven’t heard him voice his displeasure over it. If he does, I suppose I could change it to something else, or stop addressing him all together.

Well, clearly the length isn't a problem. You would not spend so much time explaining why you call me Bruce if you did. Like others, you're merely another smug Canadian; that's fine with me. You guys have a lot to be resentful for.

And your last point: find me one statistic that states in any way of life that humans are in decline, be it quality of life, length, amount, etc.

- cancer rates up
- auto-immune disease rates up
- poverty rates up

You’ve noticed those too, right?

I bet sitting in front of the computer monitor and getting vaccinated isn't helping any of those things.

[mps]

The infrastructure is not run entirely on oil. My state, for one, has two or three nuclear reactors.

Yeah, and nulcear reactors are made of pixie dust.

The population explosion that you mention is merely a product of the population boom that occurred nearly 200 years ago.

The population exploded in the 50's because it exploded in the 1800's? I don't follow.

While factors certainly play an important role in agriculture, new fuels will be developed to continue production in the event that oil supplies become slim.

New fuels? Like what?

Go ahead. Start by getting off ebaum's world and planting a garden.

I'm well on my way.

While a simple life is great for some, it's not the top choice for many - like you and me.

It's my top choice pal. I use the internet because it's how I communicate over distance. I very rarely use the phone, and I haven't been behind the wheel in 4 years.

Well, clearly the length isn't a problem. You would not spend so much time explaining why you call me Bruce if you did. Like others, you're merely another smug Canadian; that's fine with me. You guys have a lot to be resentful for.

I explained it twice already. When I need to continually address you, it's easier for me to type "Bruce".

I bet sitting in front of the computer monitor and getting vaccinated isn't helping any of those things.

Actually, it is. And bummer, I'm a tally in two of those statistics.