The end of Oil and other resources on planet Earth.

Fixer · Post by **Fixer** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:18 pm

I think Santa had the right idea when he made his house up there. He'll never run out of fresh water!

Post by **Blaze** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:37 pm

Not so long as he's got some Geo-thermal energy going on.

You crazy alaskan.

Also, Grav: As they said, it doesn't matter, but even if it did, People come first, always.

virulus · Post by **virulus** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:43 pm

Also, Grav: As they said, it doesn't matter, but even if it did, People come first, always.

Blaze, Tell that to the hug-a-tree left.

naval_aviator_2040 · Post by **naval_aviator_2040** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:48 pm

now wait. Not all of us on the left are tree hugging freaks. No wait, whats that? We are? Oh. Well I guess I was wrong. Carry on.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:02 pm

"people come first" ... maybe. Do you mean humanity as a whole, or just worthwhile people? What do you mean by "come first"? What does that imply and give you rights to do in the name of? does that come with consideration for the rest of the world? Does the condition of the world they have to live count as a concern for "people" when they "come first"? Explain the implications of your statement.

Keaton · Post by **Keaton** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:37 pm

Water being the big issue here, and taking into account that the fresh water supply isn't going to drastically rise or fall unless we empty out and desalinate an ocean... well, the number of people using that fresh water supply is rising. It's been rising for a long time, as well as the amount of water we use on a daily basis. We brush our teeth, take long showers, wash dishes, wash clothes, and often thoughtlessly leave sinks running... the average human being uses much more water than what he drinks. I don't know if we're close to this becoming a problem or not, but couldn't it certainly become a problem? That seven billion people may want a certain amount of water each day, but there may only be enough for six billion people to have that amount (not actual figures, just making an example), or for each of those people to get a fraction of what they actually want or even need? Again, I don't know how close we are to having such a problem, but if the population continues to rise, I can see it becoming a problem.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:55 pm

I would venture a guess that more water is used by industries, especially in the manufacture of goods, than by individuals for daily routines. Additionally, consider that a lot of freshwater resources are being polluted all to hell and back. No, not usually in the US, but rather in places like India and Africa, where it's often nasty times ten.

Keaton · Post by **Keaton** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:01 pm

Well, there you go. And generally, the more people you have, the more industries you'll have.

Post by **Blaze** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:09 pm

I mean of course, Fuggle, that if it's a matter between a pack of whales dying off, or a couple of people, so on and so forth, the whales die, not the people.

Obviously, I don't mean that we should doom the entire race by destroying the environment just to keep one person alive. But where feasible, the lives of any person always come before the lives of any other creature or plant.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:10 pm

Wow, you so totally missed the point, and that is that shutting the water off while brushing your teeth, while certainly a good thing to do (it's an idiotic waste otherwise), is not going to save the planet, especially considering that water consumption in the US is really not the problem. It's a problem elsewhere in the world.

Post by **Blaze** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:17 pm

I think he's the type that'd pick up a scrap of newspaper in a park, and feel he was a champion for the world, rather than doing something logical.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:24 pm

Depending on the size of the pack of whales, and who the people were, Blaze, I'd have to argue with you that we should "automatically" side with the people. Saving the whales might be better for everyone, except those few people.

What about killing the whales, not for lives, but for livelyhoods? for pennies? dollars? hundreds? thousands?

Humans aren't a straight line over everything, but rather a curve of importance, altered by various variables, like all other considerations. You can't just say "humans should come first", it's rather silly and unworkable, as you yourself admitted. It's a generalization, but too much of one.

Post by **Blaze** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:29 pm

Depending on the size of the pack of whales, and who the people were, Blaze, I'd have to argue with you that we should "automatically" side with the people. Saving the whales might be better for everyone, except those few people.

I see. So basically you're saying humanity is something that should be sacrificed by nature, and not by humanity? Boy, I hope you didn't donate to the Tsunami relief funds.

And no, before you ask, it's not a bad example. The issue is black and white. Either people should be the most valuble beings on the planet, or we shouldn't be.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:53 pm

Amused nonverbal response: Hm.

no, what I'm basically saying is that the issue is hardly black and white. Humanity has some value, made up of a bunch of variables, like how humans, individually, have individual values made up of variables, that can and must be weighted against the variable value of other things, and you can't just make a blanket statement, especially as you have not defined what makes up "humans"? their lives, alone? their livelyhoods? their lifestyles? Could you kill a bunch or all the humans to save the rest of life on earth? could you damage their livelyhoods? If so, to what extent?

I really, really don't see how this can be a simple issue.

Keaton · Post by **Keaton** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:03 pm

[quote="Deacon";p="485445"]Wow, you so totally missed the point, and that is that shutting the water off while brushing your teeth, while certainly a good thing to do (it's an idiotic waste otherwise), is not going to save the planet, especially considering that water consumption in the US is really not the problem. It's a problem elsewhere in the world.[/quote]

[quote="Blaze";p="485454"]I think he's the type that'd pick up a scrap of newspaper in a park, and feel he was a champion for the world, rather than doing something logical.[/quote]

I know that's not how you're going to solve everything, and that other variables take a larger role, such as industry. All I'm trying to say is that the population growth may eventually contribute to a shortage. I'm not trying to tell people how to prevent a shortage by turning off their faucets or whatever. That wasn't the point I was trying to make, at all.

Blaze... I don't know why the hell you felt the need to say what you said, other than to belittle me for something I never even argued or wouldn't even do. At least now I know what this is all about.

Real Life Forums

The end of Oil and other resources on planet Earth.

Who is online