The five biggest threats to human existence

May 29, 2014 by Anders Sandberg
Other ways humanity could end are more subtle. Credit: United States Department of Energy, CC BY

In the daily hubbub of current "crises" facing humanity, we forget about the many generations we hope are yet to come. Not those who will live 200 years from now, but 1,000 or 10,000 years from now. I use the word "hope" because we face risks, called existential risks, that threaten to wipe out humanity. These risks are not just for big disasters, but for the disasters that could end history.

Not everyone has ignored the long future though. Mystics like Nostradamus have regularly tried to calculate the end of the world. HG Wells tried to develop a science of forecasting and famously depicted the far future of humanity in his book The Time Machine. Other writers built other long-term futures to warn, amuse or speculate.

But had these pioneers or futurologists not thought about humanity's future, it would not have changed the outcome. There wasn't much that human beings in their place could have done to save us from an existential crisis or even cause one.

We are in a more privileged position today. Human activity has been steadily shaping the future of our planet. And even though we are far from controlling natural disasters, we are developing technologies that may help mitigate, or at least, deal with them.

Future imperfect

Yet, these risks remain understudied. There is a sense of powerlessness and fatalism about them. People have been talking apocalypses for millennia, but few have tried to prevent them. Humans are also bad at doing anything about problems that have not occurred yet (partially because of the availability heuristic – the tendency to overestimate the probability of events we know examples of, and underestimate events we cannot readily recall).

If humanity becomes extinct, at the very least the loss is equivalent to the loss of all living individuals and the frustration of their goals. But the loss would probably be far greater than that. Human extinction means the loss of meaning generated by past generations, the lives of all future generations (and there could be an astronomical number of future lives) and all the value they might have been able to create. If consciousness or intelligence are lost, it might mean that value itself becomes absent from the universe. This is a huge moral reason to work hard to prevent existential threats from becoming reality. And we must not fail even once in this pursuit.

With that in mind, I have selected what I consider the five biggest threats to humanity's existence. But there are caveats that must be kept in mind, for this list is not final.

Over the past century we have discovered or created new existential risks – supervolcanoes were discovered in the early 1970s, and before the Manhattan project was impossible – so we should expect others to appear. Also, some risks that look serious today might disappear as we learn more. The probabilities also change over time – sometimes because we are concerned about the risks and fix them.

Finally, just because something is possible and potentially hazardous, doesn't mean it is worth worrying about. There are some risks we cannot do anything at all about, such as gamma ray bursts that result from the explosions of galaxies. But if we learn we can do something, the priorities change. For instance, with sanitation, vaccines and antibiotics, pestilence went from an act of God to bad public health.

1. Nuclear war

While only two nuclear weapons have been used in war so far – at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II – and nuclear stockpiles are down from their the peak they reached in the Cold War, it is a mistake to think that nuclear war is impossible. In fact, it might not be improbable.

The Cuban Missile crisis was very close to turning nuclear. If we assume one such event every 69 years and a one in three chance that it might go all the way to being nuclear war, the chance of such a catastrophe increases to about one in 200 per year.

Worse still, the Cuban Missile crisis was only the most well-known case. The history of Soviet-US nuclear deterrence is full of close calls and dangerous mistakes. The actual probability has changed depending on international tensions, but it seems implausible that the chances would be much lower than one in 1000 per year.

A full-scale nuclear war between major powers would kill hundreds of millions of people directly or through the near aftermath – an unimaginable disaster. But that is not enough to make it an existential risk.

Similarly the hazards of fallout are often exaggerated – potentially deadly locally, but globally a relatively limited problem. Cobalt bombs were proposed as a hypothetical doomsday weapon that would kill everybody with fallout, but are in practice hard and expensive to build. And they are physically just barely possible.

The real threat is nuclear winter – that is, soot lofted into the stratosphere causing a multi-year cooling and drying of the world. Modern climate simulations show that it could preclude agriculture across much of the world for years. If this scenario occurs billions would starve, leaving only scattered survivors that might be picked off by other threats such as disease. The main uncertainty is how the soot would behave: depending on the kind of soot the outcomes may be very different, and we currently have no good ways of estimating this.

2. Bioengineered pandemic

Natural pandemics have killed more people than wars. However, natural pandemics are unlikely to be existential threats: there are usually some people resistant to the pathogen, and the offspring of survivors would be more resistant. Evolution also does not favor parasites that wipe out their hosts, which is why syphilis went from a virulent killer to a chronic disease as it spread in Europe.

Credit: shiborisan, CC BY-NC-ND

Unfortunately we can now make diseases nastier. One of the more famous examples is how the introduction of an extra gene in mousepox – the mouse version of smallpox – made it far more lethal and able to infect vaccinated individuals. Recent work on bird flu has demonstrated that the contagiousness of a disease can be deliberately boosted.

Right now the risk of somebody deliberately releasing something devastating is low. But as biotechnology gets better and cheaper, more groups will be able to make diseases worse.

Most work on bioweapons have been done by governments looking for something controllable, because wiping out humanity is not militarily useful. But there are always some people who might want to do things because they can. Others have higher purposes. For instance, the Aum Shinrikyo cult tried to hasten the apocalypse using bioweapons beside their more successful attack. Some people think the Earth would be better off without humans, and so on.

The number of fatalities from bioweapon and epidemic outbreaks attacks looks like it has a power-law distribution – most attacks have few victims, but a few kill many. Given current numbers the risk of a global pandemic from bioterrorism seems very small. But this is just bioterrorism: governments have killed far more people than terrorists with bioweapons (up to 400,000 may have died from the WWII Japanese biowar program). And as technology gets more powerful in the future nastier pathogens become easier to design.

3. Superintelligence

Intelligence is very powerful. A tiny increment in problem-solving ability and group coordination is why we left the other apes in the dust. Now their continued existence depends on human decisions, not what they do. Being smart is a real advantage for people and organisations, so there is much effort in figuring out ways of improving our individual and collective intelligence: from cognition-enhancing drugs to artificial-intelligence software.

The problem is that intelligent entities are good at achieving their goals, but if the goals are badly set they can use their power to cleverly achieve disastrous ends. There is no reason to think that intelligence itself will make something behave nice and morally. In fact, it is possible to prove that certain types of superintelligent systems would not obey moral rules even if they were true.

Even more worrying is that in trying to explain things to an artificial intelligence we run into profound practical and philosophical problems. Human values are diffuse, complex things that we are not good at expressing, and even if we could do that we might not understand all the implications of what we wish for.

Software-based intelligence may very quickly go from below human to frighteningly powerful. The reason is that it may scale in different ways from biological intelligence: it can run faster on faster computers, parts can be distributed on more computers, different versions tested and updated on the fly, new algorithms incorporated that give a jump in performance.

It has been proposed that an "intelligence explosion" is possible when software becomes good enough at making better software. Should such a jump occur there would be a large difference in potential power between the smart system (or the people telling it what to do) and the rest of the world. This has clear potential for disaster if the goals are badly set.

The unusual thing about superintelligence is that we do not know if rapid and powerful intelligence explosions are possible: maybe our current civilisation as a whole is improving itself at the fastest possible rate. But there are good reasons to think that some technologies may speed things up far faster than current societies can handle. Similarly we do not have a good grip on just how dangerous different forms of superintelligence would be, or what mitigation strategies would actually work. It is very hard to reason about future technology we do not yet have, or intelligences greater than ourselves. Of the risks on this list, this is the one most likely to either be massive or just a mirage.

This is a surprisingly under-researched area. Even in the 50s and 60s when people were extremely confident that superintelligence could be achieved "within a generation", they did not look much into safety issues. Maybe they did not take their predictions seriously, but more likely is that they just saw it as a remote future problem.

4. Nanotechnology

Nanotechnology is the control over matter with atomic or molecular precision. That is in itself not dangerous – instead, it would be very good news for most applications. The problem is that, like biotechnology, increasing power also increases the potential for abuses that are hard to defend against.

Credit: gi, CC BY-SA

The big problem is not the infamous "grey goo" of self-replicating nanomachines eating everything. That would require clever design for this very purpose. It is tough to make a machine replicate: biology is much better at it, by default. Maybe some maniac would eventually succeed, but there are plenty of more low-hanging fruits on the destructive technology tree.

The most obvious risk is that atomically precise manufacturing looks ideal for rapid, cheap manufacturing of things like weapons. In a world where any government could "print" large amounts of autonomous or semi-autonomous weapons (including facilities to make even more) arms races could become very fast – and hence unstable, since doing a first strike before the enemy gets a too large advantage might be tempting.

Weapons can also be small, precision things: a "smart poison" that acts like a nerve gas but seeks out victims, or ubiquitous "gnatbot" surveillance systems for keeping populations obedient seems entirely possible. Also, there might be ways of getting nuclear proliferation and climate engineering into the hands of anybody who wants it.

We cannot judge the likelihood of existential risk from future nanotechnology, but it looks like it could be potentially disruptive just because it can give us whatever we wish for.

5. Unknown unknowns

The most unsettling possibility is that there is something out there that is very deadly, and we have no clue about it.

The silence in the sky might be evidence for this. Is the absence of aliens due to that life or intelligence is extremely rare, or that intelligent life tends to get wiped out? If there is a future Great Filter, it must have been noticed by other civilisations too, and even that didn't help.

Whatever the threat is, it would have to be something that is nearly unavoidable even when you know it is there, no matter who and what you are. We do not know about any such threats (none of the others on this list work like this), but they might exist.

Note that just because something is unknown it doesn't mean we cannot reason about it. In a remarkable paper Max Tegmark and Nick Bostrom show that a certain set of risks must be less than one chance in a billion per year, based on the relative age of Earth.

You might wonder why climate change or meteor impacts have been left off this list. Climate change, no matter how scary, is unlikely to make the entire planet uninhabitable (but it could compound other threats if our defences to it break down). Meteors could certainly wipe us out, but we would have to be very unlucky. The average mammalian species survives for about a million years. Hence, the background natural extinction rate is roughly one in a million per year. This is much lower than the nuclear-war risk, which after 70 years is still the biggest threat to our continued existence.

The availability heuristic makes us overestimate risks that are often in the media, and discount unprecedented risks. If we want to be around in a million years we need to correct that.

Explore further: From human extinction to super intelligence, two futurists explain

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Habitable exoplanets are bad news for humanity

Apr 24, 2014

Last week, scientists announced the discovery of Kepler-186f, a planet 492 light years away in the Cygnus constellation. Kepler-186f is special because it marks the first planet almost exactly the same size as Earth ...

The varieties of nuclear strategy

May 28, 2014

During the Cold War, nuclear-weapons strategy was oriented around the doctrine of "mutual assured destruction": The world's two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, both knew that any use ...

Recommended for you

How to win a Tour de France sprint

Jul 22, 2014

The final dash to the line in a Tour de France sprint finish may appear to the bystander to be a mess of bodies trying to cram into the width of a road, but there is a high degree of strategy involved. It ...

Bible museum planned for US capital

Jul 18, 2014

The devout Christian family that upended a part of President Barack Obama's health care law aims to open a Bible museum in Washington in 2017, a spokesperson for the project said Friday.

User comments : 213

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (14) May 29, 2014
You're forgetting the one thing that makes these so dangerous - religion-fueled overpopulation. Religion forces populations to grow far beyond the carrying capacity of a region and convinces the inhabitants that their resulting misery is the fault of unbelievers. Conflict is inevitable.

Religion also convinces people that the next life is way better than this one, and the only way to get there is by spreading the religion - by proselytism, propagation, or force.

Unbelievers cannot be good. This mindset always, inevitably, sooner or later, leads to attempts to exterminate. And religion is not too proud to use science in this endeavor.

Eliminate religion to reduce the existential danger that any of the tools discussed above will ever be used with malice.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (14) May 29, 2014
1. Nuclear war isn't a "threat to humanity"...it's a threat to industrial civilization, nothing more. Sagan was simply wrong about that one.

2. Bio weapons are a much more credible threat, but someone is always immune. Probably not an "extinction" worry.

3. Super-intelligence is a very credible and very real threat. If it comes and it doesn't like us we're toast, no Hollywood endings on that one. Then again, at least something intelligent survives the "holocaust"....

4.K. Eric Drexler has already given us ways to prevent problems with nanotechnology if we but listen AND we're the first to get it.

5.??? The Fermi paradox is unsettling, but it could simply be that intelligent technological life is extremely rare in the universe. It's impossible to know so why worry?
Modernmystic
2.8 / 5 (14) May 29, 2014
Also Otto is correct, but too narrow. It isn't JUST religion that's a problem for humanity it's anything we TREAT like religion...including, environmentalism, politics, culture, and even science (no I'm not saying science is religion, but it's not immune to being misused, politicized, and codified into dogma)....and a thousand other things that can't possibly all be mentioned.
Doug_Huffman
1 / 5 (9) May 29, 2014
What utter Barbara Streisand! See the Pareto Distribution, effective for geophysical phenomena. At MathWorld or Worlfram if you're a virtual pundit only.
bluehigh
1.7 / 5 (12) May 29, 2014
Miserable sods. More fear to keep us on our knees. None of these things will stop humans. We continue to grow, learn, master our environment, enhance our knowledge, adapt and thrive.

No problems, simply challenges of which we will, without doubt, find solutions.
bluehigh
1.7 / 5 (9) May 29, 2014
How about an uplifting article about the reasons humans will thrive. How we will, using our increasing cognitive abilities, overcome prejudice and irrational belief. How we will learn to grow within our increasing capacity to feed and house our species. How will will reach for the stars. How we will successfully manage disease and ensure long worthwhile lives. How science will lead our way.

Nah ... Just kidding. Or not?

Modernmystic
3.4 / 5 (9) May 29, 2014
How about an uplifting article about the reasons humans will thrive. How we will, using our increasing cognitive abilities, overcome prejudice and irrational belief. How we will learn to grow within our increasing capacity to feed and house our species. How will will reach for the stars. How we will successfully manage disease and ensure long worthwhile lives. How science will lead our way.

Nah ... Just kidding. Or not?



Couldn't agree more. The main obstacle is ourselves. If we can start to lay down this need to defend fictions like this political party vs. that one, or this religion vs. that one, or this theory vs. that one as a personal threat to our existence and start to see it in proper perspective we'd be just fine. Essentially the human race needs to defuse it's need to constantly toss drama bombs...we need to realize and ACT like we're out of high school.
Pejico
May 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
richardwenzel987
3.4 / 5 (7) May 29, 2014
The problem with being optimistic or pessimistic about our future is that it requires some sort of a priori assumption about the kinds of creatures we are. Historical evidence is ambiguous on this point. There is probably no efficient algorithm for predicting our future state. We must simply treat mankind as a finite state automaton with computational complexity-- in order to see a future state we must simply let it run, generation after generation, and let it end up wherever it will. Prognostication is futile. But it seems OK to discuss potential threats. But it seems out of bounds to predict how those threats will be dealt with if they arise.
bluehigh
2 / 5 (8) May 29, 2014
Historical evidence is ambiguous on this point


How so?

Cave man vs modern man. It's no contest. As a species we are stronger in every way.

Doug_Huffman
2.4 / 5 (5) May 29, 2014
History is indeed written by the victors. History as oracular prophesy is historicism, the fallacy that history provides a logic-like syllogism with necessary conclusions.
Modernmystic
2.8 / 5 (6) May 29, 2014
History is indeed written by the victors. History as oracular prophesy is historicism, the fallacy that history provides a logic-like syllogism with necessary conclusions.


Actually sir, it's a well known fact that the best predictor of future behavior by individual human beings is past behavior. Now, people CAN change, but it takes a lot of time and honest continuous effort. Generally they don't get it done. Now as a species we've been doing better in all kinds of ways, in general it's been an upward trend...we just need to literally grow up and mature.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (13) May 29, 2014
'Liberals' are the biggest threat.

" That was the puzzling choice of billionaire Tom Steyer. Well, puzzling if you truly want to see advances in climate science or reasonable work to combat greenhouse gas emissions levels.

Given how incredibly political climate change has become, the last thing we need is more fighting -- political mudslinging is already destroying the real scientific debate. Science isn't accepted because it spends the most on ad campaigns. It's accepted by its empirical truth.

What could a person do with all that cash to make real progress?"
http://www.realcl...ace.html

Johnpaily
1 / 5 (12) May 29, 2014
The five threat perceptions to world and humanity written here are real. More than two and half decades back, as a biotechnologist I realized these threat perception and apocalyptic end to which humanity is edging. I could trace the cause for it in our ignorance of Truth. I saw it emerging from negative thinking arising from the mind of humans in the absence of Truth and Light. In the absence of Truth or Light or Knowledge, humans seem to judge the opposite as enemy and create a society that is full of war and struggle to annihilate the opposite and in the process digs his own grave. This failure relates to spiritual institutions that deteriorated into religious institutions that seek self at all cost and has become slave to material force. I saw religions as number one threat perception to the world. Science emerged with hopes of liberating humanity from the clutches of religious institutions. But slowly I began to see science as another threat. Science that has failed evolve to unearth the Truth of life Nature has empowered the evil minds with the power to exploit material world and thus annihilate our abode. In their quest to predict and conquer nature through mathematical equations they have made nature complex and beyond the comprehension of ordinary people. The only way out that I could see was to stay with once own consciousness and seek Truth in freedom and in Nature in simplicity. Nature and her Master were graceful to reveal the simple "principle and design' on which she and her Master works. But it was impossible to reach out to temples of science and religions that rule the world with iron hand. The ego people occupying these institutes resist them to opening their eyes. The dead end and destruction I saw is already manifesting in the form of climate catastrophes and threats from human invention in the hands of evil and self-centered minds. Einstein said "Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." What the world needs today is transformation of pathological mindset and this cannot happen unless humanity awakens to Truth. In spite of all threat perception, I see a hope for the world. It comes from my spiritual initiation. There is time ahead when earth stresses the ego of the leaders of the world and the whole world to awakens to consciousness and truth. The internet and the information era could help in the fast awakening of people so that they can alleviate the forces of nature and lead the world to Golden Age of Truth. I am not sure how much destruction the world has to see before it awakens – The links below speaks the truth and knowledge revealed to me in simplicity. It accounts for all the conceptual developments science and evolves it to unite with spiritual knowledge breaking the barrier of religion. - http://www.scribd...nologies
http://www.scribd...g-Origin

Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (12) May 29, 2014
Nature and her Master were graceful to reveal the simple "principle and design' on which she and her Master works.


Hey Skippy, this is not so much the good place to find peoples to join your congregation. Take it from ol Ira, they ain't got no money, and all they going to do is have the fun with you. I just thought I'd tell you in case you got the easy to hurt feelings.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (12) May 29, 2014
Just a thought... Our biggest threats comes from ourselves thinking too little - or not enough...
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (10) May 29, 2014
Just a thought... Our biggest threats comes from ourselves thinking too little - or not enough...


Whydening-Skippy that is one of the truest things I see posted on here yet.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) May 29, 2014
The historical record shows the most significant threat to species are geological, such as massive volcanic eruptions, and asteroid impacts.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (11) May 29, 2014
Also Otto is correct, but too narrow. It isn't JUST religion that's a problem for humanity it's anything we TREAT like religion...including, environmentalism, politics, culture, and even science
Sorry none of those things forces overpopulation, or promises to reward jihad or martyrdom with eternity in heaven. The west has established a culture of zero growth. This has provided a chance at enduring stability. Religion abhors this. The result is floods of starving refugees across western borders and never ending conflict wherever religion reigns.
Nuclear war no big deal
Wrong again. Humanity may have but one chance to establish a presence elsewhere in the system. We can only do this at our present level of technology.

If it collapses we may never be able to restore it to the point where we can colonize. And so our extinction from impactors or bio weapons is inevitable.

This might be our only window of opportunity and nuclear war could close it.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) May 29, 2014
"The Real Problem with Liberals: They're Lower Down the Evolutionary Scale"
" One of the fundamental misconceptions of the liberal-left is that you can't get richer without others getting poorer. This is the root cause of the widespread belief that capitalism is unfair and that government intervention is essential in order to create "social justice." But it's a fallacy, based on the delusion that the economy is like a pizza pie where the more one person has the less there is available for everyone else. What this popular leftist delusion ignores is that - at least in advanced capitalist nations - economies tend towards growth, which means the pizza pie gets bigger and bigger, meaning everyone (not just the One Per Cent) gets better and better off. There are mountains of evidence to show that this is so (read eg Matt Ridley's The Rational Optimist). Why, then do even quite educated people on the liberal-left choose to ignore it?

Because mentally they're still stuck in the Pleistocene
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) May 29, 2014
" Why, then do even quite educated people on the liberal-left choose to ignore it?

Because mentally they're still stuck in the Pleistocene era, is why. Subconsciously they're living in the days when the hunting party has come back with, say, a scrawny warthog, or a large rat, and that's all there is to go round their community. The economic world has grown a great deal more sophisticated since then, but the left-liberal brain - or at least the most dominant part of it - hasn't. In the left's head, the size of the economy is as fixed as the amount of meat on that large rat is fixed: that's why, for them, fairness is such a life and death issue. Because in the prehistoric era their brains inhabit, it really was. "
http://www.breitb...ry-scale

I note the author of the 'threats' is thinking the same 'liberal' way rather than thinking out of the box and off of the planet.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) May 29, 2014
" Humans are also bad at doing anything about problems that have not occurred yet"

I don't agree.
Individuals free to innovate, create, and profit, find solutions to problems we didn't even know we had.
The consensus was what would anyone do with a computer in your house let alone in your pocket or car.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) May 29, 2014
I note the author of the 'threats' is thinking the same 'liberal' way rather than thinking out of the box and off of the planet.

Thinking out of the box while ON the planet would be more helpful, Rygg.

Individuals free to innovate, create, and profit, find solutions to problems we didn't even know we had.

Did we actually have a "problem" before some individual provided a "solution"?

ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) May 29, 2014
Did we actually have a "problem" before some individual provided a "solution"?


What was the problem that required personal computers as the solution?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) May 29, 2014
What was the problem that required personal computers as the solution?
speed and accuracy of calculations as well as rapidly reproducible results and consistency ... it also provides ease of use as well as ease of tracking/office management and many other tasks that the average idiot like you would not understand
Then there is the cross-platform translation as well as commonality and standardization. There is also the ease of data sharing and the ability to easily as well as effectively manipulate, store, utilize and reproduce data.
The computer also assists in the standardization of tasks, practices, management as well as the spread of ideas & functionally capable new programs or effort reducing and more effective ideas/styles/programs/methods
but more importantly, it allows us to create and run incredibly complex mathematical and other models that would take too many man-hours of labor or would NOT be capable any other way...

IOW- it makes work easier & faster, ya idjit!

Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (3) May 30, 2014
What was the problem that required personal computers as the solution?
speed and accuracy of calculations as well as rapidly reproducible results and consistency ... it also provides ease of use as well as ease of tracking/office management and many other tasks
The computer also assists in the standardization of tasks, practices, management as well as the spread of ideas & functionally capable new programs or effort reducing and more effective ideas/styles/programs/methods
but more importantly, it allows us to create and run incredibly complex mathematical and other models that would take too many man-hours of labor or would NOT be capable any other way...
IOW- it makes work easier & faster, ya idjit!

Actually, his answer was my bad. I asked an obviously dumb question . His response was a correct one.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) May 30, 2014
Rygg was just pointing out one obvious incidence that answered that question, without going into the detail Cap'n did.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) May 30, 2014
What problem required as a solution a home PC in 1980?
The consensus, IBM, didn't believe PC at home were a solution to any problem. Mainframes were.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (7) May 30, 2014
What problem required as a solution a home PC in 1980?
-The problem of how to develop a manufacturing base and a system of widespread field-testing and improvement, of machines capable of supporting the replacement of analog communications with digital.
The consensus, IBM, didn't believe PC at home were a solution to any problem. Mainframes were.
'IBM' knew that the digital age had to start somewhere. It required getting enough machines in the hands of enough people, to create a self-sustaining demand.

IOW in order to get an internet you needed to force PCs on people. To this end, big business and govt required them when they weren't necessary. CAD was required when it wasn't cost effective.

Free markets would never have generated the digital age. The changes needed to enable the internet had to be done by force, at great expense, and with no hope of short-term returns. It required the coordinated efforts of business, govt, and the university system.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (9) May 30, 2014
Sorry none of those things forces overpopulation,


Forgetting that overpopulation is a red herring AND an oxymoron I think you'll find plenty of politics in this country which might force "overpopulation" as you see the non-concept.

or promises to reward jihad or martyrdom with eternity in heaven.


Nor do the vast majority of religions...you're equivocating Islam with everything else.

This has provided a chance at enduring stability.


There is no such thing, everything changes.

Religion abhors this.


Religion is a human created fiction, it doesn't DO anything apart from human beings...including "abhorring". I don't find it helpful to anthropomorphize a fairy tale. This is exactly the same thing that many unbalanced environmentalists do. They ascribe human values and motivations to a complex chemical and biological system, then pretend to speak for it.
Modernmystic
2.8 / 5 (5) May 30, 2014

Wrong again. Humanity may have but one chance to establish a presence elsewhere in the system. We can only do this at our present level of technology.


Nonsense, we've come back from many "collapses". I can provide a list on request. Nuclear war IS a big deal, it would take us a hundred years or more to recover. It's just irrelevant to the ultimate survival of humanity....at least with the current arsenal....

RE: Personal computers, NO ONE saw a need for them. It was a few guys in a garage that thought it would be cool. Them's the facts.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (4) May 30, 2014
Wrong again. Humanity may have but one chance to establish a presence elsewhere in the system. We can only do this at our present level of technology.


Nonsense, we've come back from many "collapses". I can provide a list on request. Nuclear war IS a big deal, it would take us a hundred years or more to recover. It's just irrelevant to the ultimate survival of humanity....at least with the current arsenal....

RE: Personal computers, NO ONE saw a need for them, computers were solidly in the culture as room filling data crunchers that had NOTHING to do with average consumers. It was a few guys in a garage that thought it would be cool. Them's the facts.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 30, 2014
The author's premise is flawed:
"Humans are also bad at doing anything about problems that have not occurred yet "

It was a few guys in a garage that thought it would be cool. Them's the facts.


TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (6) May 30, 2014
we've come back from many "collapses". I can provide a list
Your 'collapses' were relocations. We currently have nowhere left to go.
it would take us a hundred years or more to recover
Weve never had a worldwide technological collapse. Our technologies are so complex, so intertwined, and so massive that it is doubtful they could be recovered.

This is in the context of ecologies which are themselves on the verge of collapse. It took millions of consumers and many generations of computer tech to build the huge industrial complex needed to support this tech.

Without the continuity of that consumer base we could not replicate the industries needed before the knowledge of how to do so was lost. Knowledge mind you, which is all stored in digital form and which would evaporate in the event of a thorough collapse.

Our food sources would shrink as diseases overtook pesticide development. Our medical system would not be able to develop new vaccines.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (5) May 31, 2014
Religion is a human created fiction, it doesn't DO anything apart from human beings...including "abhorring"
Funny. You're an adult aren't you mm? And yet it seems you haven't yet learned what a metaphor is.

'Religion' (for those who do not understand metaphors this means the constituency which acts based on a common set of rules and behaviors) ABHORS anything which prevents it from growing.
There is no such thing, everything changes.
Ok let's make it a little simpler for you.

Instability = the Middle East where war, insurrection, and revolution occurs every generation or 2.

Stability = Western Europe which hasn't had any armed conflict since it has achieved zero growth via the elimination of religious influence, the freedom of women to decide what to do with their lives, and the institution of family planning including abortion.

IOW stability = the absence of conflict.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) May 31, 2014
"Being ignored is WORSE than being bullied: Ostracism is more psychologically damaging, claim experts

Read more: http://www.dailym...3IfWnm6w
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Nik_2213
4.2 / 5 (5) May 31, 2014
"What problem required as a solution a home PC in 1980 ?"
Well, for me, it was a 3D Astronomy program, shoe-horned into an Apple ][+'s 48 kb of RAM...

Sure beat using a calculator !!!
RhoidSlayer
1.8 / 5 (5) May 31, 2014
everybody's gonna feel pretty dumb having spent trillions to prevent global warming when the big rock hits - anon
Gigel
1 / 5 (6) May 31, 2014
Several dangerous threats IMHO:
- mass stupidity
- globalisation killing alternative paths for mankind
- dangerous memes being spread that end up blocking progress and civilisation; memes that spread too much, becoming fashion
- an end of manned space missions
- aging and the reduction of youth population levels, bringing a collapse of economy and public finance
- and last but not least: the idea that humans should stop multiplying and spreading; demographics is the most powerful engine in human history and it should not be stopped, but rather used to great advantage.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (9) May 31, 2014
The greatest threat to human nature, ....egoism, freedom, and liberty, ....is liberal progressive social engineers and their army of statisticians,.... seeking to use government coercion to "fix" everything that science determines is not in accord with a utopia,... and yet failing anyway.
TechnoCreed
1.6 / 5 (7) May 31, 2014
- And last but not least: the idea that humans should stop multiplying and spreading; demographics is the most powerful engine in human history and it should not be stopped, but rather used to great advantage.
Agree! The pace of technological development is driven by the amount of human grey matter, and the economy is driven by demography. But for the moment we are limited by the amount of real estate available to life; planet earth has to be shared with other creatures. That is why we need to start a colony on Mars as soon as possible. Creating a life sustaining environment there will be a monumental task that will take a long time to achieve.
grondilu
3 / 5 (2) May 31, 2014
It's weird how the first comment of an article about threats to the existence of mankind mentions overpopulation. Overpopulation causes problems, but does certainly not threaten our existence. It's a weird logic to think that being too numerous could be a danger of becoming extinct.
TechnoCreed
4 / 5 (5) May 31, 2014
It's weird how the first comment of an article about threats to the existence of mankind mentions overpopulation. Overpopulation causes problems, but does certainly not threaten our existence. It's a weird logic to think that being too numerous could be a danger of becoming extinct.
I am also sceptical about that. We have demonstrated our ability to adapt to the fiercest conditions. It is not so much our survival that is at stake here but biodiversity. We are already responsible for the disappearance of countless animal and vegetal species. How much more pressure on nature is acceptable?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) May 31, 2014
threats to the existence of mankind mentions overpopulation. Overpopulation causes problems, but does certainly not threaten our existence. It's a weird logic to think that being too numerous could be a danger of becoming extinct.
Overpop began ruining the earth shortly after the advent of agriculture. There is a wide swath of denuded, desertified land stretching from the Sahel to the gobi.

The forests were cut, the land saltified from irrigation, the roots dug up by swine. Look at pictures of Iraq and Afghanistan today - no trees, only scrub brush and desert.

King Nebuchadnezzar had a grand plan to remove the top few feet of saltified soil from the Euphrates valley. He gave up.

Overpopulation causes every war, every revolution. 90% of large ocean food fish are gone.

Every species will produce more offspring than can be expected to survive to maturity. Humans would save every one. Religion thrives on its ability to maximize our tropical repro rate.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) May 31, 2014
How much more pressure on nature is acceptable?

Nature does what nature does.
It's not alive and 'feels' no pressure.
Inorganic material follow physical laws and organic life will adapt. What can't adapt dies.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) May 31, 2014
I am also sceptical about that. We have demonstrated our ability to adapt to the fiercest conditions.
Our repro rate has not changed since we left Africa. The main thing which has kept western populations in check has been family planning and specifically the ONE BILLION ABORTIONS which have occurred worldwide in the last century.
http://www.johnst...312.html

-A population the size of India, and their offspring to 3 and 4 generations, was never born. Not to mention the hundreds of millions more prevented through contraception. This occurred principally throughout northern Asia, previously a land of constant conflict and suffering.

Today it is again threatened by mass incursions from the south and Africa where religion still creates overnight floods of starving, desperate people.
Gigel
1 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2014
-A population the size of India, and their offspring to 3 and 4 generations, was never born. Not to mention the hundreds of millions more prevented through contraception. This occurred principally throughout northern Asia, previously a land of constant conflict and suffering.


If instead of killing 1 billion children the world would have concentrated on education, making economies healthy and strong and encouraging progress in an aggressive manner, we would have been very far away today. Probably manned missions to the Moon would have never stopped but rather intensified and become more efficient, yesterday's poor countries would have been today 2nd-world developed countries and individuals would have played a more important role based on acquired skills and knowledge. Instead the world chose to fear, kill its own future and step into an aging generation with shallow preoccupations and incapable of dreaming and doing big steps ahead.

Family planners do not believe in progress.
Egleton
1 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2014
Thank you for not mentioning Dr Dennis Meadows (Limits to Growth Report). I would hate to have him on the same page as Nostril Damus.
Dont worry everyone, Obama's Think Tank has this one covered.
Follow the link.
https://www.youtu...ucpTckjA
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 01, 2014
As far as overpopulation goes, if something is unsustainable then by definition it is unsustainable, and won't evolve to cataclysmic scales. The best solution to population is of course freedom and capitalism because this is the system that is the greatest force for economic progress, and when standard of living increases, people have less children. It has little to so with religion and everything to do with standards of living, education, etc.

Any government with the power to enforce something like 'population control' is also going to have the power to "fix" an inordinate number of other possible "social issues",... and that is not a government that is compatible with human nature, nor one in which people would want to live with in anycase. Such a government is therefore unsustainable as history has shown and will continue to show.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 01, 2014
The main thing which has kept western populations in check has been family planning and specifically the ONE BILLION ABORTIONS which have occurred worldwide in the last century.


Of course family planning meaning personal responsibity and education which comes with increased standards of living,..... not government forced "planning".

Because a developing fetus into a human obscures the nature of life sufficiently to justify degenerate behavior amongst stupid people and removes natural consequences for that behavior, more such behavior will occur. IOW, it's a feedback mechanism that self inflates those numbers, founded on contempt for life.

To say that those millions of people would have been walking around otherwise, is a naive and incomplete analysis of the data.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2014
Any government with the power to enforce something like 'population control' is also going to have the power to "fix" an inordinate number of other possible "social issues",...


"Nicolae Ceausescu loved nothing better than a monument to himself. But his ministerial palaces and avenues paled next to another of his schemes for building socialism: a plan to increase Romania's population from 23 million to 30 million by the year 2000. He began his campaign in 1966 with a decree that virtually made pregnancy a state policy. "The fetus is the property of the entire society," Ceausescu proclaimed. "Anyone who avoids having children is a deserter who abandons the laws of national continuity." "
http://www.ceause...hood.htm
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2014
instead of killing 1 billion children the world would have concentrated on education, making economies healthy and strong and encouraging progress
You should visit the page I linked to and ponder the numbers. See where abortions are NOT happening and realize that that is where all the starvation and conflict is occurring. Ask yourself what northern Eurasia was like before 1950 and afterwards.

Read the history of this Uighur-dominated region and compare it to the rest of china.
http://en.wikiped...s_Region

-Eurasian leaders have struggled with overpopulation for millennia.
degenerate
So how is procreative sex degenerate nou? Abortions - 1.1 MILLION a month - are occurring where women have finally been given the freedom to decide how many children they wish to bear.

The growth rate has nothing to do with morality. Fundys force their women to bear children until it kills them. Bin laden had 50 siblings and 25 children.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2014
To say that those millions of people would have been walking around otherwise, is a naive
Demographics is a very complex discipline. But understanding the potential growth rate of our species is simple. The population of Afghanistan was set to double every 16 years until we got there. Afghanistan has always been embroiled in conflict.

The Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda/Burundi have similar growth rates. A generation ago the 2 countries saw twin pogroms in which over 2 MILLION were slaughtered. The growth rate that caused that conflagration has not changed, and so it WILL occur again.

People in traditional cultures do not stop having children when times are good. Momentum will always produce that one or 2 gens beyond the carrying capacity of the region. In Afghanistan that means DOUBLE the pop that the region can support, in only 16 years.

60% of the pop of gaza are age 15 and below. How long before it explodes? Eurasian growth was similar before 1950 which explains the world wars.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 01, 2014
Because a developing fetus into a human obscures the nature of life sufficiently to justify degenerate behavior amongst stupid people and removes natural consequences for that behavior, more such behavior will occur.


So how is procreative sex degenerate nou?


It's not, nor have I ever said it was. 'Procreative sex' of course means for the purpose of creating offspring, ....which is opposite to the purpose of abortions.

Abortion is a degenerate behavior because of it's emergency nature in replacing responsible decision making.

Abortions [..] are occurring where women have finally been given the freedom to decide how many children they wish to bear.


Fallacy. They had this freedom all along. They don't have freedom from nature though.

The growth rate has nothing to do with morality.


Is it an ultimate immorality to remove a life from existence. Free natural egoistic behavior of man is morality of the highest form. Nature decides.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2014
Because a developing fetus into a human obscures the nature of life sufficiently to justify degenerate behavior amongst stupid people and removes natural consequences for that behavior, more such behavior will occur
The cultures which you would say have the highest morals are the ones which produce the highest growth rates. The fastest-growing groups in this country are the Amish, the Hasidim, the Mormons, and the Moslems. Noah and Jacob are the most popular names for newborns. These groups will double in size in 20 years. And then double again. And then again.

Ask them if they are educated. Ask them if they are morally correct in following what the good book says: 'give no thought for the morrow' 'children are a gift unto god' 'ask and it will be given unto you' 'children of our youth... Happy is the man who has a quiverfull...'
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2014
Momentum will always produce that one or 2 gens beyond the carrying capacity of the region.


If the population growth is truly "beyond the carrying capacity of the region", then logically that will not occur,.. and the afghans don't even need to understand logic.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2014
They had this freedom all along
??? Who's being naive? Religions forbade access to contraception throughout Eurasia. Women were forbidden from living independently, from working, from owning property. Religion and culture required them to produce 15-20 children and then to spend all their time raising them.

This was true in Russia, in china, in japan, in Germany and France and Italy, et al. It is still true today throughout the Middle East and Africa, and most of Southern Asia.
If the population growth is truly "beyond the carrying capacity of the region", then logically that will not occur,.. and the afghans don't even need to understand logic.
AGAIN - people don't stop having sex when times are good. And in these backward cultures the next gen will DOUBLE the population.

SUDDENLY there is no food. SUDDENLY children are starving. SUDDENLY the people are blaming leaders or minorities or their neighbors.

And SUDDENLY there is famine, and pogrom, and revolt, and war.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2014
Because a developing fetus into a human obscures the nature of life sufficiently to justify degenerate behavior amongst stupid people and removes natural consequences for that behavior, more such behavior will occur
The cultures which you would say have the highest morals are the ones which produce the highest growth rates. The fastest-growing groups in this country are the Amish, the Hasidim, the Mormons, and the Moslems. Noah and Jacob are the most popular names for newborns. These groups will double in size in 20 years. And then double again. And then again.


As I said, birth rate follows inversely to standard of living and education,... the poor have the most children generally speaking. Religion just follows as another correlative consequence, not leads as a core cause. The stats shows this,... I already debated you about this a few years ago,... you didn't write any of that down?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2014
As I said, birth rate follows inversely to standard of living and education,... the poor have the most children generally speaking. Religion just follows as another correlative consequence, not leads as a core cause. The stats shows this,... I already debated you about this a few years ago,... you didn't write any of that down?
Well obviously you were wrong then and you're wrong now.

AGAIN - people don't stop having sex when times are good. And in these backward cultures the next gen will DOUBLE the population.

SUDDENLY there is no food. SUDDENLY children are starving. SUDDENLY the people are blaming leaders or minorities or their neighbors.

And SUDDENLY there is famine, and pogrom, and revolt, and war.

Tell Boko haram (translation: western education is evil) of your grand plan to educate their women on planning for the future. Prepare to have your daughters kidnapped.
Dr_toad
1 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2014
It's weird how the first comment of an article about threats to the existence of mankind mentions overpopulation. Overpopulation causes problems, but does certainly not threaten our existence. It's a weird logic to think that being too numerous could be a danger of becoming extinct.


"Stand on Zanzibar", by John Brunner. Love Canal. Need I go on?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2014
As I said, birth rate follows inversely to standard of living and education,... the poor have the most children generally speaking
You are misconstruing cause and effect. They are poor because they have reproduced themselves into poverty. And religion is the cause, for it gives them the impression that god will provide for their future needs.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2014
They had this freedom all along. They don't have freedom from nature though.

Religions forbade access to contraception throughout Eurasia. [..] Religion and culture required them to produce 15-20 children and then to spend all their time raising them.

This was true in Russia, in china, in japan, in Germany and France and Italy, et al. It is still true today throughout the Middle East and Africa, and most of Southern


Because those cultures and governments are oppressive to human nature, life, and free choice. The point is, in a culture that respects liberty, freedom of choice, and human life, ... the freedom to make decisions conducive to a manageable offspring exists with personal accountability. The answer then, is to counter oppressive societies, not to industrialize and sponsor degenerate behavior that is counter to nature.

Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2014
As I said, birth rate follows inversely to standard of living and education,... the poor have the most children generally speaking
You are misconstruing cause and effect. They are poor because they have reproduced themselves into poverty. And religion is the cause, for it gives them the impression that god will provide for their future needs.


Sorry, that is just plain wrong. It is poverty that drives population.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2014
Sorry, that is just plain wrong. It is poverty that drives population.
Sorry but saying something is wrong does not make it so, although I understand philos think this is the case.

When pops DOUBLE poverty is INSTANTANEOUS. In traditional cultures the population will always grow faster than its ability to support itself.

"It seems that here [egypt], as in many other ''developing'' countries, the slowness in the rate of change in cultural and religious attitudes among women, and perhaps more importantly among men, combines with much more rapid change in technology and medicine. In Egypt certainly, the crisis of overpopulation is not the effect of sustained or increasing poverty, as Theory 2 would have it, but its cause." Elizabeth Still
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2014
Because those cultures and governments are oppressive to human nature, life, and free choice.
-So you contradicted yourself when you SAID they already had the freedom, which they didn't. It took war and revolt and millions dead to give them that freedom.

Among religionists - Mormons, Hasidim, and Amish as well as Islamists - your notions of freedom are considered immoral. There is the freedom to honor god or the freedom to roast in hell. Religionists are very well educated to this FACT.

And they know that the best and most moral way of honoring god, is to produce children. And they are confident that god will always reciprocate by providing for these children, because he SAYS he will, in his books.

Unfortunately he doesn't drop manna from the skies. What he DOES do however is point out all the unbelievers who have what their children need to survive, and then by example shows them how to go about GETTING it.

Joshua and Gideon then become the favorite names for newborns.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2014
degenerate behavior that is counter to nature
Marriage is counter to nature. Biologically a mans preferred strategy is to impregnate as many women as possible, while a woman's is to choose the best possible mate for each and every child she wishes to bear.

And so for both, the preferred arrangement is the harem.

Marriage is a distinctly unnatural arrangement which was instituted to improve and maintain the stability of the tribe. Men who are constantly fighting over women will be less apt to sacrifice for each other on the battlefield.

As marriage is the mechanism which produces the highest growth rate, one could consider it the most degenerate in a region which has reached the limits of it's carrying capacity.

Non-procreative sex is prevalent in overpopulated areas, which indicates that it is a natural response to overpop. The throng outside Lot's door demanded to have sex with his attractive angel guests. It is overpop which is unnatural, and nature seeks to compensate.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2014
Because those cultures and governments are oppressive to human nature, life, and free choice.

-So you contradicted yourself when you SAID they already had the freedom, which they didn't. It took war and revolt and millions dead to give them that freedom.


The problem is the oppressive cultures not the lack of abortions.

If you artificially remove negative consequences to behavior, (i.e. by legally sanctioning abortion), ....you actually end up promoting that behavior.

It is why the abortion numbers are self amplifying,... and you are wrong to suppose that that many more people would be walking around had their parents not degenerated to the point of killing babies rather than exercising personal accountability,... part of which is to demand and fight against an oppressive culture and government for the benefit of your offspring.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2014
Marriage is counter to nature.

No.
Many animals mate for life.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2014
If you artificially remove negative consequences to behavior, (i.e. by legally sanctioning abortion), ....you actually end up promoting that behavior
Nice theory. Actually no, it's not. The cultures with the most restrictions on non-procreative sex including extramarital sex, have the highest growth rates.

Family planning does not make people promiscuous. They would be having sex whether they were married or not. In religion-dominated cultures they produce children until the mother dies from it.
Many animals mate for life
And many animals do not. Most primates do not. Including humans.

"Most human groups do not practice monogamy. Most human sexual behavior includes more than one sexual partner for at least one sex. Many human cultures either sanction or tolerate sexual activity with more than one sexual partner... If monogamy were "instinctual" rather than "learned," it would not require elaborate social sanctions to enforce."
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2014
of killing babies rather than exercising personal accountability,... part of which is to demand and fight against an oppressive culture and government for the benefit of your offspring
My god you ARE starting to sound like a preacher. Just like kant. Substitute 'sin' for 'degeneracy'.

"In more than half of the countries studied, married women obtain a larger proportion of abortions than unmarried women ..."
Vietvet
3 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2014
Marriage is counter to nature.

No.
Many animals mate for life.


Many as in in very few?
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2014
Marriage is counter to nature.

No.
Many animals mate for life.


Many as in in very few?

Even if only one, the claim that marriage is counter to nature is falsified.
TechnoCreed
4 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2014
@ Noumenon
If you artificially remove negative consequences to behavior, (i.e. by legally sanctioning abortion), ....you actually end up promoting that behavior.
Wow this is kind of twisted! When you write 'consequences to behaviour', I understand that you are talking about bad behaviour, how else could there be consequences. What 'behaviour' exactly are you talking about? Do you mean that sex is bad behaviour?
Vietvet
3 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2014
Marriage is counter to nature.

No.
Many animals mate for life.


Many as in in very few?

Even if only one, the claim that marriage is counter to nature is falsified.


You've said some dumb things but this is going to be hard to top.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2014
@ Noumenon
If you artificially remove negative consequences to behavior, (i.e. by legally sanctioning abortion), ....you actually end up promoting that behavior.
Wow this is kind of twisted! When you write 'consequences to behaviour', I understand that you are talking about bad behaviour, how else could there be consequences. What 'behaviour' exactly are you talking about? Do you mean that sex is bad behaviour?


I wasn't making a moral judgement, only one of cause and effect.

Even good things can lead to negative consequences if not pursued with moderation and personal responsibility.

For example, welfare domesticates and weakens because it removes consequences for not making oneself of value in the job market. Making mortgage loan standards lower removes the consequences for not being able to save for a down payment,.... etc,...
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2014
Marriage is counter to nature.

No.
Many animals mate for life.


Many as in in very few?

Even if only one, the claim that marriage is counter to nature is falsified.


You've said some dumb things but this is going to be hard to top.

No wonder you support AGW, You don't understand falsification.
Vietvet
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 01, 2014
Marriage is counter to nature.

No.
Many animals mate for life.


Many as in in very few?

Even if only one, the claim that marriage is counter to nature is falsified.


You've said some dumb things but this is going to be hard to top.

No wonder you support AGW, You don't understand falsification.


You keep making my point of how stupid you are.
TechnoCreed
4 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2014
@Noumenon
I know you to be an intelligent man, but so am I. The quoted proposition was definitely a moral judgement and that is why I reacted.

I am in my fifties now and I have more than thirty years of common life with the same girl. From this endeavour came two beautiful kids, but it was all planned and they are adults now. So I can definitely talk about the weight of responsibility that comes with parenthood. From all the sex I had in my life less than six months was done with the purpose of procreation. Will you tell me that the rest of it was bad behaviour?

Now do not turn away from your values Noumenon. Explain yourself what makes casual sex bad behaviour? Tell us how you refrain from it all your life... Not so sure anymore hey?

Sex is more or less a compulsive behaviour. People indulge in it without the intention to procreate. So, why somebody would be forced into parenthood because of an accidental pregnancy after casual sex? For me anyway it defies common sense.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2014
Sex is more or less a compulsive behaviour. People indulge in it without the intention to procreate. So, why somebody would be forced into parenthood because of an accidental pregnancy after casual sex?


It's called life and responsible behavior.

TC then must advocate murdering babies anyone doesn't want, any time, so they can have more sex.
Tom cats kill any kittens they find and there are likely many other male of a species the will kill any young they come across to optimize their opportunity for sex.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2014
Even if only one, the claim that marriage is counter to nature is falsified
Well that's not true. It is contrary to human nature, as I've demonstrated. Comparing it to ALL of nature is just plain silly. Would you consider all those polygamous animals as contrary to nature? Maybe you would. The bible deems many animals unclean.

People would be having sex with or without abortion. Abortion DOES affect the fertility rate. It REDUCES it.

"The role of abortion in fertility decline was greatest in Brazil, where the general fertility rate would have been nearly 13% higher in the early 1990s if the abortion ratio had not increased from its level in the late 1970s. Abortion tended to have a greater impact on fertility in regions where contraceptive use was low."

-In case you don't know, fertility means pregnancy.

This is yet one more example of where your common sense has let you down. Your religion conditions you to believe only things that make you feel good.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2014
I wasn't making a moral judgement, only one of cause and effect.
Of course you did.

"Degenerate adj. b : having sunk to a condition below that which is normal to a type ; especially : having sunk to a lower and usually corrupt and vicious state"

-Which is exactly how you meant it. Forcing mothers to bring babies into an overcrowded world knowing that when they reach adolescence they will be sent off to war, is certainly the epitome of a corrupt and viscious state.

This is what religion is designed to do. The ones which are better at it are the ones which survive.

And so we can conclude that religion is degeneracy. Convincing people to disregard reason and evidence in favor of faith in non-existent beings is a degenerate state, a form of insanity.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2014
The quoted proposition was definitely a moral judgement and that is why I reacted.


Actually it wasn't (though I have an opinion wrt morality and abortion which I indeed expressed below, nature decides). Read the quote again along with the rest of that post. I was explaining to Otto why his numbers are self amplifying. Removing natural consequences and basic cause and effect.

...Explain yourself what makes casual sex bad behaviour?


Again, I have NEVER said such a ludicrous thing. Of course sex is a natural instinct of man and so can't rationality be subjected to a "morality" to begin with. There are even negative consequences to eating irresponsibly,... are you going to now accuse me of saying eating is morally bad?

why somebody would be forced into parenthood because of an accidental pregnancy after casual sex? [...] it defies common sense.


Your complaint should be directed at nature. If your sense does not accord with Her, so much the worse for you.
TechnoCreed
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2014
@Ryggesogh2
Please avoid religious morality when you reply to my comments. Although I respect and even defend your right to believe, for me it is all pure nonsense.

Responsibility is to be able to provide and educate properly the children one chooses to have. I have been doing that for more than 23 years and still financing higher-education for my youngest son.
TechnoCreed
3 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
Of course sex is a natural instinct of man and so can't rationality be subjected to a "morality" to begin with.
I have an opinion wrt morality and abortion which I indeed expressed below, nature decides.
There you go! Just face the incongruity of two quotes extracted from the same comment.

Having kids is not a decision one can take lightly. What is the rationality of letting nature decide?
Mimath224
4 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
Great debate, good both sides all the way. Unfortunately, unless a few posters here have the power, what will happen....nothing. I agree with some of the early posts which basically implied that WE are our own worst enemy. Money, Power and Religion probably drive Politics in certain directions and whether it's here or on Mars (TechnoCreed) there will probably have to be a major catastrophe to make a change. If we are on another planet someone only need see a twinkle in the rock underground and it will be 'gold rush' all over again. In that sense we are still primitive. I see science as the only thing that can take us forward but we all need to unite...sadly I don't think that is going to happen in the near future.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2014
Please avoid religious morality when you reply to my comments.

When did I do that?
The morality of nature is to promote life, not death.
Killing babies does not promote life.
Casual, reckless sex promotes diseases that can spread to the general population.
Libertarian does not mean libertine.
What is the rationality of letting nature decide?

Because we live in nature, not outside nature.
nowhere
5 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2014
The morality of nature is to promote life, not death.

Nature has no morality, and if it did it would be 'survival of the fittest' rather than 'promote life'.

Killing babies does not promote life.

Yet is a very natural occurrence.

What is the rationality of letting nature decide?

Because we live in nature, not outside nature.

I live in a house, do you?
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2014
Your 'collapses' were relocations. We currently have nowhere left to go.


We've had "nowhere to go" for 12,000 years since Native Americans hit the tip of South America. Try a position with facts.

We've never had a worldwide technological collapse.


A nuclear war wouldn't be a technological collapse. It would be a regression, and we've had many of those. Try a more reasoned, and less dramatic/histrionic position.

It took millions of consumers and many generations of computer tech to build the huge industrial complex needed to support this tech.


And we got there in about a hundred years....what's your point.

Our food sources would shrink as diseases overtook pesticide development. Our medical system would not be able to develop new vaccines.


Where the HELL are you getting this crap? It would be a thousand times easier because we already KNOW they work. We won't have to reinvent concepts, merely re-discover them. It would be MUCH easier a second time.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
Okay so we are alive in Nature, so what's the point? The point is we should realize that we have to live WITH nature not against it! We impose our Will upon Nature, we will have to pay a price.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
Funny. You're an adult aren't you mm? And yet it seems you haven't yet learned what a metaphor is.


It wasn't a metaphor, because "religion" isn't a single concept. YOU are an adult, but apparently haven't discovered you can't equate one flavor of ice cream to all of them, even if you got that when you were five.

'Religion' (for those who do not understand metaphors this means the constituency which acts based on a common set of rules and behaviors) ABHORS anything which prevents it from growing.


No it doesn't.

IOW stability = the absence of conflict.


Well we've sure been absent of conflict in the Ukraine, on our southern border, and in central America haven't we? Look you can't just make shit up as you go along Otto. Stability means many things. If you want people to understand what you mean then be much MUCH more clear in your statements and less angry with people who expect clear dialogue without equivocation and other dishonest discourse.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
As to the whole "overpopulation and religion eeeviiiiiiilll conspirasy" I'm not even going to engage you on that because it's painfully obvious how emotionally invested, and self identified with it you are. You'd be so terrified of an alternate view I would have better luck trying to convince a Christian he won't go to hell if he renounces Christ...
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
double post.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
Your complaint should be directed at nature. If your sense does not accord with Her, so much the worse for you
'Nature' has many ways of dealing with overpopulation. Mother birds and siblings will push unwanted chicks out of the nest. Rabbit does in overcrowded warrens will absorb their unborn fetus in the womb. Lions will kill kittens sired by ousted males. Unlimited examples.

But 'nature' seeks equilibrium by increasing the number of predators in response to an excess of prey. Humans early on learned how to hunt the predators which were keeping their numbers in check. This alone created the pop pressures which forced humanity to spread across the world.
The morality of nature is to promote life, not death
'Nature' 'promotes' ALL life. Humans with their tech have upset the 'balance' of nature. It is NOT NATURAL.
reckless sex promotes diseases
The major cause of death in women up until modern times was childbirth, due to the unnaturally large size of human heads.
Modernmystic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2014
The reason we have a declining birth rate in the United States, Canada, and most of Europe is because of standards of living...period. It has NOTHING to do with religion because each one of those cultures has significantly different religious attitudes and has for decades.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
It wasn't a metaphor, because "religion" isn't a single concept. YOU are an adult, but apparently haven't discovered you can't equate one flavor of ice cream to all of them, even if you got that when you were five
Nature abhors a vacuum mm including the one between your ears.
We've had "nowhere to go" for 12,000 years
And I wish you knew a few more facts. Civilization may have started in a lush valley at what is now the bottom of the Persian gulf.

Abrahams journey as described in the bible is actually a nice metaphor for the way western civilization spread throughout the world. Starting in Mesopotamia, it traveled through the levant to Egypt, back to the levant, over to Rome, and then north.

As the resources of each region were depleted, the centers of civilization moved on. Overpop destroyed the ability of the indus and Euphrates valleys to support it. The roman peninsula was similarly depleted. Relocation in each case was a strategic and environmental necessity.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
Nature abhors a vacuum mm including the one between your ears.


Well you've moved on from histrionics and emotionalism to ad hom...I suppose that's an improvement...

And I wish you knew a few more facts. Civilization may have started in a lush valley at what is now the bottom of the Persian gulf.


So before civilization humans had no population pressures? Really? If that's the case it casts doubt on your religion hypothesis. Have your cake or eat it.

As the resources of each region were depleted, the centers of civilization moved on. Overpop destroyed the ability of the indus and Euphrates valleys to support it. The roman peninsula was similarly depleted. Relocation in each case was a strategic and environmental necessity


See there I thought it was ALL about religion. Silly me. Forgetting for a moment that everything you just said was complete bunk. There are other explanations for all those regressions which are SURELY not as simplistic as you portray.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
we've sure been absent of conflict in the Ukraine
Overpop and the struggle for resources rears its ugly head once again. The people would have nothing to fight about if there were enough jobs, land, and food for everybody.
on our southern border, and in central America haven't we?
-See my previous comment. Actually, abortion has stabilized Mexican growth. The cartels are there to stem the tides of immigrants from further south.
Stability means many things
Well let's look some up shall we?

2 : residence for life in one monastery [naw that's not it]
a : the strength to stand or endure [hmm close. Let's specify...]
"Political stability is the durability and integrity of a current government regime. This is determined based on the amount of violence and terrorism expressed in the nation and by citizens associated with the state."

-Ahh. This was obviously the intended meaning based on the context yes? Instability among the nuclear powers was unacceptable.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
So before civilization humans had no population pressures? Really?
You missed the part about hunting predators. Apes live in primitive tribes. Humans quickly coalesced into tribes and group selection in a technological context became the primary driver of human development.

The advent of agriculture created a whole new dimension to pop growth. A few people could grow enough food to support a much larger pop. But this food source was seasonal and so had to be stored and protected from marauders who were themselves fleeing overgrowth elsewhere.

Civilization was overrun many times by such refugees. Abandoned city mounds record layers of growth and destruction. The Sea People destroyed civilizations around the med. Rome was overrun by euro pagans. Huns and Mongols arose from nowhere.

Obviously the only strategy was to outgrow the cultures which produced these hordes. And so Leaders invented the kind of religion which maximized growth.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
Overpop and the struggle for resources rears its ugly head once again. The people would have nothing to fight about if there were enough jobs, land, and food for everybody.


Oh no you don't, we're supposed to be stable in Europe. Quit backpedaling.

See my previous comment. Actually, abortion has stabilized Mexican growth.


Unqualified BS. In Mexico there are about 15,000 abortions a year. Less than a drop in the bucket...

http://en.wikiped..._opinion

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
"Balak brought me from Aram, the king of Moab from the eastern mountains. 'Come,' he said, 'curse Jacob for me; come, denounce Israel.'"

-But alas, balaam could not. For the power of The Lord was absolute, and He had caused the hordes of Israel to swell to a truly horrific extent. For wherever balak and balaam cast their gaze from atop the mountain, all they could see were Israelites. Millions of them.

And the fate of the Moabites and their king was sealed and they would be slaughtered on the dusty plain, and there was nothing that either balaam or his ass could do about it.

-The bible is just chock FULL of such wonderful shit you know?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
You missed the part about hunting predators. Apes live in primitive tribes. Humans quickly coalesced into tribes and group selection in a technological context became the primary driver of human development.


No I didn't miss it YOU did. I've been saying all along that population is about technology (both the lack of and the access to it), NOT about religion. Now which is it Otto...once and for all. Population is a function of technology and economy, and there is no such thing as "overpopulation", and there is no such thing as stability in life or in human civilization.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
You missed the part about hunting predators. Apes live in primitive tribes. Humans quickly coalesced into tribes and group selection in a technological context became the primary driver of human development.


No I didn't miss it YOU did. I've been saying all along that population is about technology (both the lack of and the access to it), NOT about religion. Now which is it Otto...once and for all. Population is a function of technology and economy, and there is no such thing as "overpopulation", and there is no such thing as stability in life or in human civilization.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
"Balak brought me from Aram, the king of Moab from the eastern mountains. 'Come,' he said, 'curse Jacob for me; come, denounce Israel.'"

-But alas, balaam could not. For the power of The Lord was absolute, and He had caused the hordes of Israel to swell to a truly horrific extent. For wherever balak and balaam cast their gaze from atop the mountain, all they could see were Israelites. Millions of them.

And the fate of the Moabites and their king was sealed and they would be slaughtered on the dusty plain, and there was nothing that either balaam or his ass could do about it.

-The bible is just chock FULL of such wonderful shit you know?


Yep I know it. Did you know that hating people for their beliefs is on par with all that "wonderful shit"? Maybe you could actually learn something from other parts of it that talk about tolerance.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
supposed to be stable in Europe
I saw nothing in the defs about an unlimited timeframe for stability did you? Did you look?
In Mexico there are about 15,000 abortions a year. Less than a drop in the bucket...
Sorry did I forget to mention mass emigration and the rapid transition to a secular western culture?

"Throughout most of the twentieth century Mexico's population was characterized by rapid growth. Even though this tendency has been reversed and average annual population growth over the last five years was less than 1%, the demographic transition is still in progress"

"While the national annual growth rate was still positive (1.0%) in the early years of the 2000s, the national net migration rate was negative (-4.75/1000 inhabitants), given the former strong flow of immigrants to the United States; an estimated 5.3 million undocumented Mexicans lived in the United States in 2004"

-The mere presence of legalized abortion indicates successful westernization.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
Did you know that hating people for their beliefs is on par with all that "wonderful shit"? Maybe you could actually learn something from other parts of it that talk about tolerance
It is entirely right and proper to hate the things that some people believe in.

"And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work.

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." -Hitler mein kampf (hitler was a catholic)

-I think it's ok to hate this sort of thing. How about you?

The nazis had a special award for mothers who did their share in providing fodder:
http://en.wikiped...n_Mother

-Hitler patterned his religion after the most successful in history.
TechnoCreed
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2014
@ryggesogh2
Nature only promotes entropy and, here on earth, diversity in the living realm is one consequence of it. The same way, nature favors diversity of philosophy and morality.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2014
It is entirely right and proper to hate the things that some people believe in.


LOL. Maybe for you Otto, I take a different view, I think it's crazy to hate a belief. I find it useful to disagree and make my position clear, but hating something that is a human created fiction is childish in my view, even beyond that it simply doesn't make sense.

-I think it's ok to hate this sort of thing. How about you?


I think it's OK to revile actions associated with those kinds of beliefs, but the beliefs themselves, absent humans, and absent actions are impotent.



I think that hating beliefs is actually the first step in making people into things you can actually DO those kinds of things to. It helps one make entire swaths of humanity into weeds to be burnt down to rid the world of their "beliefs"...
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
damn double posting...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
No I didn't miss it YOU did. I've been saying all along that population is about technology (both the lack of and the access to it)
Huh. Well that includes just about everybody everywhere doesn't it?

But the Amish, Haredim/Hasidim, Moslems, and Mormons are the fastest growing groups in the US and they have the same access to tech (or lack thereof) as anyone else. How do you explain that in a non-religious way mm?
I think it's OK to revile actions associated with those kinds of beliefs, but the beliefs themselves, absent humans, and absent actions are impotent
Ahaahaaaa so IOW if there were no humans then nazism would be ok??

Aahaaahaaaahaaa cough fart
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
No Wait - perhaps you meant that if there weren't any JEWS around, then nazism would be ok. Yeah that makes more sense.

Ahaahaaashaaaaaaaaa.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
nature favors diversity of philosophy and morality.

Life seems to find a way to live.
What supports that effort is favored by that life.
Shakers don't exist as they were opposed to procreation.
Human fertility is decreasing around the world. In part due to the mistaken notion than humans are above nature.
The disciples of Paul Ehrlich believe there are too many people. Data shows that humans innovate, create new wealth and prosper using their minds. So to increase innovation, create more wealth and prosper, more human minds are needed, not fewer.
Ehrlich and his fellow traveler's promote the path to human extinction because of their arrogance, hubris and tribal thinking.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
Huh. Well that includes just about everybody everywhere doesn't it?


Now you're catching on...

See I'm not about splitting people into groups based on their spiritual practices Otto, I'd rather look at the ACTUAL facts of a situation instead of blaming a perceived horror of humanity ("overpopulation") on another one ("religion"), when the actual "cause" is elsewhere.

But the Amish, Haredim/Hasidim, Moslems, and Mormons are the fastest growing groups in the US and they have the same access to tech (or lack thereof) as anyone else.


You just answered your own question Otto. Read what you read VERY carefully.

Ahaahaaaa so IOW if there were no humans then nazism would be ok??


If there were no humans then Nazism wouldn't EXIST Otto...

Moreover, you look at things in very black and white ways Otto. I didn't say Nazism is "OK" I said I don't hate it...any more than I hate the lie of the tooth fairy.

Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
You see Otto, you have a very difficult time seperating people from their beliefs. People are NOT their beliefs. If someone stopped believing in something tomorrow they'd still exist. The belief wouldn't. The two couldn't be more separate.

Do you believe everything you did last week? Last month? Last year? Ten years ago? When you were five? Should someone hate you for it?

Your secondary problem is related to your first (and I know you won't "get" this but I'll say it anyway)...you have trouble separating YOURSELF from your own beliefs.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
See I'm not about splitting people into groups based on their spiritual practices Otto, I'd rather look at the ACTUAL facts of a situation instead of blaming a perceived horror of humanity ("overpopulation") on another one ("religion"), when the actual "cause" is elsewhere
"In the past 20 years, the Amish population in the US has doubled... The huge growth stems almost entirely from the religious culture's high fertility rate, which is about 6 children per woman, on average. At this rate, the Amish population will reach 7 million by 2100 and 44 million by 2150"

"Orthodox Jews are much younger and tend to have much higher fertility than the overall Jewish population – an average of 4.1 children "

"Utah has the highest fertility rate... Utah had 81 children for every 1,000 women during the year, compared with a national average of 58"

CONTINUED
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
"the global Muslim population is projected to rise both in absolute numbers and in relative terms... Among Muslim-majority countries, the highest Total Fertility Rates currently are found in Niger, Afghanistan and Somalia, where the average woman has more than six children during her lifetime... Islamic authorities in some countries, such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, reinforce cultural norms that limit women's autonomy by, for example, restricting their educational and career options... These restrictions may contribute to higher fertility..."

-Well of COURSE they do.

"The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics estimated the annual growth rate at 3.3% and said the [Gazan] population would double in 21 years at that rate."

-Teddy roosevelt called this 'warfare of the cradle'.

-Now its your turn mm. Post some facts instead of empty innuendo or STFU.

Oh BTW nazis killed millions BECAUSE of their beliefs. Just like joshua and his 2M bloodthirsty rampaging hebrews.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
See I'm not about splitting people into groups based on their spiritual practices
Uh huh.

The researchers who compiled those statistics and reached those conclusions had no compunctions about dividing people up into groups. Scientists do this all the time.

You think they are being immoral when they are doing this? Do you think you are BETTER than them mm?

Or is your faux morality just another idiot way of attempting to gain points here?
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
-Now its your turn mm. Post some facts instead of empty innuendo or STFU.


What exactly would you like me to post facts about Otto? The fact that none of these people would be able to maintain the population rates they have without modern agriculture and all its attendant infrastructure? Everything they're doing is based on that one fact, I don't have to defend that. That's like defending the color of the sky.

You're angry that people believe differently than you do, and you are under the impression that there are too many people on the planet and therefore you find it easy to blame this "problem" on these people. I think that is the definition of a warped view of reality...the literal definition, no offense intended at all.

France is fairly secular, and they have the same fertility rate as Saudi Arabia,Turkey, and Indonesia....get it? Is the reason they have these rates because of the god they pray to (or don't), or because of technology?

Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
You think they are being immoral when they are doing this? Do you think you are BETTER than them mm?


I don't think it's immoral...pretty pointless, but not immoral. It could be immoral if they're using these statistics to demonize and stir up hatred against groups of people.

I don't think I'm better than anyone...but I'm more mature than someone who is mired in tribalistic trivia and drama though.

Or is your faux morality just another idiot way of attempting to gain points here?


What is my morality Otto?

ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2014
Maybe Auto should revive the Shakers if he believes religion is so powerful.

Natural selection will favor those who promote life.

Ehrlich and his disciples must understand this, which is why they know coercive force must be used to impose their faith.

History is showing the more people leads to more prosperity. Which is likely, in part, due to the innovations (if allowed by the state) these new minds bring to problems to create new wealth.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2014
Maybe Auto should revive the Shakers if he believes religion is so powerful.
Well thank you ryggy the shakers ARE a very good example of how belief affects the birth rate. At the other end of the godder spectrum we find the anabaptists.

"religious sect called the Hutterites, pre-1950. The Hutterites of the period essentially tried to have as many kids as they could, year in and year out, as a religious duty, and the community supported all children equally so having more didn't draw down the family resources."

We can find this same attitude in gaza, Kashmir, Uighur-land, Kurdistan, and also

"Borough Park is home to one of the largest Orthodox Jewish communities outside of Israel [where] the average number of children in Hasidic and Hareidi families is 6.72"
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2014
History is showing the more people leads to more prosperity.
Well this is only true if you are able to ignore where it has caused famine, disease, hyperinflation, pogrom, revolution, and war. And ecological ruin. Which is easy for you to do isn't it?

"Overpopulation remains the leading driver of hunger, desertification, species depletion and a range of social maladies across the planet... [Chinas] long litany of famines which occurred precisely because carrying capacities were consistently outstripped by a growing population.

"most recent food crisis, between 1958 and 1961, led to the starvation of over twenty million people, in part due to the erosion of China's natural capital. Uncontrolled human fertility led to a depletion of the land's fertility. Previous famines were worse. Over the years, hundreds of millions died a horrible death of hunger."

-Ryggy will blame this on commynism for certain. But it has been the norm throughout history, everywhere.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2014
Ryggy likes to use the US as a shining example of where religion and prosperity go hand in hand. But few examples had a whole depopulated continent to fill. Unrestricted growth is a very good thing for pioneers.

The mongols also enjoyed much prosperity.
http://en.wikiped...l_Empire

-The plague they spread killed some 200 million. I presume the murderous Joshuan hordes enjoyed similar such prosperity and beauty.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2014
Unrestricted growth is a very good thing for pioneers.

No such thing as 'unrestricted growth' just as there is no such thing as unregulated free markets.

There are all sorts of restrictions to growth, especially for pioneers.

The Mormons did pretty well in land bypassed by most pioneers to the west and continue to do well in populated lands.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2014
Unrestricted growth is a very good thing for pioneers.

No such thing as 'unrestricted growth' just as there is no such thing as unregulated free markets.

There are all sorts of restrictions to growth, especially for pioneers
My thats profound. Pioneers do not have to contend with occupying occupied land. The land they wish to occupy is unoccupied. Ergo the usage of the term 'unrestricted'.
The Mormons did pretty well in land bypassed by most pioneers to the west and continue to do well in populated lands.
Well thats what that particular religion was concocted for isnt it? The area is resource-rich but needed workers to extract them. Mormons provided the infrastructure (food) and later on, the workers.

"In time, as the mining industry developed, more and more Mormons went to work in the mines... nearly one-third of the population was foreign born, most of them Mormon converts from the British Isles, Scandinavia, and western Europe."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2014
"To put the population impact of large families in perspective, let's revisit a column written last year by CAPS' former president, Diana Hull, in which she enlisted the assistance of Ben Zuckerman, CAPS VP and UCLA professor of physics and astronomy, on some population projections for large families.

"They took a look at the aforementioned Duggar family, which at the time had 18 children.

"If five generations of Duggars followed Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar's lead, they would have 1,889,568 descendants and in ten generations they would have 3,570,467,000,000 descendants. That's approximately 3.6 trillion or 553 times the current world population. But not to worry, because after that point, I am assured, the Duggar family would have run out of other members of the human species to marry."

"The point illustrated by this hypothetical exercise is the exponential nature of population growth, and that the longer we wait to practice seriously containment, the faster the nation will grow...
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2014
My thats profound. Pioneers do not have to contend with occupying occupied land. The land they wish to occupy is unoccupied. Ergo the usage of the term 'unrestricted'.


My that's shallow...they had as much water as they needed? Wood? Coal? Iron? Textiles? All of which and a hundred other things can restrict growth.

Oh and did you forget about the Native Americans? I'll bet they considered the land occupied...just wild guess though...
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2014
Native Americans? I'll bet they considered the land occupied...just wild guess though...
Well of course it was a wild guess. Every time you comment you only reveal how little you know.

"We know from our recent history that English did not come to replace U.S. Indian languages merely because English sounded musical to Indians' ears. Instead, the replacement entailed English-speaking immigrants' killing most Indians by war, murder, and introduced diseases, and the surviving Indians' being pressured into adopting English, the new majority language." jared diamond

-In Guns Germs and Steel he describes the devastation caused by diseases spread by the first explorers in north america. By the time settlers got there the mississippian culture had been completely obliterated; millions had already died. The hunter gatherers they found were refugees who had reverted ('degenerated').

Biowarfare on the northern continent was only a little less effective than it was in the south.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2014
I guess Jared Diamond didn't read any actual history...

http://en.wikiped...t_Plains

ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2014
the devastation caused by diseases spread by the first explorers in north america.

You imply it was intentional.
How many in Europe died from plague?
How many died from the Spanish flu?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2014
I guess Jared Diamond didn't read any actual history...

http://en.wikiped...t_Plains

Ahaahaaaa jared diamond doesnt know history thats funny. Biowarfare didnt work as well among the far-scattered western tribes who wandered the plains. Back east it worked wonders.

"Europeans who were arriving in the Americas had already been exposed to the diseases, attaining immunity, and thus were not affected by them. Therefore, it would be an effective technique when others were exhausted to use disease as a biological weapon."

"Within just a few generations, the continents of the Americas were virtually emptied of their native inhabitants – some academics estimate that approximately 20 million people may have died in the years following the European invasion – up to 95% of the population of the Americas."

-Biowarfare is an ancient art. Spartans used it against besieged athens, Mongols against Caffa.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2014
You imply it was intentional.
OF COURSE it was. The invaders were xians werent they? Of course its not something their historians would want to document is it? Look at the immense efforts they took to obliterate any trace of mayan culture. Out of the 1000s and 1000s of books originally found, only 3 remain.

They burned the great library at alexandria did you know it?

The dark ages was an orgy of historical obliteration. The church ABHORS evidence. History must be created in THEIR image you see.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2014
mayan culture

A culture of death shouldn't be wiped out?
", as more images and glyphs have come to light and been translated, it appears that the Maya frequently practiced human sacrifice in religious and political contexts."
"Recent research, however, shows that the Maya were in fact a tough, warlike people who frequently warred among themselves. It is quite likely that this constant warfare was an important factor in their sudden and mysterious decline. It is also now evident that, like their later neighbors the Aztecs, the Maya regularly practiced human sacrifice."
"he Maya did cut the hearts out of their victims, as can be seen in certain images surviving at the Piedras Negras historical site. However, it was much more common for them to decapitate or disembowel their sacrificial victims,"
http://latinameri...fice.htm
The Christians did the Mayan a favor if they destroyed evidence of human sacrifice.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2014
@ryggesogn2
'The Christians did the Mayan a favor if they destroyed evidence of human sacrifice.' Really??
I don't think so! Helping or re-education would have been better. I don't condone human sacrifice but then it was their belief...who burned 'witches' at the stake because of belief eh?
Didn't early Christians sacrifice animals for their belief?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2014
I'm sure disease did indeed kill the majority of Native Americans when they had contact with the Europeans.

That doesn't mean the land wasn't contested. Just as many people died west of the Mississippi fighting the NORTH American Indians as did east of it. THAT was my point. If the tribes were "no big deal" then we sure made a big to do about nothing.

Heck they practically GAVE us the land there were so few of them...is that right Otto, am I hearing you accurately? I think that's an INSULT to their memories and it's a bald faced lie to boot....
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 04, 2014
A culture of death shouldn't be wiped out?


Short answer...no. What good does it do to kill a culture of killing....kind of like fighting fire with gasoline isn't it? Would it matter if they were killed by their priests or the conquistadors? They'd be just as dead right?

I notice Otto gives their religion a seeming pass over though when compared to Christianity. I've noticed a very heavy bias against the bible and western religion and Islam, but animism, pantheism, and a host of others get a pass.

That culture was in serious decline when the Europeans landed though BECAUSE it was unsustainable.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (2) Jun 04, 2014
@MM

Careful with those analogies.

"kind of like fighting fire with gasoline isn't it?"

Forest fire fighters do just that. With great success!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jun 04, 2014
@MM

Careful with those analogies.

"kind of like fighting fire with gasoline isn't it?"

Forest fire fighters do just that. With great success!
and Red Adair used explosives in firefighting as well as flammable fuels like gas etc

TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 04, 2014
A culture of death shouldn't be wiped out?
Well thats a conundrum isnt it?

"In 1244, the Council of Harbonne ordered that in the sentencing of heretics, no husband should be spared because of his wife, nor wife because of her husband, and no parent spared from a helpless child... In 1252, Pope Innocent IV officially authorized the creation of the horrifying Inquisition torture chambers.. power to exterminate all who were pointed out as heretics by the church. Any prince declining not to purge his land of heresy was to be excommunicated. If he persisted, complaint was to be made to the pope, who was then to absolve his vassals from allegiance and allow the country to be seized by Catholics who should exterminate the heretics..."

-But who would exterminate the exterminators?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 04, 2014
"he Maya did cut the hearts out of their victims, as can be seen in certain images surviving at the Piedras Negras historical site. However, it was much more common for them to decapitate or disembowel their sacrificial victims
"Suspicion alone of witchcraft would warrant torture. Once a girl was nine and a half, and a boy was ten and a half, they were both liable to inquiry. Younger children below this age were still nevertheless tortured to elicit testimonies that could be used against their own parents. A famous French magistrate was known to have regretted his leniency when, instead of having young children accused of witchcraft burned, he had only sentenced them to be flogged while they watched their parents burn... The Inquisition invented every conceivable devise to inflict pain by slowly dismembering and dislocating the body... Many of the devices were inscribed with the motto "Glory be only to God."

-But who would torture those who tortured children?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 04, 2014
The Christians did the Mayan a favor if they destroyed evidence of human sacrifice
"One of the leading head Inquisitors of Germany was Conrad of Marburg... Conrad murdered and terrified countless people... regarding mental and physical torture as a rapid route to salvation... to lay interdict on whole districts. During his reign, he claimed to have uncovered nests of "Devil worshippers" and adopted the motto "I would gladly burn a hundred innocent if there was one guilty among them."

-So why didnt the church destroy the evidence of its own mass atrocities which certainly eclipsed those of the precolombian civilizations?
the Maya were in fact a tough, warlike people who frequently warred among themselves. It is quite likely that this constant warfare was an important factor in their sudden and mysterious decline
The maya struggled with explosive population growth like everyone else. Their solution was to stage ritual wars and to sacrifice POWs. Exactly like eurasian rulers.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 04, 2014
If the tribes were "no big deal" then we sure made a big to do about nothing
'We' meaning hollywood and politicians yes? The people who rewrite history to suit?

"Within just a few generations, the continents of the Americas were virtually emptied... 20 million people may have died... up to 95% of the population..."
Heck they practically GAVE us the land there were so few of them...
Yeah pretty much.

"The Trail of Tears is a name given to the ethnic cleansing and forced relocation of Native American nations from southeastern parts of the United States following the Indian Removal Act of 1830."

-There werent enough left to put up a fight. IOW they werent much of an obstacle to pioneers and immigrants, despite what you saw in the movies.

Wounded knee was just another religious incident "a Paiute prophet named Wovoka, founder of the Ghost Dance religion" -was the perp. Heck, religionists were slaughtering each other in KA, UT, MA, PA, OH, MO, IL etcetc
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 04, 2014
Here is a story about what xians were doing to heretics and to each other during our formative years.
http://www.stanfo...lict.htm

-although they make it a point in stating that it was not near as bad here as elsewhere. They list a number of possible reasons for this at the end, but fail to mention the most obvious one - that this was an empty continent in need of filling up. There was no conflict over resources. The persecuted could simply relocate, and were encouraged to do so.

In fact, groups such as the xian KKK were created for the purpose of compelling people to relocate to areas which needed filling up. Persecution was used in europe to compel people to emigrate, and then it was used here in the US to move them around as needed.

Persecution - an effective Tool of demographic sociopolitical engineering.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 04, 2014
Sorry Otto, you're entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts. You'll have to provide some peer reviewed CREDIBLE sources for those assertions.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 04, 2014
Jarred Diamond

"began his scientific career in physiology and expanded into evolutionary biology and biogeography. He has been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical society. Among his many awards are the National Medal of Science, the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, Japan's Cosmo Prize, a MacArthur Foundation Fellowship, and the Lewis Thomas Prize Honoring the Scientist as Poet, presented by Rockefeller University. He has published more than six hundred articles and his book, Guns, Germs, and Steel, was awarded the Pulitzer Prize."

-My god youre stupid.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2014
@ryggesogn2
'The Christians did the Mayan a favor if they destroyed evidence of human sacrifice.' Really??
I don't think so! Helping or re-education would have been better. I don't condone human sacrifice but then it was their belief...who burned 'witches' at the stake because of belief eh?
Didn't early Christians sacrifice animals for their belief?

Some think the Mayan were such a great civilization destroyed by the Spanish Catholics.
If the Spanish intentionally or unintentionally destroyed the evidence of Mayan brutal behavior, they helped perpetuate a lie about Mayans that benefited their reputation.
BTW, sacrificing animals is morally equivalent to cutting out the hearts and guts of thousands of humans?
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 04, 2014
Jarred Diamond

"began his scientific career in physiology and expanded into evolutionary biology and biogeography. He has been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical society. Among his many awards are the National Medal of Science, the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, Japan's Cosmo Prize, a MacArthur Foundation Fellowship, and the Lewis Thomas Prize Honoring the Scientist as Poet, presented by Rockefeller University. He has published more than six hundred articles and his book, Guns, Germs, and Steel, was awarded the Pulitzer Prize."

-My god youre stupid.


Argument from authority isn't a source Otto. Neither is Ad hom....you have problems with keeping your positions from getting personal and emotional.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2014
Argument from authority isn't a source Otto
You asked for peer review. The pulitzer prize is peer review. Observing how stupid you are is peer review.
BTW, sacrificing animals is morally equivalent to cutting out the hearts and guts of thousands of humans?
So then why did the xians incorporate human sacrifice and cannibalism into their most sacred rite, the eucharist? Martyrdom is self-sacrifice. The church has successfully persuaded millions to get themselves killed for christ.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 04, 2014
So the church conducts human sacrifice by proxy, in exactly the way jesus demonstrated when he rode his ass into the holy city on the holiest of days, walked up to the priests, and declared that he was not only their king but their GOD.

What an ass. And despite being a fable (jesus was obviously just the most audacious of a long line of sun-god-men) the myth continues to get people KILLED. For nothing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 05, 2014
The church and human sacrifice

"The Catholic Church in Ireland is facing fresh accusations of child abuse after a researcher found records for 796 young children allegedly buried in a mass grave beside a former orphanage for the children of unwed mothers.

The researcher, Catherine Corless, says her discovery of child death records at the Catholic nun-run home in Tuam, County Galway, suggests that the former septic tank filled with bones is the final resting place for most, if not all, of the children... such out-of-wedlock children were denied baptism and, if they died at such facilities, Christian burial." -Al Jazeera

"Jesus loves the little children,
all the children of the world
Red and yellow black and white
They are precious in his sight
Jesus loves the little children of the world."
Modernmystic
not rated yet Jun 05, 2014
You asked for peer review. The pulitzer prize is peer review. Observing how stupid you are is peer review.


No, work is peer reviewed, not people. Go fish.

Now which piece of work EXACTLY are you referring to, what journal was it peer reviewed in, and by whom?

Moreover which specific FACTS are you referring to in your argument from the work in question?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 05, 2014
Dude you moron he won the Pulitzer FOR the book. THE BOOK was good enough to win the Pulitzer. These prizes are awarded after review by a jury of peers.

My god you're stupid.

Who ever told you that something is true only if it is published in a scholarly journal??
you have problems with keeping your positions from getting personal and emotional
Sorry blind ignorance irks me.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 05, 2014
Dude you moron he won the Pulitzer FOR the book. THE BOOK was good enough to win the Pulitzer. These prizes are awarded after review by a jury of peers.


Which Pulitzer? Was it for the science the book contained or the number of pages in it? WHO reviewed it? Did they accept the entire book? Which fact IN the book were you using in your argument? If it's what the pre-Columbian population of the Americas was then I'm sorry to tell you that no matter how many awards the guy has won that's a HOTLY contested number. You like to tell people to use Google, well Google it and see for yourself.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 05, 2014

Sorry blind ignorance irks me.


Blind ignorance irks no one, you don't get pissed off at a three year old because he doesn't know how the moon stays in the sky unless you're a cretin. What irks you is that someone disagrees with you and it seriously threatens you in some way......no one gets this irate over a disagreement unless they have some deep issues, and you do it on a very consistent basis Otto.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 05, 2014
I'll try to put some modern perspective on this for you Otto. Even if there were only, say 250,000 Native Americans west of the Mississippi when the Mormons got there. Well the TOTAL number of Taliban we fought in Afghanistan was 25,000....total combatants around 40,000

http://en.wikiped...esent%29

It doesn't take many determined and angry people to create a hell of a lot of angst even for a modern technologically advanced army...much less the 1800s American Calvary.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 05, 2014
deep issues, and you do it on a very consistent basis Otto
So your strategy is that instead of admitting you're wrong you start saying dumber and dumber things until people start to get pissed.
Which Pulitzer?
Look it up.
Was it for the science the book contained or the number of pages in it?
Pulitzers aren't awarded based on number of pages.
WHO reviewed it?
Look it up.
Did they accept the entire book?
No I'm sure the award included a detailed list of the things they did and didn't like. You fucking moron.
Which fact IN the book were you using in your argument?
Read the thread.
If it's what the pre-Columbian population of the Americas was then I'm sorry to tell you that no matter how many awards the guy has won that's a HOTLY contested number
No it's not. I gave accepted figures. Refute them or STFU.

The Taliban are constantly replenished from neighboring countries. They will never run out of fodder. Amerinds were exterminated.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2014
@TheGhostofOtto1923 I don't want enter into your debate with Modernmystic because although had heard of Jared Diamond and that he wrote many books I don't actually know more than that. So I looked up details quote: (spelling here is 'Jared' not 'Jarred'
'Guns, Germs, and Steel became an international best-seller, was translated into 33 languages, and received several awards, including a Pulitzer Prize, an Aventis Prize for Science Books and the 1997 Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science. A television documentary series based on the book was produced by the National Geographic Society in 2005.'

The present board for the Pulitzer prizes has 18 members which includes Professors, Editors, Playwrites, as well as Company Presidents and CEO's (News papers). Looks like a pretty good Peer Review Board for literature etc. to me.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2014
A Pulitzer prize was given to a New York Times reporter who covered up for Stalin's murders of millions of Ukrainians.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2014
Jared diamond book passed a much more stringent gauntlet than the typical peer review.

"Hundreds of open access journals, including those published by industry giants Sage, Elsevier and Wolters Kluwer, have accepted a fake scientific paper in a sting operation that reveals the "contours of an emerging wild west in academic publishing".

"The hoax, which was set up by John Bohannon, a science journalist at Harvard University, saw various versions of a bogus scientific paper being submitted to 304 open access journals worldwide over a period of 10 months.

"Meanwhile, 45% of Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) publishers that completed the [peer] review process, accepted the paper, a statistic that DOAJ founder Lars Bjørnshauge, a library scientist at Lund University in Sweden, finds "hard to believe"."
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2014
So your strategy is that instead of admitting you're wrong you start saying dumber and dumber things until people start to get pissed.


I'm not responsible for how you feel Otto, you're a big boy. The fact that it's pissing you off means you don't think it's stupid and are defensive enough to attempt a refutation.

Look it up.


Your source, your job.

Pulitzers aren't awarded based on number of pages.


Nooooo...really?

Look it up.


Your source, your job if you want it taken seriously.

No I'm sure the award included a detailed list of the things they did and didn't like.


Actually in peer review this is possible.

Read the thread.


Well you can't separate the population of all the Americas from those west of the Mississippi so YOU are going to have to make it more clear.

Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2014
No it's not. I gave accepted figures. Refute them or STFU.


Normally I'd agree and provide the sources, but since you're so keen on people doing their research before they discuss a topic I'll give you the opportunity to show some integrity and look them up yourself.

The Taliban are constantly replenished from neighboring countries. They will never run out of fodder.


It's not where they come from it's the numbers themselves that are important in this case Otto. Secondly give me your source on the numbers coming from other countries. How many and which countries. Again let's show some consistency here.I gave good numbers, so it's up to you to refute them, not give an opinion on an unrelated issue.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2014
In the second paragraph it should read "In actions against Native Americans west of the Mississippi"
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2014
Not sure what happened to the previous post, but I'll re-write it.

To give some more perspective; the US Army had only 57,000 troops in 1867. They lost up to 6,000 in conflicts with the Native Americans west of the Mississippi. Since that number includes civilians let's be conservative and halve it. If they lost 3,000 troops that's 5% of their military. In modern terms that's 68,000 troops...far more than we lost in Afghanistan.

They were hardly "giving it up"....
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2014
Your source, your job if you want it taken seriously.
?? You apparently don't know what a pulitzer is. This forum is not the place to copy/paste what you need to learn what most people already know. LOOK IT UP.
Well you can't separate the population of all the Americas
?? And you're the guy who thinks that the people of 'France' are one ethnic group with one repro rate.
Normally I'd agree and provide the sources, but since you're so keen
Translation: "I looked up and realized I had made yet one more bullshit statement so I'm now bullshitting some more."
000 troops in 1867. They lost up to 6,000 in conflicts with the Native Americans west of the Mississippi. Since that number includes civilians let's be conservative and halve it. If they lost 3,0
Sorry but due to your performance here I'll have to presume that these numbers are bullshit as well, unless you can provide a credible source or a searchable quote.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2014
Secondly give me your source on the numbers coming from other countries. How many and which countries
Again, you're asking for details about something that everybody else but you is aware of. Taliban is international.

"full-time combatants are foreigners, usually from Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Chechnya, various Arab countries and perhaps even Turkey and western China. They were reportedly more fanatical and violent, often bringing superior video production or bombmaking expertise"

-They continually recruit new members from an unlimited pool of starving, idle youth.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2014
To give some more perspective; the US Army had only 57,000 troops in 1867. They lost up to 6,000 in conflicts with the Native Americans west of the Mississippi
To give some more perspective

"to bring into cultivation every portion of the territory contained within their acknowledged boundaries. In thus providing for the support of millions of civilized beings, they will not violate any dictate of justice or of humanity; for they will not only give to the few thousand savages scattered over that territory an ample equivalent for any right they may surrender, but will always leave them the possession of lands more than they can cultivate..."

-The few highly-publicized skirmishes with outlaw bands did not impede the settlement of lands throughout the continent by MILLIONS of immigrants whatsoever. No matter what you saw on Gunsmoke.

To give you some more perspective

Gettysburg 1863 - in 4 days the US army suffered 23,055 casualties
(3,155 killed, 14,531 wounded)
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2014
You apparently don't know what a pulitzer is


You apparently don't know all the ways you can get one. Since you've failed several times to post which one, and anything else about it I'm dismissing the source. Nuff said. I'm not going to continue to pester you to validate your sources.

Sorry but due to your performance here I'll have to presume that these numbers are bullshit as well, unless you can provide a credible source or a searchable quote.


Well due to your demonstrable lack of integrity and self consistency (ie you think everyone should Google everything themselves) AND the fact that you haven't backed up your source I see no need.

Again, you're asking for details about something that everybody else but you is aware of. Taliban is international.


You failed to understand we're talking about numbers primarily, your side tracking about where the numbers are coming from is just that..and even then you didn't source it properly and give the ACTUAL numbers.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2014
.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2014
'
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2014
Gettysburg 1863 - in 4 days the US army suffered 23,055 casualties
(3,155 killed, 14,531 wounded)


Indeed that is some perspective. We lost half the amount of people on BOTH sides as we did just West of the Mississippi in the worst battle in US history up to that point. Very insightful. I could just sit back and let you make my argument for me...

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2014
To give some more perspective; the US Army had only 57,000 troops in 1867. They lost up to 6,000 in conflicts with the Native Americans west of the Mississippi
I checked your link and these numbers occur nowhere on that page. Perhaps you are making them up?

Perhaps the US military lost 3000 total against the indians west of the mississippi and not just in 1867?

You need to provide a quote for this info.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2014
Nearest I can find is this

Northwest Indian War 1785–1795 - 1,221+ dead

-which ranks 10th on the 'Wars ranked by U.S. combat deaths' list. Thats a period of 10 years. The other indian wars dont even make the list.

Where figures ARE listed it looks like less than 1000 TOTAL for the entire period from 1865 to 1900.

Perhaps you meant:

"West of the Mississippi (1811–1924)... total casualties tabulated in this survey, military personnel and civilians accounted for 6,596"
http://en.wikiped...ian_Wars

Perhaps you dont know what casualties means?

"injured, killed, captured, or missing in action"

-So. In over a CENTURY, the total number of CASUALTIES in indian wars for BOTH civilians and military, was less than 7000.

You lying sack of shit.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2014
You don't look very hard...

http://en.wikiped...31924.29

And I did say that that figure included civilians, look up thread before you resort to immature name calling Otto.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2014
You don't look very hard...

http://en.wikiped...31924.29
Thats MY source as well.

In over a CENTURY, the total number of CASUALTIES in indian wars for BOTH civilians and military, was less than 7000.

You lying sack of shit.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2014
You lying sack of shit.


I'm finished here. I won't continue discourse with someone who can't restrain his emotions better than a three year old. You won't do the work on your source, you won't admit when you're wrong, you won't look things up to get a general knowledge of a subject before you talk about it even though you insist others do so. I see no point in going on here.

My point stands. It was occupied land and (relatively speaking) costly in both blood and treasure to colonize. Now feel free to kick and scream all you want...
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2014
Total number of CASUALTIES in Afghanistan (including nationals);

53,353

http://en.wikiped...esent%29

Total population of the US and Afghanistan 342,000,000

Total US casualties west of the Mississippi;

6,596

Total population of the US in 1880 50,000,000

Now for the math for perspective-

53,353/342,000,000=.00015, or .015%

6,596/50,000,000=0.00013192 or .013%

So, the Native American wars WEST of the Mississippi were .002% less costly than the war in Afghanistan relatively speaking.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2014
in 1867. They lost up to 6,000 in conflicts with the Native Americans west of the Mississippi
In over a CENTURY, the total number of CASUALTIES in indian wars for BOTH civilians and military, was less than 7000.
who can't restrain his emotions better than a three year old
I am very calmly presenting evidence that you are a lying sack of shit.

Afghanistan has nothing to do with the indian wars. Its what you fashion hogs might call a 'red herring'?

"In thus providing for the support of millions of civilized beings, they will not violate any dictate of justice or of humanity; for they will not only give to the few thousand savages scattered over that territory"

"Within just a few generations, the continents of the Americas were virtually emptied... 20 million people may have died... up to 95% of the population..."

-You lying sack of shit.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2014
I am very calmly presenting evidence that you are a lying sack of shit.


Indeed? Those numbers are for both civilian contractors and military Otto. Where did I lie?

You can give your opinion on relevancy all you want but the simple fact is I'm giving casualty estimates of two wars that, compared to the populations fighting them, are very similar in the costs of human lives on one side. I think that gives good perspective on your attempts to minimize what was a significant conflict. Those are, quite simply, the facts...your opinions aside.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2014
those numbers are for both civilian contractors and military
No they werent fucking contractors you lying sack of shit.
Where did I lie?
"in 1867. They lost up to 6,000 in conflicts with the Native Americans west of the Mississippi"

vs the truth

"In over a CENTURY, the total number of CASUALTIES in indian wars for BOTH civilians and military, was less than 7000."

-Are you blind or just incredibly stupid?

You cant post utter bullshit and not expect to get called on it, and to get trashed for it.
Those are, quite simply, the facts
No, theyre lies you lying sack of shit.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Jun 10, 2014
No they werent fucking contractors you lying sack of shit.


I was pointing out the numbers from Afghanistan included civilians, and they do. You need to re-read the page.

"in 1867. They lost up to 6,000 in conflicts with the Native Americans west of the Mississippi"


They did lose up to 6,000. A casualty includes people who could have died. They lost as many as 6,000 or another way of putting it is "up to 6,000". Do you know how many were wounded? No? Didn't think so, because it doesn't specify does it?

Now the fact that you are nit picking this kind of minutiae instead of admitting you were wrong, and that the casualty lists for both wars are virtually identical proportionally and therefore the scale of the conflicts virtually identical means you know you don't have a leg to stand on, and frankly you don't.

flying_finn
not rated yet Jun 10, 2014
It's human nature to step in the shit, then wipe it off. We'll face the five (six, religion) threats when they happen .....solve....or go extinct.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
was pointing out the numbers from Afghanistan included civilians
More lies. Your comment was in response to mine on Indian war casualties. You think more LIES will somehow make you more truthful?
Now the fact that you are nit picking this kind of minutiae
Nit picking? You don't know the difference between less than 1000 dead vs 7000. You don't know the difference between 4 days and a century.

"In over a CENTURY, the total number of CASUALTIES in indian wars for BOTH civilians and military, was less than 7000."
virtually identical
Virtually identical. 7000 CASUALTIES, civilian AS WELL AS military, in 100 YEARS of fighting.

You fucking moron.

"Trolling: The art of deliberately pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue... The most essential part of trolling is convincing your victim that you truly believe in what you are saying... Trolling requires decieving"
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
Your comment was in response to mine on Indian war casualties. You think more LIES will somehow make you more truthful?


Either way it's the truth, both numbers include civilian casualties. This isn't difficult to grasp Otto, you just can't handle the truth :) In the one estimate I halved to 3000 I specifically stated the higher number included civilian casualties. Keep pointing out where I didn't lie though, it seems to make you feel better about how ridiculous your statement that the land was unoccupied sounded.

Nit picking? You don't know the difference between less than 1000 dead vs 7000. You don't know the difference between 4 days and a century.


1000 dead? Where did you get that number? Are YOU lying? I never saw how many civilians died, just military. Did YOU? No you didn't :)

Also the war in Afghanistan went on for more than 4 days, it's still going on to some extent. But that's irrelevant to the point I made anyway so keep knocking down that strawman.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
Virtually identical. 7000 CASUALTIES, civilian AS WELL AS military, in 100 YEARS of fighting.

You fucking moron.


I can't help it if you can't add and divide Otto. The percentages of casualties, military and civilian, in both conflicts were only .002% different from their respective total population pools. Yes, that's virtually identical :)

The land was very contested, the settlers were in constant fear of attack, there were numerous Army forts build all across the frontier, there were a respective virtually equal number of the percentages of casualties in proportion to the total populations in that conflict and the recent conflict in Afghanistan and most people agree that was a significant conflict.

You can't just put your opinion out there as fact when it's just your opinion no matter how much it threatens your ego Otto...but most especially when the opinion is demonstrably false.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
Here I'll re-post the math for you once again, and once again all casualties are included military and civilian;

Total number of CASUALTIES in Afghanistan (including nationals);

53,353

http://en.wikiped...esent%29

Total population of the US and Afghanistan 342,000,000

Total US casualties west of the Mississippi;

6,596

Total population of the US in 1880, 50,000,000

Now for the math for perspective-

53,353/342,000,000=.00015, or .015%

6,596/50,000,000=0.00013192 or .013%

So, the Native American wars WEST of the Mississippi were .002% less costly than the war in Afghanistan.

All you have to do is add the numbers in the column and divide Otto...

Actually I believe if you just took the US casualties the percentages are higher for Afghanistan.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
1000 dead? Where did you get that number? Are YOU lying? I never saw how many civilians died, just military. Did YOU? No you didn't
"Where figures ARE listed it looks like less than 1000 TOTAL for the entire period from 1865 to 1900."
http://en.wikiped...s_of_war

-I already posted this.

I know you dont read the thread or even your own refs.

"West of the Mississippi (1811–1924)... total casualties tabulated in this survey, military personnel and civilians accounted for 6,596"
Afghanistan went on for more than 4 days
No GETTYSBURG you fucking moron.

Afghanistan is only relevant in your pickled mind. We're not colonizing afghanistan are we?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
"...2002, Taliban forces began a recruitment drive in Pashtun areas in both Afghanistan and Pakistan... Most of the new recruits were drawn from the madrassas or religious schools of the tribal areas of Pakistan... Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network led by Sirajuddin Haqqani... Additionally, there is the Hezb-e Islami of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar which is a separate entity from the Taliban

"Following the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001... the Haqqanis fled to the Pakistani bordering tribal regions and regrouped to fight against coalition forces across the border... a 2011 report from the Combating Terrorism Center places [Haqqani] strength roughly at 10,000-15,000".. Haqqani-controlled regions of northern Pakistan have also served as strategic safe-havens for other Islamic militant organizations, such as al-Qaeda, the Pakistani Taliban (TTP), Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), and members of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)"

YOURE MISSING SOME NUMBERS.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
"it was not until the conclusion of the War of 1812 that the westward movement became a significant outpouring of people across the continent. By 1830 the Old Northwest and Old Southwest—areas scarcely populated before the war—were settled with enough people to warrant the admission of Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Alabama, and Mississippi as states into the Union.

"During the 1830s and '40s, the flood of pioneers poured unceasingly westward. Michigan, Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Iowa received most of them. A number of families even went as far as the Pacific coast

"Between the gold rush and the Civil War, Americans in growing numbers filled the Mississippi River valley, Texas, the southwest territories, and the new states of Kansas and Nebraska.
cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
"By 1870 only portions of the Great Plains could truly be called unsettled. For most of the next two decades, that land functioned as the fabled open range, home to cowboys and their grazing cattle from ranches in Texas. But by the late 1880s, with the decline of the range cattle industry, settlers moved in and fenced the Great Plains into family farms. That settlement—and the wild rush of pioneers into the Oklahoma Indian Territory—constituted the last chapter of the westward movement. By the early 1890s, a frontier had ceased to exist "

INDIAN RESISTANCE HAD NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER. The land was effectively EMPTY. Despite what you saw on Wagon Train.
The land was very contested
NO it wasnt.

"By 1870 only portions of the Great Plains could truly be called unsettled... by the late 1880s, with the decline of the range cattle industry, settlers moved in and fenced the Great Plains into family farms."
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014

Afghanistan is only relevant in your pickled mind. We're not colonizing afghanistan are we?


You're comparing a war to a battle? And you think I'm the nutty one? Get a grip Otto...

The simple fact is, and continues to be, in both of those WARS the casualties were virtually the same on the US side when taken as a percent of the population. Unless you address that point you're really not saying anything contrary to the fact that those lands west of the Mississippi WERE occupied (fact), and had to be fought hard for by the US military against a determined enemy using guerrilla tactics (fact). Whatever else you say is just you pontificating.

NDIAN RESISTANCE HAD NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER. The land was effectively EMPTY.


Wrong, it forced the Army to defend civilians, build forts, and lose life and limb...in almost EXACTLY the same proportions the war in Afghanistan did...period.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Jun 10, 2014

From your own source.

By the early 1890s, a frontier had ceased to exist


The axiom of which is that prior to that it DID exist....

"Where figures ARE listed it looks like less than 1000 TOTAL for the entire period from 1865 to 1900."


The page you cited is for MILITARY deaths Otto, show me civilian deaths or admit you lied.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
"Between 1867 and 1881 McCoy sent more than 2 million cattle from Abilene to Chicago."

"The cattle trade was at its peak from 1867 until the early 1880s. The following factors contributed to this:
•Increased number of railway lines - able to transport cattle to new markets
•Development of refrigerated rail carriages - cattle could be slaughtered before transportation
•Removal of Indians from the Plains to reservations - more land available for ranching

-Cattlemen got far more resistance from settlers with fences than indians, who were simply 'removed'.
The axiom of which is that prior to that it DID exist....
Ahaahaaa quote mining within a thread!! You idiot. Read the whole quote.

"By 1870 only PORTIONS of the Great Plains could truly be called unsettled"
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
Well if they were unoccupied and unsettled then what beef do the Native Americans have with anyone settling them Otto?

I mean, if no one was there, as you claim, then the Europeans were perfectly right to settle all those lands....right?

Have cake or EAT it.

And you still haven't addressed where you lied about civilian deaths, or spoken to the scale of the conflicts being basically identical...

Ahaahaaa quote mining within a thread!! You idiot. Read the whole quote.

"By 1870 only PORTIONS of the Great Plains could truly be called unsettled"


No, Otto, you missed the point...which was at one time ALL of it was a frontier populated by Native Americans.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
The page you cited is for MILITARY deaths Otto, show me civilian deaths or admit you lied.
"Where figures ARE listed it looks like less than 1000 TOTAL for the entire period from 1865 to 1900."

"In over a CENTURY, the total number of CASUALTIES in indian wars for BOTH civilians and military, was less than 7000."

So. 7000 - 1000 = 6000. Thats 60 a year. Over a century. They were reproducing far faster than that.
what beef do the Native Americans have with anyone settling them Otto?
They didnt. Most all of them were dead or removed. Hollywood lied to you. Which is apparently easy because you cant distinguish truth from lies.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
The page you cited is for MILITARY deaths Otto, show me civilian deaths or admit you lied.
"Where figures ARE listed it looks like less than 1000 TOTAL for the entire period from 1865 to 1900."

"In over a CENTURY, the total number of CASUALTIES in indian wars for BOTH civilians and military, was less than 7000."

So. 7000 - 1000 = 6000. Thats 60 a year. They were reproducing far faster than that.


No Otto, you said 1000 dead TOTAL which includes civilians. Which is a lie, because you don't know or never produced those numbers. It's 1000 military dead. How many civilians died?

Oh, and you never addressed the fact that the wars were virtually identical in the numbers of casualties as a percent of population...

They didnt. Most all of them were dead or removed. Hollywood lied to you. Which is apparently easy because you cant distinguish truth from lies.


I PERSONALLY know a few Native Americans who'd disagree...strongly, they're not from Hollywood.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
No Otto, you said 1000 dead TOTAL. Which is a lie, because you don't know or never produced those numbers. It's 1000 military dead. How many civilians died?
"In over a CENTURY, the total number of CASUALTIES in indian wars for BOTH civilians and military, was less than 7000."

7000 TOTAL - 1000 MILITARY = 6000 CIVILIAN you troll.

-You fucking DRUNK again??
Oh, and you never addressed the fact that the wars were virtually identical in the numbers of casualties as a percent of population...
Thats because one has nothing to do with the other.

Why dont you check the percentage of casualties in train and buggy wrecks for the period, or smallpox, or the various religious conflicts in the country?

They would be more relevant as they were contemporary and they were in the context of a pioneer culture which was growing at near the maximum rate from immigration and procreation.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
No Otto, you said 1000 dead TOTAL. Which is a lie, because you don't know or never produced those numbers. It's 1000 military dead. How many civilians died?
"In over a CENTURY, the total number of CASUALTIES in indian wars for BOTH civilians and military, was less than 7000."

7000 TOTAL - 1000 MILITARY = 6000 CIVILIAN you troll.

-You fucking DRUNK again??


Those are Casualties Otto, not dead. You said 1000 total dead, and you got that from a page that listed ONLY military deaths. You lied.

And you still haven't addressed the scale of the war being virtually identical in proportion to population. Which means it was indeed a significant conflict.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
Those are Casualties Otto, not dead. You said 1000 total dead. You lied.
Wow. Well it must have been a lot less then. I mustve been mistaken. Indian wars were even more of an illusion than I thought.
And you still haven't addressed the scale of the war being virtually identical in proportion to population. Which means it was indeed a significant conflict.-What- less than 1000 dead in a CENTURY?? How was that significant?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
Thats because one has nothing to do with the other.


Yeah they do, they're both wars. Buggy wrecks and other stuff is apples and oranges. Military conflict to military conflict is apples to apples.

So we're still left with the FACT, vs. Otto's opinion, that the war in Afghanistan was directly proportional to the conflict with Native American's west of the Mississippi. Both are considered major conflicts.

Those are Casualties Otto, not dead. You said 1000 total dead. You lied.
Wow. Well it must have been a lot less then. I mustve been mistaken. Indian wars were even more of an illusion than I thought.


We don't know for sure, it could have been more. What we do know is that you made it up and lied about it...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
Thats because one has nothing to do with the other.


Yeah they do, they're both wars. Buggy wrecks and other stuff is apples and oranges. Military conflict to military conflict is apples to apples.

Those are Casualties Otto, not dead. You said 1000 total dead. You lied.
Wow. Well it must have been a lot less then. I mustve been mistaken. Indian wars were even more of an illusion than I thought.


We don't know for sure, it could have been more. What we do know is that you made it up and lied about it...
Uh no, one was an extermination of indigenous peoples who had no external support, no heavy weapons, no IEDs, which resulted in less than 7000 casualties in over a century.

As I showed above afghanistan is an insurgent war with new fodder and weapons arriving from neighboring countries all the time. They will NEVER be exterminated.

And I said I misspoke. I dont have a problem admitting that. People like you DO, and will lie about it.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
Uh no, one was an extermination of indigenous peoples who had no external support, no heavy weapons, no IEDs, which resulted in less than 7000 casualties in over a century.


What indigenous peoples Otto, you said the land was unoccupied. Now once and for all WHICH is it?

As I showed above afghanistan is an insurgent war with new fodder and weapons arriving from neighboring countries all the time. They will NEVER be exterminated.


Never be exterminated? What about when the sun flares up in a few billion years? Still lying, or just exaggerating?

Both are Military conflicts, both were insurgent guerrilla type conflicts. Can't get more congruent than that. Sorry, try again.

And I said I misspoke. I dont have a problem admitting that.


Indeed. Well now I can't factually say you lied, but it's still my opinion you did....
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
Oh, and you never addressed the fact that the wars were virtually identical in the numbers of casualties as a percent of population.
YES I did. I showed you that you were missing some significant numbers from other insurgent groups operating in afghanistan. Have you included those numbers in your calcs yet? You have to include how many are currently operating, how many are being recruited per month, and how many are being killed, wounded, or captured.
I PERSONALLY know a few Native Americans who'd disagree...strongly, they're not from Hollywood.
Well were they there? Did they watch the same movies as you? Are they as gullible as you?
both were insurgent guerrilla type conflicts
Well let me clarify. A large number of insurgents in afghanistan are from foreign countries, and are based across the border. Amerinds were all indigenes and had no way to replace their numbers.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
YES I did. I showed you that you were missing some significant numbers from other insurgent groups operating in afghanistan. Have you included those numbers in your calcs yet? You have to include how many are currently operating, how many are being recruited per month, and how many are being killed, wounded, or captured.


I didn't see that source, but I'll stick with Wikipedia. They do a pretty good job of sourcing stuff. So my calcs. stand solid.

Well were they there? Did they watch the same movies as you? Are they as gullible as you?


No, but there is living memory of events handed down by people who were. Do you know anyone like that?

Also how can something be an "extermination" when no one was there according to you? If the land was empty then the Europeans had every right to it...didn't they? I think you should look up the word exterminated too. You're exaggerating again...or lying...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
What do mean you didnt see it??

"...2002, Taliban forces began a recruitment drive in Pashtun areas in both Afghanistan and Pakistan... Most of the new recruits were drawn from the madrassas or religious schools of the tribal areas of Pakistan... Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network led by Sirajuddin Haqqani... Additionally, there is the Hezb-e Islami of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar which is a separate entity from the Taliban

"Following the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001... the Haqqanis fled to the Pakistani bordering tribal regions and regrouped to fight against coalition forces across the border... a 2011 report from the Combating Terrorism Center places [Haqqani] strength roughly at 10,000-15,000".. Haqqani-controlled regions of northern Pakistan have also served as strategic safe-havens for other Islamic militant organizations, such as al-Qaeda, the Pakistani Taliban (TTP), Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), and members of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)"
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
What do mean you didnt see it??


That wouldn't effect my calculations one NIT. I'm calculating American/allied casualties in both instances and then comparing them to those population pools ONLY .....Jesus Otto....

That shows us the level of intensity the US government put in BOTH conflicts....
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
READ THE FUCKING THREAD
I think you should look up the word exterminated too. You're exaggerating again...or lying...
When the exterminator comes to get rid of your cockroaches (again) does he get them all? No.
If the land was empty then the Europeans had every right to it...didn't they?
I suppose they did.

"Within just a few generations, the continents of the Americas were virtually emptied of their native inhabitants – some academics estimate that approximately 20 million people may have died in the years following the European invasion – up to 95% of the population of the Americas."

-I would think your exterminator gets about as many.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
It all comes down to this Otto, both conflicts are virtually IDENTICAL in terms of the numbers of casualties produced (both civilian and military) in proportion to their population bases....NOTHING you can say will alter that math.

Deal with it.

I suppose they did.


I'll remember you said that. Count on it. It's good to have that crystal clear, thanks.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
Youre original point, before you distorted it, was that indian wars affected colonization west of the mississippi. I showed you they didnt AT ALL. And no idiot red herring about FOREIGN wars 2 centuries later, is going to change that.
I'll remember you said that. Count on it. It's good to have that crystal clear, thanks.
I suppose colonists could have waited until their numbers had recovered to pre-1492 levels. As it was the land was empty. Nothing prevented it from being colonized by farmers, ranchers, cattlemen, railroads, et al.

"...home to cowboys and their grazing cattle from ranches in Texas. But by the late 1880s, with the decline of the range cattle industry, settlers moved in and fenced the Great Plains into family farms..."
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
Youre original point, before you distorted it, was that indian wars affected colonization west of the mississippi. I showed you they didnt AT ALL.


They did to the virtually the exact proportion that the insurgency in Afghanistan has kept us there for more than a decade Otto...so you're opinion doesn't hold up against the facts.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2014
Modernmystic & TheGhostofOtto1923...Ha I suppose one could say that you are, here, are a shining example of just how difficult and different we humans can be.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2014
Youre original point, before you distorted it, was that indian wars affected colonization west of the mississippi. I showed you they didnt AT ALL.


They did to the virtually the exact proportion that the insurgency in Afghanistan has kept us there for more than a decade Otto...so you're opinion doesn't hold up against the facts.
Perhaps if Amerinds reproduced at the same rate as afghans, and the people in neighboring countries, then they would have had a chance. But their numbers still haven't recovered.

Afghans can double their numbers every 16 years. Their growth rate is the 3rd highest in the world.
http://en.wikiped...wth_rate

Afghan women have an average over 6 children. Afghan pop was approx 12M when the soviets invaded in 1979. Soviets killed perhaps 2M. The afghan pop had fully recovered within a few years and now stands at 20M.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2014
Amerinds have the lowest birth rate of any ethnic group in the US. Perhaps this is because they had tended to be seasonal breeders, either by culture or genetics.
http://en.wikiped..._breeder

"The new report insists that annual variations in human conception rates are seasonally determined. The researchers show that peak fertility times vary from one latitude and climate to another.

"'What we think we've shown is that the rhythm of human conception cuts across all cultural, religious and social barriers,'' said Dr. Till Roenneberg of the University of Munich"

-meaning that, like other animals, human reproduction is influence by climate. The farther north a species resides the more seasonal it's repro becomes.

Neanderthal lived in northern climes for perhaps 300k years. Perhaps cromags simply out reproduced them.

"A turn-of-century north Greenland study showed Polar Inuit women did not menstruate over a 4-month winter period (Cook 1894a, 1894b, 1897)."
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2014
Perhaps if Amerinds reproduced at the same rate as afghans, and the people in neighboring countries, then they would have had a chance.


It isn't about them having had a chance. It isn't about the Taliban or the Native Americans. My point, which you keep missing, is about the intensity of the conflict from the side of the US government/population....which had only .002% different between the conflicts...ie virtually identical.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2014
Perhaps if Amerinds reproduced at the same rate as afghans, and the people in neighboring countries, then they would have had a chance.


It isn't about them having had a chance. It isn't about the Taliban or the Native Americans. My point, which you keep missing, is about the intensity of the conflict from the side of the US government/population....which had only .002% different between the conflicts...ie virtually identical.
Your point is to troll for attention. Pretty pathetic.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2014
Your point is to troll for attention. Pretty pathetic.


No, my point is that when the lands west of the Mississippi were settled they were occupied and there was a significant struggle between the Europeans and the Native Americans...