Polygamy/Polyandry

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-20 01:36am

Shaka[Zulu] wrote:ummm... when did fundies get in here? where???

Come on, you know that any discussion of hyper-breeders is basically a discussion of fundies.

Shaka[Zulu] · Post by **Shaka[Zulu]** » 2003-02-20 01:46am

I know... just having a little fun

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-02-20 02:05am

Actually, there aren't enough resources for the entire planet's population to have the USA's lifestyle and standard of living. If you extrapolated American consumption of energy, grazing land for livestock, production of pollutants, etc. to 6 billion people, it just wouldn't work.

Do you have any figures to back up these assertions? Net Possible producution of energy and food and the average Americans cosumption of energy and food would be quite useful for making your case. If you can prove that the average consumption x world's population is > Net possible Production then I'll accept your point.

Also a point to keep in mind is that advances in technology will increase both the possible net energy and food production potentials of the Earth
until we literally discover and apply (invent) every applicable property of the physical universe.

Eating and breathing are necessities, and are quite easily justifiable from a logical standpoint for that reason. Sex is pleasurable, and causes no harm whatsoever. These examples are not remotely analogous to the asinine behaviour of fundies pumping out hordes of children.

You were pointing out that it is an "uncivilized base instinct". My point was an attempt to show that you can't qualify or disqualify something just because it is an instinct, you have to consider, with your mind, the ramifications of acting on those instincts. If someone, anyone, thinks that they can afford to raise children (say more then 3, considering the context of this conversation) and have time to do so; then they shouldn't be condemn for acting on their "base instincts" anymore then a couple who decides to act on "instinct" and have sex for the fun of it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-20 02:16am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Do you have any figures to back up these assertions? Net Possible producution of energy and food and the average Americans cosumption of energy and food would be quite useful for making your case. If you can prove that the average consumption x world's population is > Net possible Production then I'll accept your point.

Frankly, I'm too lazy to get figures right now (nice attempt at the popular "make your opponent do a lot of work for you or you'll declare victory" tactic, though; I guess you figured nobody would see through it). But the fact that farming-related deforestation is ALREADY causing massive environmental damage even without extending American appetites to the rest of ther world would have been a clue to MOST people.

Also a point to keep in mind is that advances in technology will increase both the possible net energy and food production potentials of the Earth until we literally discover and apply (invent) every applicable property of the physical universe.

You should not make rational plans based on fanciful possibilities.

Eating and breathing are necessities, and are quite easily justifiable from a logical standpoint for that reason. Sex is pleasurable, and causes no harm whatsoever. These examples are not remotely analogous to the asinine behaviour of fundies pumping out hordes of children.
You were pointing out that it is an "uncivilized base instinct". My point was an attempt to show that you can't qualify or disqualify something just because it is an instinct ...

Good thing I never said you can disqualify anything if it's an instinct then, you fucking strawman-abusing idiot. I made the point that it is NOT a good idea for other reasons, and that the ONLY reason to do it is this base instinct. If something is a bad idea from an objective standpoint and you do it only because of a primitive compulsion, then yes, it's still a bad fucking idea. What part of this are you too goddamned stupid to understand? I don't having an argument distorted in this fashion, hatfucker.

Shaka[Zulu] · Post by **Shaka[Zulu]** » 2003-02-20 03:11am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
Actually, there aren't enough resources for the entire planet's population to have the USA's lifestyle and standard of living. If you extrapolated American consumption of energy, grazing land for livestock, production of pollutants, etc. to 6 billion people, it just wouldn't work.
Do you have any figures to back up these assertions? Net Possible producution of energy and food and the average Americans cosumption of energy and food would be quite useful for making your case. If you can prove that the average consumption x world's population is > Net possible Production then I'll accept your point.

Also a point to keep in mind is that advances in technology will increase both the possible net energy and food production potentials of the Earth
until we literally discover and apply (invent) every applicable property of the physical universe.

well, I once discovered that the entire population of earth could fit easily within the borders of Texas, but seriously... there are so many things regarding the environment that we could be doing smarter -- I for one am a big proponent of offshore aquaculture... the farming of fish stock in pens on the open ocean so as not to deplete wild stocks. unfortunately, the fishing industry is dead set against it because of the perceived threat to the current job base.

Shaka[Zulu] · Post by **Shaka[Zulu]** » 2003-02-20 03:12am

that last really got far OT there... a subject for another thread perhaps?

Sektor31 · Post by **Sektor31** » 2003-02-20 08:28am

Shaka[Zulu] wrote:
Sektor31 wrote:Polygamy/Polyandry would be OK if the culture actually accepted it.

I'm sorry for doing this, but look at the Denobulans from Enterprise. Their families are networks of husbands and wives. I'm guessing the only reason why it's "banned" around here is because of fundamentalism.

please oh please dont bring trek into this... no... this calls for a stronger response:

How DARE you mention a nonsensical, fictitous alien species from what probably the worst series in the annals of sci-fi, from a show so disgustingly pathetic that most here dont even want to acknowledge it even exists, IN THE S.L.A.M FORUM!!!???!!!???!!!???

I demand PENANCE!!! [/u][/i][/b]

All I can say is:
...

I was using Enterprise to make a point you fool.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-02-20 11:38am

Sektor31 wrote:All I can say is:
...
I was using Enterprise to make a point you fool.

And a bad one at that. These are lifestyles and cultures depicted on a Sci-fi show done by people who couldn't write their way out of a paper bag and who clearly don't have a clue about how the real world works. There is no reason to apply them to real life.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-02-20 12:54pm

What about Gargoyles? They have sex with any partner (even if they may prefer one or another at a given time) and then all the children belong to the clan, and are taken care of by everyone.

EDIT: of course, it would be easier if we laid eggs and didn't know for sure which children is whose... but as a cultural thingy, maybe. Or not?

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-02-20 01:19pm

Darth Wong wrote:
BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Do you have any figures to back up these assertions? Net Possible producution of energy and food and the average Americans cosumption of energy and food would be quite useful for making your case. If you can prove that the average consumption x world's population is > Net possible Production then I'll accept your point.
Frankly, I'm too lazy to get figures right now (nice attempt at the popular "make your opponent do a lot of work for you or you'll declare victory" tactic, though; I guess you figured nobody would see through it). But the fact that farming-related deforestation is ALREADY causing massive environmental damage even without extending American appetites to the rest of ther world would have been a clue to MOST people.

I said I would accept your point if you proved your point, thats hardly unreasonable. The reason the burden of proof is upon you is that the United States is actually a net exporter of raw materials, the only material reasource we import on a large scale is oil. In light of this information its hard to maintain the position that the entire world cannot maintain the lifestyle of America when America can produce enough raw materials to sustain its lifestyle and STILL have enough to export every year.

Also, the term "environmental damage" is a loaded term; in the context of the term, the environment is viewed as something pure that is polluted any time that a human alters it in any way. Trees being cut down to make way for farmland may be "environmental damage" but it does not necessarily mean that it signifigantly affects the long term habitability of the Earth.

Also a point to keep in mind is that advances in technology will increase both the possible net energy and food production potentials of the Earth until we literally discover and apply (invent) every applicable property of the physical universe.

You should not make rational plans based on fanciful possibilities.

Genetic engineering WILL increase the production potential of a given acre of land in the coming decades. It is foolhardy to assume that an advance will be available exactly when you need it, but it is not foolish to assume that advances will have an impact.

Eating and breathing are necessities, and are quite easily justifiable from a logical standpoint for that reason. Sex is pleasurable, and causes no harm whatsoever. These examples are not remotely analogous to the asinine behaviour of fundies pumping out hordes of children.
You were pointing out that it is an "uncivilized base instinct". My point was an attempt to show that you can't qualify or disqualify something just because it is an instinct ...

Good thing I never said you can disqualify anything if it's an instinct then, you fucking strawman-abusing idiot. I made the point that it is NOT a good idea for other reasons, and that the ONLY reason to do it is this base instinct. If something is a bad idea from an objective standpoint and you do it only because of a primitive compulsion, then yes, it's still a bad fucking idea. What part of this are you too goddamned stupid to understand? I don't having an argument distorted in this fashion, hatfucker.

You said

... the urge to produce a huge number of offspring is the sign of an uncivilized, primitive instinct rather than a civilized, thinking mind.

and you maintained that

the only reason to it (have many children) is this base instinct.

I pointed out that someone might think that having many children might be a good idea, that it would cause no harm, and would thus be the same as acting upon any other instinct that brings you pleasure (while causing no harm, or actually being helpful). I'm sorry if there was some misunderstanding in our discussion, It was not my intention to present your argument as something different from what it was. However, I do maintain that there are good reasons for having many children. Acting on this "instinct" is not any more a bad idea, after rational consideration, then acting upon any other instinct.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-02-20 01:58pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Genetic engineering WILL increase the production potential of a given acre of land in the coming decades. It is foolhardy to assume that an advance will be available exactly when you need it, but it is not foolish to assume that advances will have an impact.

It is extremely foolish to assume that genetic engineering will increase food production by more than an order of magnitude.

You were pointing out that it is an "uncivilized base instinct". My point was an attempt to show that you can't qualify or disqualify something just because it is an instinct ...

Which is totally irrelevant to what DW was trying to say. It is a strawman because DW was NOT trying to say "an instinct is inherently bad" and this has already been pointed out to you, yet you still repeat it.

There are observable, measurable detrimental factors associated with over-population and mass producing kids WILL lead to over population. Eating and breating will not.

You said
... the urge to produce a huge number of offspring is the sign of an uncivilized, primitive instinct rather than a civilized, thinking mind.
and you maintained that
the only reason to it (have many children) is this base instinct.
I pointed out that someone might think that having many children might be a good idea, that it would cause no harm, and would thus be the same as acting upon any other instinct that brings you pleasure (while causing no harm, or actually being helpful). I'm sorry if there was some misunderstanding in our discussion, It was not my intention to present your argument as something different from what it was. However, I do maintain that there are good reasons for having many children. Acting on this "instinct" is not any more a bad idea, after rational consideration, then acting upon any other instinct.

Too bad for you that selective quoting doesn't prove anything. DW did NOT say that just because something is instinctive makes it bad. He listed SPECIFIC detriments of over population. And how can you argue that lots of people having lots of kids doesn't lead to over population?

1100.