User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 17 to 24 of 51

Thread: Stop Breeding

  1. #17
    Somewhat Unstable superimposedhope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Where the Slime Live; Where the Slime Breed
    Posts
    1,697
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    To blame a person for this tragedy called mankind is useless. This has been a problem since the earliest days of Europe and so-forth. The idea that the earth is eternally renewable is still present all the while people are upset that the earth is beginning to fail. For Gods sake some areas have toxic rainfall after all. We sit here and complain about energy waste on a COMPUTER!! I included. We are not capable of natural living any longer and are addicted to comforts we consider necessities because we have never know there to be any other way of life.
    Speaking of breeding control, the majority oppose abortion and the idea of controlled family planning is associated with China a communist nation. I don't think many folks would vote for an idea associated with communism, do you? Let's be honest, is anybody REALLY gonna stop having sex when they are at their child limit? Not I, I doubt you either. What are the other options besides abstinence and abortion?

    I DO NOT MEAN TO START AN ABORTION DEBATE!!!!

    Joe
    \"There is nothing here of interest to any nation, as a matter of fact there is nothing here but humans!\"

  2. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    N'awlins
    Posts
    313
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The funniest thing about this thread is the assumption that over-population is directly related to breeding. Consider this, avg. family size has decreased rapidly in the last 100 years. Heck, its been cut in half just in the last generation. The biggest reason for increased population is quite simple, modern medicine. People are living longer, much longer than we used to. I don't know specific numbers, but I would wager real money that over the last 150 years the avg life expectancy of humans has doubled.

    With that in mind, would you like to rephrase your gripe to "STOP THAT SILLY MEDICAL RESEARCH"?

  3. #19

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Martinez, California
    Posts
    3,556
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Prone to trouble, Casper?? I still think you are wrong in your opinions, but I won't argue with them either. They deserve further study so I will. As much as I dislike California, I have some of the best outdoor growing weather anywhere. (So far.)
    45 yrs. growin\'
    Founder NASC

  4. #20
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i think Chernobyl is a bad example. its the exception rather than the rule with nuclear power plants. i know alot of bad stuff has been said about France over the last couple of years but i seem to remember some fact about a LARGE portion of their power coming from nuclear power but when was the last time you heard about a meltdown outside Paris? i believe this is due to the fact they built all their power plants basically the same so when a problem arrises at one plant they can fix it in others before it even becomes a problem there. personally i see nuclear power as the BEST solution and i would not argue about one being built down the road from mean. it would also mean jobs which this portion of the state despratly needs. just my 2 cents.

    Rattler
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  5. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    N'awlins
    Posts
    313
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Both Chernobyl and TMI were the almost sole result of operator error. Even if the EXACT same thing that happened at Chernobyl happened in the USA, it wouldn't have had the same effect. All reactors in use in the US are surrounded by 30 foot reinforced concreat walls; the soviet reactors are not. It is estiamted that the explosion that blew apart the number three reactor at Chernobyl would have been compleatly contained by the sheilds of a US reactor.

  6. #22

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Kissimmee Florida
    Posts
    297
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes I see your point chernobyl may be the exception rather than the rule - but I still don't want to live down the road in case the one next to me happens to be the next exception. The fact that operator error was to blame doesn't make me feel all that much better or safer, and yes we can contain the nasty little mess in reinforced concrete, but concrete does weather. In the meantime it does have that we'll be dead by then so let the future generations deal with it feel. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for alternate energy sources, but lets put as much energy and $ into making them safe and cost effective as we do with military weapons. If we have the technology to make "smart bombs" I think we can effectively harness the wind, sun, geothermal power, and the like to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. Thats my energy rant for today, and in deference to my opinion, I'm going to go turn the air conditioner off - and its 94 degrees!

  7. #23
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    wind energy MIGHT work here, studys have been done and it looks feasible, solar on large scale maybe maybe not, if we have snow like we did this winter prolly not. geothermal.....not in this area. counter point to these is: how much land/habitat do you think a "field" of windmills or solar panels will take up? it may put some housing developments to shame. at this point they are not as efficient as they need to be to be a REAL candidate for taking over fossil fuels and hydroelectric. also in your examples you forgot to mention tidal energy which i dont think is feasible at this point. as to birth rates, they are dropping dramatically, as i think Casper brought up, the population problem has more to do with ppl living longer than with larger numbers being born.

    Rattler
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  8. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    N'awlins
    Posts
    313
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Solar power, as in the photo-electrolys panels, are very expensive, complex, and frankly they arn't very efficient. It would cost roughly 120K to make a home run solely on solar power.

    Harnesing the wind doesn't create very much energy either. Several universitys have done extensive research on it, and its just not plausible to even supliment the current powergrid with wind driven power.

    Hydro-elec. is great, but as you californians are seeing, the climate has a great effect on the generation of power.

    Personally, I think tidal energy has the most potential for future use. There is a huge ammount of energy in a single square mile of coastal waters, we just need better ways of harnessing it.

    And Buster1's post just proves my point. He would rather have a coal burning power plant a thousand miles away that pollutes the entire planet, than to have a nuclear power plant, that has a darn near flawless record mind you, a hundred miles away.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •