Atheist to be sentenced for blasphemy

During the war, population decreases if you count the inevitable fuckin killin.

But this is all for you right? Its not like science will advance, planets will be colonized (FE will be proven or disproven soon enough with public space flights).

Why must people die? Because you deem the world to be overpopulated?

And of course, you won't die or fight in the war.

During the war, population decreases if you count the inevitable fuckin killin.

Yeah but look at the aftermath of WWII

Anyway, the best way to deal with overpopulation is, as Gandhi said, through the elimination of poverty. "The greatest form of contraception is development." The populations of the developed Western world are actually decreasing, it is only through immigration that populations continue to rise.

That's an impossible goal. There is no way to eliminate overall poverty without increasing all natural resources without increasing population. Something that is pretty much impossible.

Worldwide overpopulation will have to be addressed sooner or later. Some time in the not so far future it will become a matter of survival and governments will have to decide what to do. Either prevent people from having too many children, with force if necessary, or contain the problem to the main contributing nations (those being the ones with the highest birthrate), again by force if necessary.

Both scenarios are far from pretty and I would much prefer a different solution, but I think there is none.

Worldwide overpopulation will have to be addressed sooner or later. Some time in the not so far future it will become a matter of survival and governments will have to decide what to do. Either prevent people from having too many children, with force if necessary, or contain the problem to the main contributing nations (those being the ones with the highest birthrate), again by force if necessary.

Both scenarios are far from pretty and I would much prefer a different solution, but I think there is none.

There are many solutions. Terraforming, satellite colonies, lunar colonization.

Quote from: Friedrich on March 12, 2010, 04:20:07 PM

Worldwide overpopulation will have to be addressed sooner or later. Some time in the not so far future it will become a matter of survival and governments will have to decide what to do. Either prevent people from having too many children, with force if necessary, or contain the problem to the main contributing nations (those being the ones with the highest birthrate), again by force if necessary.

Both scenarios are far from pretty and I would much prefer a different solution, but I think there is none.

There are many solutions. Terraforming, satellite colonies, lunar colonization.

Okay, you got me there. I should have worded it differently. "..., but I think there are none we can achieve before the problem becomes critical."

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 12, 2010, 04:41:38 PM

Quote from: Friedrich on March 12, 2010, 04:20:07 PM

Worldwide overpopulation will have to be addressed sooner or later. Some time in the not so far future it will become a matter of survival and governments will have to decide what to do. Either prevent people from having too many children, with force if necessary, or contain the problem to the main contributing nations (those being the ones with the highest birthrate), again by force if necessary.

Both scenarios are far from pretty and I would much prefer a different solution, but I think there is none.

There are many solutions. Terraforming, satellite colonies, lunar colonization.

Okay, you got me there. I should have worded it differently. "..., but I think there are none we can achieve before the problem becomes critical."

These technologies will be here in 50 years. How long do you think we have until the problem becomes critical?

Quote from: Friedrich on March 12, 2010, 04:43:39 PM

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 12, 2010, 04:41:38 PM

Quote from: Friedrich on March 12, 2010, 04:20:07 PM

Worldwide overpopulation will have to be addressed sooner or later. Some time in the not so far future it will become a matter of survival and governments will have to decide what to do. Either prevent people from having too many children, with force if necessary, or contain the problem to the main contributing nations (those being the ones with the highest birthrate), again by force if necessary.

Both scenarios are far from pretty and I would much prefer a different solution, but I think there is none.

There are many solutions. Terraforming, satellite colonies, lunar colonization.

Okay, you got me there. I should have worded it differently. "..., but I think there are none we can achieve before the problem becomes critical."

These technologies will be here in 50 years. How long do you think we have until the problem becomes critical?

Where do you get the certainty that we will have these technologies in 50 years? Honestly curious.

To answer your question: It's hard to say when the problem will reach critical mass. Any number of events could set it off. Natural disaster, goverment regulations, war or it might run it's "natural" course. If I had to say a number, I would say anything between 10 and 50 years.

Quote from: Friedrich on March 12, 2010, 04:43:39 PM

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 12, 2010, 04:41:38 PM

Quote from: Friedrich on March 12, 2010, 04:20:07 PM

Worldwide overpopulation will have to be addressed sooner or later. Some time in the not so far future it will become a matter of survival and governments will have to decide what to do. Either prevent people from having too many children, with force if necessary, or contain the problem to the main contributing nations (those being the ones with the highest birthrate), again by force if necessary.

Both scenarios are far from pretty and I would much prefer a different solution, but I think there is none.

There are many solutions. Terraforming, satellite colonies, lunar colonization.

Okay, you got me there. I should have worded it differently. "..., but I think there are none we can achieve before the problem becomes critical."

These technologies will be here in 50 years. How long do you think we have until the problem becomes critical?

I somehow doubt it. It currently costs an objects weight in gold to get them into orbit. At that cost we could afford to clothe and feed them for their lives.

In fact we could currently feed everyone in the world, but the transportation costs and stunt to local agricultural development would lead to worse problems down the line. The population has to make a dramatic drop and perhaps AIDS will do that as it makes its slow burn through the human population.

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 12, 2010, 05:15:58 PM

Quote from: Friedrich on March 12, 2010, 04:43:39 PM

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 12, 2010, 04:41:38 PM

Quote from: Friedrich on March 12, 2010, 04:20:07 PM

Worldwide overpopulation will have to be addressed sooner or later. Some time in the not so far future it will become a matter of survival and governments will have to decide what to do. Either prevent people from having too many children, with force if necessary, or contain the problem to the main contributing nations (those being the ones with the highest birthrate), again by force if necessary.

Both scenarios are far from pretty and I would much prefer a different solution, but I think there is none.

There are many solutions. Terraforming, satellite colonies, lunar colonization.

Okay, you got me there. I should have worded it differently. "..., but I think there are none we can achieve before the problem becomes critical."

These technologies will be here in 50 years. How long do you think we have until the problem becomes critical?

I somehow doubt it. It currently costs an objects weight in gold to get them into orbit. At that cost we could afford to clothe and feed them for their lives.

In fact we could currently feed everyone in the world, but the transportation costs and stunt to local agricultural development would lead to worse problems down the line. The population has to make a dramatic drop and perhaps AIDS will do that as it makes its slow burn through the human population.

Wow, you guys have

1. No faith in science advancing
2. No faith in humanity
3. A tendency to want everyone else to suffer

Quote from: Raist on March 12, 2010, 06:03:55 PM

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 12, 2010, 05:15:58 PM

Quote from: Friedrich on March 12, 2010, 04:43:39 PM

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 12, 2010, 04:41:38 PM

Quote from: Friedrich on March 12, 2010, 04:20:07 PM

Worldwide overpopulation will have to be addressed sooner or later. Some time in the not so far future it will become a matter of survival and governments will have to decide what to do. Either prevent people from having too many children, with force if necessary, or contain the problem to the main contributing nations (those being the ones with the highest birthrate), again by force if necessary.

Both scenarios are far from pretty and I would much prefer a different solution, but I think there is none.

There are many solutions. Terraforming, satellite colonies, lunar colonization.

Okay, you got me there. I should have worded it differently. "..., but I think there are none we can achieve before the problem becomes critical."

These technologies will be here in 50 years. How long do you think we have until the problem becomes critical?

I somehow doubt it. It currently costs an objects weight in gold to get them into orbit. At that cost we could afford to clothe and feed them for their lives.

In fact we could currently feed everyone in the world, but the transportation costs and stunt to local agricultural development would lead to worse problems down the line. The population has to make a dramatic drop and perhaps AIDS will do that as it makes its slow burn through the human population.

Wow, you guys have

1. No faith in science advancing
2. No faith in humanity
3. A tendency to want everyone else to suffer

1. I do, but I honestly think that terraforming by 2060 is not realistic.
2. I don't. A simple look in a history book and the news achieves this.
3. Do you think it's sadistic to be a realist? I don't want anyone to suffer, but not facing our problematic future would be naive.

I've always wanted to get rid of aids via the kill everyone with aids route.

I've always wanted to get rid of aids via the kill everyone with aids route.

It would work. Luckily we seem to be above such radical solutions, though noone can say with any certainty that we will remain above them in the future.

Quote from: Raist on March 12, 2010, 06:03:55 PM

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 12, 2010, 05:15:58 PM

Quote from: Friedrich on March 12, 2010, 04:43:39 PM

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 12, 2010, 04:41:38 PM

Quote from: Friedrich on March 12, 2010, 04:20:07 PM

Worldwide overpopulation will have to be addressed sooner or later. Some time in the not so far future it will become a matter of survival and governments will have to decide what to do. Either prevent people from having too many children, with force if necessary, or contain the problem to the main contributing nations (those being the ones with the highest birthrate), again by force if necessary.

Both scenarios are far from pretty and I would much prefer a different solution, but I think there is none.

There are many solutions. Terraforming, satellite colonies, lunar colonization.

Okay, you got me there. I should have worded it differently. "..., but I think there are none we can achieve before the problem becomes critical."

These technologies will be here in 50 years. How long do you think we have until the problem becomes critical?

I somehow doubt it. It currently costs an objects weight in gold to get them into orbit. At that cost we could afford to clothe and feed them for their lives.

In fact we could currently feed everyone in the world, but the transportation costs and stunt to local agricultural development would lead to worse problems down the line. The population has to make a dramatic drop and perhaps AIDS will do that as it makes its slow burn through the human population.

Wow, you guys have

1. No faith in science advancing
2. No faith in humanity
3. A tendency to want everyone else to suffer

1. Expecting science to advance at a cost cutting rate as high as you expect is stupid. Look at airline flight costs, they still really haven't gone down enough for those "One day you'll fly to Paris for breakfast" predictions to come true. And unless a new cheap fuel source comes along to replace fossil fuels the cost to get to orbit will remain pretty similar.

2. Humanity has never done anything to inspire much faith in it. I'd list the things it's done wrong but I don't feel like typing out the history of mankind

3. I don't want anyone to suffer, hence my desire for a population decimation. Dying in war isn't half as bad as watching your village die from lack of food water and medical resources.

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 12, 2010, 06:08:16 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 12, 2010, 06:03:55 PM

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 12, 2010, 05:15:58 PM

Quote from: Friedrich on March 12, 2010, 04:43:39 PM

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 12, 2010, 04:41:38 PM

Quote from: Friedrich on March 12, 2010, 04:20:07 PM

Worldwide overpopulation will have to be addressed sooner or later. Some time in the not so far future it will become a matter of survival and governments will have to decide what to do. Either prevent people from having too many children, with force if necessary, or contain the problem to the main contributing nations (those being the ones with the highest birthrate), again by force if necessary.

Both scenarios are far from pretty and I would much prefer a different solution, but I think there is none.

There are many solutions. Terraforming, satellite colonies, lunar colonization.

Okay, you got me there. I should have worded it differently. "..., but I think there are none we can achieve before the problem becomes critical."

These technologies will be here in 50 years. How long do you think we have until the problem becomes critical?

I somehow doubt it. It currently costs an objects weight in gold to get them into orbit. At that cost we could afford to clothe and feed them for their lives.

In fact we could currently feed everyone in the world, but the transportation costs and stunt to local agricultural development would lead to worse problems down the line. The population has to make a dramatic drop and perhaps AIDS will do that as it makes its slow burn through the human population.

Wow, you guys have

1. No faith in science advancing
2. No faith in humanity
3. A tendency to want everyone else to suffer

1. Expecting science to advance at a cost cutting rate as high as you expect is stupid. Look at airline flight costs, they still really haven't gone down enough for those "One day you'll fly to Paris for breakfast" predictions to come true. And unless a new cheap fuel source comes along to replace fossil fuels the cost to get to orbit will remain pretty similar.

2. Humanity has never done anything to inspire much faith in it. I'd list the things it's done wrong but I don't feel like typing out the history of mankind

3. I don't want anyone to suffer, hence my desire for a population decimation. Dying in war isn't half as bad as watching your village die from lack of food water and medical resources.

Would you be willing to die in that case? You can't have the rest of the world decimate itself for you.

Also, science does not exactly relate to economics the way you said so. Technology is accelerating in its development. Soon we will have things we never dreamed of.

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2010, 08:17:00 AM

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 12, 2010, 06:08:16 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 12, 2010, 06:03:55 PM

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 12, 2010, 05:15:58 PM

Quote from: Friedrich on March 12, 2010, 04:43:39 PM

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 12, 2010, 04:41:38 PM

Quote from: Friedrich on March 12, 2010, 04:20:07 PM

Worldwide overpopulation will have to be addressed sooner or later. Some time in the not so far future it will become a matter of survival and governments will have to decide what to do. Either prevent people from having too many children, with force if necessary, or contain the problem to the main contributing nations (those being the ones with the highest birthrate), again by force if necessary.

Both scenarios are far from pretty and I would much prefer a different solution, but I think there is none.

There are many solutions. Terraforming, satellite colonies, lunar colonization.

Okay, you got me there. I should have worded it differently. "..., but I think there are none we can achieve before the problem becomes critical."

These technologies will be here in 50 years. How long do you think we have until the problem becomes critical?

I somehow doubt it. It currently costs an objects weight in gold to get them into orbit. At that cost we could afford to clothe and feed them for their lives.

In fact we could currently feed everyone in the world, but the transportation costs and stunt to local agricultural development would lead to worse problems down the line. The population has to make a dramatic drop and perhaps AIDS will do that as it makes its slow burn through the human population.

Wow, you guys have

1. No faith in science advancing
2. No faith in humanity
3. A tendency to want everyone else to suffer

1. Expecting science to advance at a cost cutting rate as high as you expect is stupid. Look at airline flight costs, they still really haven't gone down enough for those "One day you'll fly to Paris for breakfast" predictions to come true. And unless a new cheap fuel source comes along to replace fossil fuels the cost to get to orbit will remain pretty similar.

2. Humanity has never done anything to inspire much faith in it. I'd list the things it's done wrong but I don't feel like typing out the history of mankind

3. I don't want anyone to suffer, hence my desire for a population decimation. Dying in war isn't half as bad as watching your village die from lack of food water and medical resources.

Would you be willing to die in that case? You can't have the rest of the world decimate itself for you.

Also, science does not exactly relate to economics the way you said so. Technology is accelerating in its development. Soon we will have things we never dreamed of.

Actually, science does relate to economics. I don't care if we'll have things I've never dreamed of, certain restrictions on reality are even theoretically impossible to get around at this time.

As for me being willing to die in war

a) I'm not starving to death

b) you can expect others to die, it is a decimation meaning a 10th of the population will die. That means we can pretty much bet on the fact that we will just be watching others die.

c) Odds are I won't die, and we all die eventually anyways.

The greatest form of contraception is prviding job oppunity for women. When women have better things to do, they won't stay at home cleanning baby poop.

And on topic, I think it is right for the atheist to be apprehended. His action is similar to a hate crime. But sentenced for blasphemy?

Leaving some cartoons lampooning religion is no worse than any action of free speech. At most this should be a civil matter as it is not the governments place to say what speech is and is not appropriate but only to award damages in times that speech causes actual repercussions.

His action is similar to a hate crime.

Wrong.

No speech is truely free. Give me a country where you can talk in public about Nazi, racism, and cursing god. Leaving some cartoons lampooning religion IS worse than MOST action of free speech. Some christians who see those cartoon may get anger and pee on the statue of Darwin, stone the hectic next door, or do worse stuff.

Wearing masks and robes of KKK is a hate crime, as it evoke negative feeling in some people. So is leaving offensive cartoons.

No speech is truely free. Give me a country where you can talk in public about Nazi, racism, and cursing god. Leaving some cartoons lampooning religion IS worse than MOST action of free speech. Some christians who see those cartoon may get anger and pee on the statue of Darwin, stone the hectic next door, or do worse stuff.

Wearing masks and robes of KKK is a hate crime, as it evoke negative feeling in some people. So is leaving offensive cartoons.

Ok, the acting dumb thing is annoying stop it in the serious forums.

And you can do all those things in the United States.

I see nothing wrong with peeing on statues either unless they are damaged by urea or you are exposing yourself in public.

Ok, the acting dumb thing is annoying stop it in the serious forums.

I see I am unwelcomed here.

Quote from: Raist on March 15, 2010, 07:01:06 PM

Ok, the acting dumb thing is annoying stop it in the serious forums.

I see I am unwelcomed here.

I'm sorry if that wasn't an act. I just assumed it was intentional. If it wasn't then I apologize completely and feel like an ass.

Give me a country where you can talk in public about Nazi, racism, and cursing god.

The USA.

Leaving some cartoons lampooning religion IS worse than MOST action of free speech.

Whether or not it is negative is subjective. Also, "worse"? Logically, that implies that most uses of free speech are "bad".

Some christians who see those cartoon may get anger and pee on the statue of Darwin, stone the hectic next door, or do worse stuff.

We're legislating based on what might hurt people's feelings now? How about growing the fuck up? There is a term for governments where nasty, they-hurt-my-feelings atheists are outlawed. They're called theocracies.

It's perfectly fine for Christians to pee on a statue of Darwin, so long as its their statue. Otherwise its property damage. Also, why would insulting comics cause them to stone a heretic? If they did, that would be murder and it would be punished accordingly.

Wearing masks and robes of KKK is a hate crime, as it evoke negative feeling in some people. So is leaving offensive cartoons.

See previous. Legislating based on whether or not the exercising of a fundamental human right might hurt the feelings of some other people is idiocy of the highest order. Your posts evoke negative feeling in me, yet I believe you should be free to make them as much as you want.

Wearing masks and robes of KKK is a hate crime, as it evoke negative feeling in some people. So is leaving offensive cartoons.

Not even remotely comparable, the KKK is a hate organisation because they have historically lynched people, persecuted them, caused criminal damage, been threatening whereas a cartoonist (even the most offensive of them) have merely created an image on a piece of paper.

If you think lynching people and drawing a nasty picture of them is comparable you need your head looked at.

Quote from: Xeant on March 15, 2010, 06:52:27 PM

Wearing masks and robes of KKK is a hate crime, as it evoke negative feeling in some people. So is leaving offensive cartoons.

Not even remotely comparable, the KKK is a hate organisation because they have historically lynched people, persecuted them, caused criminal damage, been threatening whereas a cartoonist (even the most offensive of them) have merely created an image on a piece of paper.

If you think lynching people and drawing a nasty picture of them is comparable you need your head looked at.

Overlooking the fact that it is, and always will be, legal to be a member of the kkk in the U.S. as well as dress like them etc.

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on March 16, 2010, 12:42:46 AM

Quote from: Xeant on March 15, 2010, 06:52:27 PM

Wearing masks and robes of KKK is a hate crime, as it evoke negative feeling in some people. So is leaving offensive cartoons.

Not even remotely comparable, the KKK is a hate organisation because they have historically lynched people, persecuted them, caused criminal damage, been threatening whereas a cartoonist (even the most offensive of them) have merely created an image on a piece of paper.

If you think lynching people and drawing a nasty picture of them is comparable you need your head looked at.

Overlooking the fact that it is, and always will be, legal to be a member of the kkk in the U.S. as well as dress like them etc.

That is one of the things I really admire about the USA, though it's getting a little blurred lately. Personally I hate bigots, racists and fundamentalists, but the unconditional right to express their opinion in the USA is unique and should be defended at all costs.

The recent hate crime laws popping out all over the world are nonsense. They only serve as a tool to bludgeon anyone who disagrees with a certain worldview or dares to voice dissent. It may be true that it also shields people from racism and homophobia, but at the cost of making everyone a little less free.