Metal Reviews

http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_200 ... index.html

Bah. I've been saying we should eradicate 90% of the population for years. What a trendy.

they should give me the divine power to smite people with my thoughts, that would be the most effective solution

Did you know that Mims is an amateur scientist with no formal qualifications who took pretty much everything Planka said out of context? Mims never received any formal scientific training and is a proponent of intelligent design to boot.

Planka simply said that the human population is likely to crash if current trends continue and Ebola is a likely cause. He used the same analogy as I've used for humanity for agggeees (bacteria on an agar plate).

My pet hate is people who don't listen and then push their misunderstood version of someone else's statements as the truth. I think those people tend to populate youtube comments, I've never seen one in the academia before.

I'm confused: I thought Ebola was never going to be a serious threat simply because it killed too quickly, before seriously large numbers could be infected?

As far as the planet goes, I'm fairly certain the environment is screwed now permanently, global warming or not. If man keeps breeding, things'll get nasty soon - but global genocide is a bit much. Killing Yourself To Live, as the Sabs had it.

He's not asking for it, he's scared that it might happen. He was promoting zero/negative population growth because overpopulation could cause something like an Ebola epidemic.

edit: Also, the environment is not fucked. Things are still growing, species are still thriving and there are pristine places out there. In some places nature has recovered from the most savage beatings. Sure, humans tend to screw up the place and then forget it (the Exxon oil spill had effects on the environment that are still seen today and let's not even talk about dioxins and nuclear waste).

I think nature can fix pretty much everything but nuclear waste (250,000 years to deteriorate). With a little help, almost everything can be fixed. Genetically-modified pumpkins, for example, are used to suck heavy metals out of the ground.

The biggest problem in not how fucked the environment is now, it's how little people care, how little they are allowed to know and how little they can be bothered to do.

Nuclear power is the danger, I fear. When you see what depleted uranium does to foetuses... not nice.

And will a few little paradises be enough to hold back the tide? I'd like to be as optimistic as you about it, but when you talk to 'common' people and realise just how blinkered they are...

I think the common people would make good decisions only if they knew how much this could affect them. There is only one thing wrong with democracy - bad data. I think democracy could work if people were told the truth. I mean there are simple things people don't know, for example that tuna could realistically become extinct due to overfishing.

I'm not entirely optimistic, but I think the only way do improve anything is to make a good example of yourself, educate others and hope that it helps give humanity and the planet a fighting chance. I don't like chest-thumping, testosterone-fueled activism rampant on larger university campuses but quiet, stealthy presence. Subliminal activism

Especially because it kills quickly. And because the survival rate is about 10%. And, obviously, because it's uncurable. If this thing becomes airborne, it's not going to be pretty.

Somebodies been watching too much Idiocracy.

Imagine 28 Days Later, except without all the cannibalism and zombiness, but with all the blood and mayhem.

You would make the ebola virus sound sexy if you added some machetes into that description.

i have always thought so too... but i don't think it will be a problem. In a few years the population in the west will start to decrease, at least in Denmark, due to increasing wealth and hunt for carreers; money and personal developement an' shit, increasing knowlegde on how to prevent unwanted pregnancy - all resulting in the decreasing birthrate which is already taking place.
Of course, the birthrate in crappy countries like Africa will keep increasing, or at least be the same as it already is.. but then again.. not really a problem.. 25% of the population has aids and they can't effort to give everyone the medicin.
But, i also think that it will turn some day again, with the decreasing birthrate we are facing new problems. One guy cannot earn enough money to make three old guys retire, unless he is Bill Gates.

But deseases may decrease the total world population one day, because the medicin industry cannot keep up with the deseases, since we have relied on old medicin for too long, making the deseases extra resilient to it - even stronger... at least that is what I once read...
Personally, I really don't care. I'll just add it to the list of doomsday prophecies along with the global warming and all the other stupid shit ppl want to make us believe so we can throw away cash on them.

The danger with decreasing birthrate, that we're starting to see over here at least, is an ageing population. And I don't think you can dismiss Africa's high birthrate by saying 25% of people there have AIDS, Kim, really.

Your final point's probably right, though. I can't see anything dreadful happening in my lifetime.

... oh... really?! it was a bad semi-joke, anyway.
But i don't think the high birthrate in Africa will have that big an effect in the end. Many starve to death before they turn 10 due to starvation, deseases, war and what not.

... In order to keep the population steady the average woman has to give birth to 2.8 babies. That's quite alot, imo, and that is only for the rich countries in the west. Dunno, how many babies an african woman should have to do that, perhaps around the 4-5

Oh, you were joking?

We should remove all the Catholic missionaries from Africa and bring them over here. No condoms here = more kids = stable population!

STOP WASTING MY OXYGEN

Even if global warming doesn't exist, there are still proven, immediate effects that pollution has on your health and welfare right now.

1. Sulfur and nitrogen contribute to acid rain and acidification of water, damaging fish stocks. Carbon Dioxide is also a culprit in this.

2. Dioxins cause birth defects, cancers AND surprise, they seep into water to deplete fish stocks and generally bollock everything up.

3. Crude oil is just too valuable to burn as a fuel. This world runs on crude oil, but whilst fuels are easily replaceable petrochemicals are not. Granted, the biofuel industry allows us to make fuel and petrochemicals out of food waste, but the water requirements for that are insane.

4. Burning fuels made from crude oil produces a plentora of pollutants (including dust) which can cause cancer and many other nasty diseases, and in general lower your quality of life. You have the fundamental right to clean water and air.

5. Many household products contain all sorts of nasties just so your laundry can be a more brilliant yellow than the sun and your dishwasher can smell like cake. That gets dumped into the waterways. There are detergents out there that do not contain any phosphates, but blimey, they're kina cheap and not prestigious like that toilet purple goo stuff and aunt Flo might think we're a hippie if she sees the package.

6. Even breast milk now contains antibiotics, pesticides and other nasties that shouldn't be there. They get there from food. Incidentally, organic foods have higher yields in the long run, but it takes a much longer time to get certified and achieve higher yields, and seriously, who can be fucked doing that?

The thing is, there is no need to burn crude oil and coal, or use phosphates in detergents or have excessively dirty industries. It's just that it costs money to update, and governments are generally rather protectionist of industries that sponsor them, with more favourable taxes etc. In turn everyone suffers just so a few people can line their pockets.

The good thing about global warming hype is that the side effects of greenhouse gas emission reductions immediately improve human welfare. The bad thing is, retarded climate skeptics think that if it doesn't exist it's a-okay to go on polluting. Either way, people tend to see global warming as if everything is black and white. I've seen pro-nuclear people who thought it was better than burning fossil fuels because everything is better than greenhouse gas emissions and climate skeptics who didn't take any environmental precautions whatsoever because "well, global warming is all a lie so the planet is going to be alright".

Caring for the environment is caring for human welfare, because humans rely on their environment for pretty much everything still. Food, air, water, raw materials, natural fabrics, recreation, medicine to name a few.

As for the population rate, how about you dudes learn to carry a baby or a few in your stomachs for 40 weeks and then push them out of a tiny hole and feed them with your swollen boobs while your hole heals? Maybe that will increase the population *wink wink*.

well... when we're speaking about global warmning the big sinner is Co2. Co2 itself is not pollution. I don't believe Co2 is the cause of global warming - it is the result of global warming, nature produce way way more co2 than humans do, a 100 times more. I don't believe the retarded scientist, who try to outdo each other with one outrageous statements after another either.
The money we're about to waste on the reduction of co2 could be spend more efficient in other areas concerning pollution and chemicals in our food, or used to help africa to kickstart a greener industrialization, or what do i know?!


i don't disagree with you, it just annoys me alot that politicians only talk about reduction of co2, global warming disasters and other scare tacticts. It also annoys me that politicians think they are scientists, or rely on political correct scientists who are given funds under the table to prove humans are to be blamed for everything. I prefer to call a shovel a shovel and not make ppl live in fear just to make them believe me.


concerning the baby thing... I think you girls do a great job already, wouldn't want to take away your pleasure. I tell you what... If you deliver the babies, I promise I will deliver a steak once in a while *yummy yummy*

Er, CO2 is a pollutant. It's a nasty pollutant at that due to its nasty tendency to make things more acidic than they should be. Sure, nature makes CO2 and the increase is natural, but man has made a lot more CO2 to add to that, and now CO2 in the atmosphere is unnaturally high. Reduction of CO2 usually means a subsequent reduction in other pollution, such as methane and petrochemical/coal waste. Whilst it is kinda bad that politicians harp on about CO2, it's very good that the public has some incentive to hustle and switch to clean energy. Saying that CO2 is not a contributor to global warming is at the very least strange - it goes against the definition of global warming and how CO2 works. There are worse pollutants than CO2 - methane, CFCs etc, but none are quite as abundant as CO2.

Global warming is a reality. It's not caused by humans and most people don't understand it. It is however made worse by humans, because spewing gases where they shouldn't be and disturbing the carbon cycle by logging at an insane rate and killing off vegetation in the oceans kinda plays a part in it. I prefer the term 'climate change'. It sounds softer but it refers to the more severe weather phenomena and unusual cooling trends in some areas that a global raise in temperatures causes.

Anyway, global warming cannot be stopped now. It can however be softened and we can weather it with careful planning. Too much attention goes into softening it rather than learning about sustainable agriculture and other things that humans will need once the weather changes. I live in Australia and I can buy beef and potatoes and tomatoes any time, but I would have to pay a large sum of money to buy bush plums and lilly pilly jam. I think that the first thing that should happen everywhere is an immediate switch towards native, hardier organic crops and shrewd water management.

As for helping sub-Saharan Africa, I don't think industrializing Africa is such a great idea. Africa is a treasure for agriculture. I think there should be more of a focus towards practical aid and not food or monetary aid. More charities like Oxfam. Most African countries are screwed not by simple poverty but by shit governments, an inability to trade due to lack of laws to facilitate capitalism and weird country boundaries that some Englishman drew up ages ago, splitting tribes in the middle and in general fucking everyone over. Giving the people of Africa tools and buying their produce would be a good alternative to helping them industrialize. The Fair Trade movement is already doing that, I hope there can be more of that in the future in lieu of Free Trade.