Depends on what your standards of "complex" are, and if they are, then god would be even more complex, thus requiring a creator, itself. If your argument is complexity cannot come about without consciousness, then what about your precious "god"? Where did it come from?
"All you have proven here is that you don't like to be wrong and you are far too married to a single view to ever really or effectively debate."
I'm the only one making actual arguments, genius; you're just saying "read this article and you'll see I'm right". Haven't made one valid argument so far. I'm perfectly okay with being wrong, but you have to make a good case first. Can't just expect me to say, "Well, she says I'm wrong, so I guess I am." Doesn't work like that in a debate.
"Long-winded statistic gamers are not the same as effective debaters"
The only reason I was sarcastic was because you were so initially - if you want to forgo intellectual, respectful debate, fine. And you think you're an effective debater? PROVE IT.
"It is pure preference, without any address of differing perspectives or even rebuttal in relation to them."
How about you make an argument so I can make a rebuttal in the first place, genius? I already addressed your article and as many implied points as I could discern from your ambiguous writing. You're the one showing pure preference, since you can't address my perspective whatsoever.
"You make the same mistake in your original post as you complain about my making here."
No, I actually make arguments based on facts, while you don't make ANY arguments at all. Big difference.
"you'll get to a point where you can realize that the very last thing contributing to the rising oil prices in America is "geo-political factors"."
This is a debate; you have to PROVE your allegation. Have you ever been in a debate before? Ever?
"I do realize that it is hard to admit you've been gulled by yet another savvy bit of propaganda"
I could say the same for you; you haven't addressed any one of my counter arguments. Obviously it's you who have been gulled, since you are incapable of refuting anything I've said.
"You see, it would be worth the time to create rebuttal were the target someone who had demonstrated the ability to actually consider opinions other than their own"
DID YOU NOT READ MY COMMENT? I specifically said I don't DENY speculation's involvement with oil price increase! And you think you're an effective debater?! Come on! Twice now you've demonstrated you don't even read my comments fully before vomiting a useless and utterly substance-less response. If this is your idea of effective debate I'd hate to see you slacking off.
"but it's more a sign of your own arrogance than any reality."
Once more, this is a debate. It's your job to prove your allegations, not to just throw one out there and say, "You're wrong, I'm right. But I'm not going to say how you're wrong, I'm just going to make that clear and have you find out why." That's not how a debate works.
Make some counter-arguments or don't respond. You can't expect me to suddenly abandon my position just because you say so without any backing information or argumentation to convince me to. Also, I find it funny how you keep voting down my comments yet can't make a single rebuttal against my arguments; you just resort to personal attacks. Obviously you don't know what you're talking about.
"the Beatles were the first to popularize having the band themselves write the songs"
No they weren't.
"the first to do a theme album"
You mean a concept album? No they weren't.
"the first to wear long hair"
No they weren't... wait, what long hair? Even though the Androgynous image most of us associate with being "long hair" became popular with the heavy metal movement, there were still rock groups before the Beatles' popularity that had long hair, and many at the same time of the Beatles that had longer hair.
"the first to take rock outside of the tight restraints of the blues progression"
No they weren't.
"the first to do backmasking"
Backmasking was in use LONG before the Beatles; they just popularized it.
"the first to do a psychodelic [sic] album"
Actually, they received a lot of heat for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band because there already was a psychedelic musical movement in the U.S., and some die-hard fans saw them doing a psychedelic album as kind of selling out. Though it was nonetheless an extremely influential album.
"What has Tool done that can compete with those credentials?"
How can you expect a progressive rock group to gain as much popularity with general audiences as a pop rock group? Also, Tool wasn't around at the time of the Beatles, so there's no reason to say, "Well, they weren't the first ones to do this!" if one came decades before the other. I personally agree that there can't be one band that's considered the "greatest", since music is an art, but I just wanted to correct a few things.
Oh no! Not a sarcastic rebuttal lacking any solid argumentation and doesn't even address the facts in my post that I base my contention on! Alas the day, what ever am I to do?!
(Note: I'm going to have fun with this one; you want to forgo intellectual discourse and make it a pissing contest in sardonicism, I'm game.)
"Er, you kind of forgot about that oversupply from 2006."
Er, that has no relevance to the data I posted, nor does it, er, have any effect on what, er, I was, er, saying. Er.
You know, it would help if you made an argument and explained the relevance of the aforementioned "oversupply" so I can make a proper rebuttal, because as it stands it doesn't further any point. Er.
"And the video of the OPEC meeting that leaked."
Very ambiguous; how about you actually extrapolate information from your source and form an argument for a change, rather than referencing something and assuming I can read your mind to understand whatever point you're trying to make? I know, what mind-blowing concept.
"And the statements by the various talking heads (with backing) who make it clear the speculator market is responsible for these spikes."
Oh, the esteemed and highly credible "various talking heads" said so, huh? Well, can't argue with those guys; I mean, I don't even know who they are... how can I argue against their wise "statements" that you fail to post or link to your argument if they're so secretive? I guess I'll have to take your word for it at face value then. Not.
"And the weakness of the dollar."
Already mentioned that; kudos for not reading my comments before voting them down and belting out a poorly stated reply.
"Not to mention the herring of China and India will want more oil, oh my!"
I assumed it's common sense that China and India will want more oil. I mean, they're both increasing in oil consumption each year, at a rate much faster than most Western countries. If you have some kind of argument that they DON'T want oil, I'd love to hear it.
"Erm, maybe you missed it, but China is already active in the market as is India... and neither are going to suddenly or exponentially unbalance things."
Erm, have you even done research on this subject before blowing your load on this piss-poor response? No? Didn't think so; how about I enlighten you with some figures, eh? As of 2007, China's oil consumption was 6.93 million barrels per day. Their oil production was 3.73 million barrels a day. Therefore it was importing roughly 3.2 million barrels of oil a day. In the next two decades its consumption is expected to grow at a rate of 7.5% per year (compared to 1% growth for industrialized countries). In the January to April period of this year, imports for China rose 10% from last year. While China's oil production is on a steady rise, it's demand has already far surpassed it, therefore warranting more oil imports.
And as far as India is concerned, it produces 834,600 barrels per day, and consumes 2.4 million barrels per day; it consumes two thirds more oil than it produces. "But", you might say, "India is 'active in the market'! That must mean it doesn't need to import oil!" ERM, no - the numbers are right there, you do the math. Here's another figure: From 2001 to 2006, India's oil consumption increased by 11.9 percent. It's the ninth-largest importer of oil, and by 2030 (if oil is still around by then; this is a mathematical estimate not taking into account oil depletion) it is predicted oil demand would reach 5.6 million barrels per day. Erm, make sense?
For more reading on this subject (notice how I made my argument first, then posted links?), read these articles:
Now to put the final nail in this issue's coffin: Erm, maybe you missed it, but the fact that China and India are in the market doesn't mean they don't import oil. So, ERM, at their current growth rate, they WILL "suddenly or exponentially unbalance things", as you say. Both nations already import a great deal of oil, and their oil consumption is growing faster than any Western country. It stands to reason that they will import oil to satisfy their needs, and they will demand more and more oil as development continues. Remember: We consume a massive amount of oil, more than 25% of the world's total consumption (this a figure from 2000, so obviously it's much higher now). When India and China become developed, there will doubtlessly be some competition for oil to meet domestic demands. If you think you can contest this, I'd love to hear your logic.
"Maybe you should read the link I gave in my previous post."
Maybe you should actually make an argument rather than dropping ultimatums and parroting slogans, ignoring all the facts and points I make, and essentially say, "I'm right, you're wrong. Haw haw." Are you familiar with "debating" at all?
I read the article. It goes under the assumption that peak oil is non-existent, which is a completely ignorant position to take. You haven't even debunked all the information I posted relating to falling oil production, and you're assuming off the bat it's all bunk and your proposition is correct? Your article doesn't even go into detail how oil depletion is not an issue; it primarily focuses on proving speculation increases prices, nothing further - so how the hell can you just say, "read dat article, yo" and expect me to be blown away and admit defeat? I actually agree that speculation influences prices - that's why I didn't post a rebuttal to your previous post - but to assume declining oil production has nothing to do with this increase is basically arguing with your head up your ass.
One line in your article caught my eye: ". . .given the unchanged equilibrium in global oil supply and demand over recent months. . ." Doesn't explain what this equilibrium is or what this assumption is based on. And it ignores the chaos among the largest oil producing nations in their production levels - this whole article goes under the assumption that peak oil is non-existent, when the data clearly show otherwise. Marion King Hubbert's theory on Peak Oil reflects the reality of oil field production - as production increases, it hits a peak where the most it will ever produce is extracted, and subsequently production falls into terminal decline. His three methods of predicting peak for certain oil fields accurately prophesied the US's oil peak in the 1970s, and oil peaks have been observed in fields around the world, such as the Cantarell supergiant field and the North Sea field, as well as total oil production in countries such as Venezuela, Germany, Tobago, France, Egypt, Iran, Russia, and Canada (not including bitumen).
Here's another line from your article: "Compelling evidence also suggests that the oft-cited geopolitical, economic, and natural factors do not explain the recent rise in energy prices can be seen in the actual data on crude oil supply and demand." Doesn't cite the "compelling evidence", doesn't say what the hell it is, and doesn't give one statistic from the "actual data" that is so decisive... how convenient. "Although demand has significantly increased over the past few years, so have supplies." A nice helping of bullshit; "supplies" have not increased whatsoever; oil PRODUCTION increases with increased development of fields that have not hit peak yet (as well as pumping sea water into oil wells to increase pressure and obtaining oil from "heavy" sources like bitumen, which is more costly than light oil), however the amount of oil in the ground is not increasing, but decreasing. Obviously they know jack shit about retrieving oil, hence their denial of the trends in oil fields and countries to peak then slide in a recession. Even the discovery of oil peaked in 1965; since then we've never discovered a field as massive as Guhwar. On average, the fields we discover are smaller and smaller.
"The conclusion that it's scarcity and demand (aside from inflation) is over-simplified and mis-informed."
You're the one who hasn't made a single damn argument against all the facts I've given. You voted both my comments down, so obviously what I said was wrong, but you don't even try to prove me wrong. I never said I rejected speculation's involvement with rising oil prices, however you have dismissed all other probabilities and embraced that alone, as can be seen by you claiming all other standpoints are too simplistic or misinformed. You make the assumption it's all the speculative market that's behind the price increase, and that's it (apart from inflation, which is the only other possibility you embrace)? You're the one over-simplifying things, not I.
Also, just saying "you're misinformed" doesn't make it the case. You actually have to... I don't know... offer an ARGUMENT or two to prove that allegation, maybe? Is it so hard to request that you actually debate my points rather than dismissing them and making ultimatums? It is? Well, get the hell off this debate site then.
Now that was fun (despite the fact I wasted 2 hours worth of research on a response to a person who can't formulate an argument). Oh, and one more thing: ERM!!!!!
"I would rather risk the extinction of a few animal species than continue to enrich and rely upon middle east oil."
ANWAR drilling won't do anything to solve that problem, sorry. You'd just be making a few species extinct while not even lightening our dependence on foreign oil.
"All that would do is bring our enemies closer to nuclear capabilities"
Which "enemies" are you talking about? None of the countries in the Middle East that have showed hostility to us, such as Libya, aren't even among the top 10 or even top 20 oil exporters to the U.S. And Iran, the big, bad country everyone fears will get nukes yet doesn't even have the infrastructure to delve into weapons research, doesn't sell oil to us in the first place, so a dependence on "Middle Eastern oil" has nothing to do with it. WHAT enemies are getting close to nuclear capabilities, and of these, which ones do we import substantial quantities of oil from?
While I do agree we should stop relying on Saudi oil, the whole thing about nuclear capabilities is a load of BS.
We've been drilling in Alaska for decades. Hell, Prudhoe Bay already passed peak in 1987.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
If you're talking about ANWAR, that's a different story. Drilling will be allowed if oil reaches $125 a barrel, according to the US Senate. We still have a few months until we get there. Now, if we were to reach that point, it would take at least a decade to get even a drop of oil out of that reserve. Why? Because it's spread out over 1.5 million acres of land (just 10.5 billion barrels, mind you), not in one field but scattered about. A large quantity of pipelines and facilities would need to be constructed all over this area to get the oil flowing, and that would take years to build and operate. And by the time we do get it operational, the rewards won't be all that spectacular.
Here are the facts: Currently we are importing around 12,604,000 barrels a day of foreign oil. ANWAR, at peak production (when it produces the largest quantity before it falls into terminal decline) will give us 870,000 barrels a day. You do the math.
"yeah, we need to stop buying foreign oil."
I have an idea - tell me if this is crazy or not - but how about we... I don't know... invest in alternative sources of energy so we don't NEED oil in the first place? Wouldn't that get us to stop buying foreign oil a lot faster than drilling in Alaska (which wouldn't do anything to reduce our dependence on foreign oil)? Trying to suck every last drop of oil out of the crust is just delaying the inevitable: oil will run out. It's a finite resource, and once the peak of a certain field is reached (when half the oil is depleted), production fails, so we don't even get all 10 billion barrels of oil because it'll reach a point where it's not cost-effective to continue to pump the oil if production is too low.
Should we drill for oil in Alaska? No, how about we invest in alternative sources of energy and eliminate our dependence on oil altogether? Because if our reliance on foreign oil is what you're worried about, then you'll be sad to hear that drilling in ANWAR won't help that at all.
"The Neumann's were silly to depend solely on prayers to restore their daughter's health."
Why not? You KNOW for a fact that god "helps" you, yes? Why wouldn't he "help" the Neumann's? If god is so all loving and wonderful as you claim, why take away that which the parents love so dear, when they were so loyal and respectful to him?
"trust his decision to take their daughter from them, in his infinite wisdom."
You have no reason to assume a god has infinite wisdom (you are assuming this, just like his very existence), and you certainly have no reason to respect the will of something that wants to kill your own child when you beg and plead for it not to, and it doesn't even tell you why the death is necessary. Instead of learning from the horror of the loss and donating to organizations helping other kids with diabetes, you'd rather just say, "well, god must have intended this to happen, so I guess all kids with diabetes deserve to die." I really hope you're not a parent, if you think children are so expendable.
"‘Prayers work’"
Still waiting for you to prove it. Come on, I don't have all eternity, now.
"you can’t always understand how so with your limited understanding of the universe"
You have just as limited an understanding of the universe as I. You're in no better position. Thus I play it safe and don't make assumptions about what might exist beyond our perception because I'll never be able to prove its existence. You, on the other hand, gleefully assume away and presume plenty of details outside our "limited understanding of the universe", even though you have no reason to whatsoever. Your whole belief is based on nothing but assumptions. They are erroneous, they are unwarranted, they are unfounded. And you even admit it.
"It would be unrealistic to try and prove it"
If you can't prove it, then WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IT? Are you familiar with the term, "intellectual dishonesty", by any chance?
"the same way as you can’t make a blind man see"
Not at all. A person with functional vision cannot make a blind man see the world, however that person HAS seen the world clearly, he knows for a fact it exists with his functional sensory organs. You even admit that your contention is based on faith alone, so you don't know any more than I do (yet you're the one making presuppositions of existence). So, no, I'm not blind, and you're no better sighted than I in this universe.
Also, I'd like to point out that it's not "in America" that prices of oil are increasing. Global prices for oil are rising, and while it's true that the inflation of the US dollar affects this, certain OPEC countries are now beginning to sell oil in Euros instead of the once-standard USD. Simply because the Euro is more stable in value than the US dollar - yet oil prices are still increasing, no matter what exchange standard is being used.
In fact, there is wide speculation that the Euro will replace the dollar as a global currency (such as Vladimir Putin suggesting Russia trade in Euros and not dollars). Losing out to the Euro as the global standard currency will cost us greatly in the long run - when our currency was the global standard, we were able to control commodities and resources much easier because it was our banks that had the power. Prices will inevitably go up, since we will no longer have that buying power.
So really it's a total [maelstrom of crappy circumstances] that causes oil prices to go up: The soon-to-be loss of global economic presence to the Euro, inflation of our dollar, peak oil, a growing demand for oil with a shrinking supply, and instability in the oil industries around the world.
Apart from an absurd level of inflation that has been occurring, the terminal decline in oil production in many countries can also be linked to rising oil prices. Geopolitics also play a hefty role, of course. Let's take a look at the data.
Top 10 US oil imports (as of Feb 08), in thousands of barrels per month:
1. Canada: 71,446
2. Saudi Arabia: 47,186
3. Mexico: 38,484
4. Venezuela: 32,810
5. Nigeria: 29,711
6. Iraq: 22,634
7. Russia: 13,083
8. Algeria: 11,135
9. Virgin Islands: 10,170
10. Angola: 10,148
(Taken from: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/
5 of the top 10 importers are OPEC nations; the 12 OPEC nations account for over 46% of US oil imports (compared to the 105 non-OPEC nations importing oil into the US). The Persian Gulf alone contributes 21% of imports.
Let's take a look our oil import buddies and see if we can find any cause, geopolitical or otherwise, that would affect gasoline prices:
Canada: Conventional oil production peaked in 1973, causing a gradual drop in conventional oil production - however, this was not noticed much because processing bitumen from oil sands has been making up for the loss. Today production of nonconventional oil from bitumen make up 20% of total oil production in Canada. In fact, 95 percent of Canada's proven oil reserves (which is second only to Saudi Arabia's) are made from oil sand deposits. Processing bitumen is a very costly process, requiring far more refinery work than conventional oil. For example, it takes $25 dollars per barrel to produce crude oil from oil sands - this compared to $5 for producing crude in the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia: Home of the largest oilfield in the world, Ghawar, producing 4.5 million barrels per day (the bulk of Saudi Arabia's oil supply comes from 8 massive fields - out of 80 total fields, and no more giant fields have been discovered since the 1970's). However, Ghawar's production has been declining as well - from 5.7 million barrels per day in 1981 to 4.5 million in 2001. Engineers who have worked on Ghawar have stated this decade will see Ghawar's peak (reports indicate 30-55% water cut, meaning that percentage of what comes from the well is water). The decline rate as of July 29, 2004, was 8%.
Mexico: On march 18, 2006, it was made public that the number two oilfield in the world (second to Ghawar), Mexico's mammoth Cantarell, had peaked. In 2004 it reached its highest output, 2.13 millions of barrels per day, and by 2006 it was at 1.9 mb/d, and in 2007 it was down to 1.5 mb/d.
Venezuela: Peaked in production in 1970, but increasing output by processing large oil sands reserves. In 2005, Hugo Chavez announced a plan to reduce his country's dependence on the U.S. oil market, after the Bush administration supported a failed coup against Chavez. Economic relations between the U.S. and Venezuela have suffered as a result. The recent dispute between Chavez and Exxon Mobil have prompted Chavez to cut off oil exports to the U.S. altogether (although he has not followed through with this threat as of yet).
Nigeria: A militant insurgency has lately lashed out in an attempt to cripple Nigeria's oil industry, in a war on foreign oil companies, reducing oil exports (such as when Chevron, Texaco, and Shell suspended production in 2006 following the murders and kidnappings of industry personnel). Nigeria's Delta province is estimated to hold vast reserves, however due to political instability, projects to capitalize on them remain under-developed.
Iraq: The economy remains unstable due to the ongoing conflict, and oil production is hindered as a result. Oil facilities have been targeted by insurgents throughout the operation (282 attacks total between April 2003 and October 2005). Production has declined to around 1.9 mb/d, and refineries are operating at half capacity, necessitating large refined oil imports of 200,000 barrels per day.
Russia: Production peaked in 1987, sharply dropped after the Soviet Union collapsed, but rose as investment increased in the industry. A second production peak has been predicted to hit in 2010. A lack of modern technology and many aging oil fields is hindering Russia's ability to maintain and expand production levels.
Algeria: A tax on oil was passed by Algeria's Parliament. This "excess" profits tax could vary from 5% to 50% on Algerian profits of foreign companies, thus increases the pice of oil to its buyers. They also passed a provision that Sonatratch, the country's oil monopoly, take a 51% controlling interest in all future production and refining contracts.
Virgin Islands: Couldn't find a lot of crises facing them, geopolitical or otherwise. Cool.
Angola: Once the civil war ended in 2002, Angola has stabilized and is steadily increasing its oil output. In the next 10 years, production will increase by 2 mp/d to 3.4 mp/d. However, there are signs it could turn into the next Algeria. Angola's most productive and future oil fields are within the exclave province of Cabinda. The huge royalties derived from Cabinda's oil production goes directly to Angola's capital, Luanda, with little returning in development funds for the province. The people of Cabinda recognize they should be some of the wealthiest people in Africa (with only 300,000 people in the province), and there is a long history of armed struggle for independence in that province (such as the Cabinda Liberation Front and Armed Forces of Cabinda). Angola might not be in a crisis at the moment, however there is a strong possibility of a Nigeria redux with insurgents striking against the country's oil industry.
So, I guess my answer to why oil prices are increasing are that, aside from inflation, the oil production of 8 of our top 10 oil imports is being hampered or even crippled in one fashion or another, affecting prices worldwide. Also remember that oil consumption is increasing globally as well. China and India are also developing at an accelerated rate, and their enormous populations will require an equally enormous amount of oil if development continues.
Increased demand + Decreased production = Increased prices.
"Told you it would get you squawking mad!"
You obviously haven't seen me on Stickam.
"'YOU WIN'"
It's not about winning, it's about the intellectual exchange of ideas. Gaining knowledge and new perspectives supersede any concept of "winning"; I'd much rather have you prove your point to me so I can learn something new, rather than say I "won".
"I don't expect you to be able to grasp anything that science can't prove"
You must have incentive to consider something is feasible before you get anywhere near proving it. The existence of the soul has no such incentive; it is an assumption, pure and simple.
"Neither do I expect you to be able to accept there’s a universe out there waiting to be discovered"
That I do accept.
"such as spirituality, religion, metaphysics, philosophy and the likes"
All are based on conjecture, not any empirical evidence (except for philosophy, but that's not pseudoscience; it's social science).
"I guess I am pretty simple compared to your superior intellect and reasoning"
Never said I had superior intellect, never intended to imply such. This isn't about trying to prove who's smarter, it's about proving which position is the most valid. Being concerned with personal ego issues like who's smarter is being "out for yourself", as you like to say, while I'm out for the truth (or the closest thing there is to it).
"Now will you please go away and get on someone else’s case?"
Getting on someone's "case" is not the point. Debating is the point (go figure). If you make a comment that another person objects to, don't be surprised to find said person challenging your position. It's perfectly legitimate to argue against your position if I find it to be complete BS. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Whoops, there I go writing another essay. But this'll be my last comment on this topic, if you really wish to cease the debate. Just wanted to clarify a few things.
"Told you it would get you squawking mad!"
You obviously haven't seen me on Stickam.
"'YOU WIN'"
It's not about winning, it's about the intellectual exchange of ideas. Gaining knowledge and new perspectives supersede any concept of "winning"; I'd much rather have you prove your point to me so I can learn something new, rather than say I "won".
"I don't expect you to be able to grasp anything that science can't prove"
You must have incentive to consider something is feasible before you get anywhere near proving it. The existence of the soul has no such incentive; it is an assumption, pure and simple.
"Neither do I expect you to be able to accept there’s a universe out there waiting to be discovered"
That I do accept.
"such as spirituality, religion, metaphysics, philosophy and the likes"
All are based on conjecture, not any empirical evidence (except for philosophy, but that's not pseudoscience; it's social science).
"I guess I am pretty simple compared to your superior intellect and reasoning"
Never said I had superior intellect, never intended to imply such. This isn't about trying to prove who's smarter, it's about proving which position is the most valid. Being concerned with personal ego issues like who's smarter is being "out for yourself", as you like to say, while I'm out for the truth (or the closest thing there is to it).
"Now will you please go away and get on someone else’s case?"
Getting on someone's "case" is not the point. Debating is the point (go figure). If you make a comment that another person objects to, don't be surprised to find said person challenging your position. It's perfectly legitimate to argue against your position if I find it to be complete BS. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Whoops, there I go writing another essay. But this'll be my last comment on this topic, if you really wish to cease the debate. Just wanted to clarify a few things.
"The memory itself, or the instance, did not oringinate [sic] from yer [sic] brain, which is what I'm sayin [sic]."
The "instance" was perceived by our brain, the memory originates from our brain because it is there where it was created. If you have proof that memory is somehow created outside our brain then implanted in, I'd love to hear it. It'd be nice to have some actual FACTS to argue instead of your baseless conjecture.
"I think I got that even if I can't take out time to read through each of your repetetive [sic] lines and the links you send."
So you are aware that memories are CREATED IN THE BRAIN, thus your previous point that memories somehow exist separately from the brain is moot, thus your claim that the self exists beyond the physical body just became all the weaker. Thanks for making my job a lot easier.
"I'm talking about a state of being that obviously doesn't need a body, or a brain to create or process memories."
Before you can even discuss that you have to establish what a "state of being" is. That implies that "we" are separate from our physical bodies, thus can exist elsewhere. However, we have seen that a sense of self is produced by the functions of the brain as a culmination of sensory input. Without a brain, there is nothing to gain sensory input from the environment to experience the physical world, thus have awareness, let alone self-awareness. And if you contend that awareness can be possible, you'd have to provide a lot of argumentation as to how awareness is even possible without the organic functions of a brain. So why don't you explain, in detail, how an entity can exist without a physical body. While you're at it, explain how it can maintain any kind of identity since the brain's chemical processes generate one's unique personality.
"I don't have the motivation to post detailed discussions that invlove [sic] my personal research"
Don't worry; based on your track record I wasn't expecting otherwise.
"May be I'll share it sometime, but its futile if you're thick as a walnut."
I don't know if you've been reading your own comments with a critical eye, but if we were to look at one of our exchanges, what do we see? I attempt to press points, give counter-arguments, be as thorough as possible with stating the logic behind my arguments, and post links to reference material to back up my allegations. You often take one or two quotes that aren't even dealing with the real meat of a comment and offer weak arguments against it, make claims and allegations with nothing more than pure conjecture to back it up, refuse to address points brought up by cited material, make broad assumptions, and ignore any valid points the opposition makes. This, coupled with your inability to read properly (especially reference material), shows that you might have the whole "thick as a walnut" line (which was another claim made without any stated reasons) backwards.
"I can use the same to argue that the brain is just an organ that allows you to process the memory into your physical form, not the memory itself, which exists in history regardless of whether your brain has lost its ability to recall it."
Scientists have identified how memories are recorded, registered, and stored in the brain, physically. The brain creates memory, it does not merely process it. Also, clarify on what you mean by "which exists in history". What history? And how does exist? The memory encoded within your brain exists, yes, even if certain faculties are disabled to inhibit accessing that memory. However, it still exists within the brain. If you can somehow prove it exists outside the brain (in some fashion or another), I'm sure the neurologist community would shower you with awards and praise.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/
"You're out to prove that God doesn't exist."
Read my post before responding.
"Not the same, as I argued from a psychological perspective aside from religious views."
Once more, read my post. I offered a counter-argument from the psychological perspective as well. Did you read that part at all? Obviously not.
"God helps me with that, so my prayers aren't futile in any case."
Prove god is involved with prayer in any way, shape or form, before judging whether praying is effective or not. If your contention is that your prayers are effective because god helps you, that is not a solid statement since the idea of god is conjecture, not an established fact. Therefore, you're basing your contention on a false premise.
"However, I do trust in God."
Irrelevant to the issue.
"your objectives come before your beleifs [sic], it seems (since you don't have any)."
Not speaking for myself - there are plenty of other examples of unanswered prayers, many of them from devout religious people (such as the Neumann's). Did you even read the article I posted in the other column on the effectiveness of prayer?
Also, are you implying I have no "objectives" or I have no "beleifs [sic]"? Either way, you have no idea to tell for certain; you've never met me in person, the only time we've interacted was on this website, you don't know who I am, yet you somehow are able to ascertain that I have no "beleifs [sic]" or "objectives"? How does that work?
"You can be sure you'll get exactly what you deserve."
So you're saying Madeline Neumann's parents were not good, obedient followers of god, even though they were evangelicals and let religion practically run their life? Somehow they were not worthy enough to have their daughter saved? Read my post in the other column for a more detailed argument. If you believe you can refute my position by debunking the research and argumentation presented there, please do so.
I know you said you wouldn't continue in this forum, Mumin; however you've deleted my comments on your page asking for evidence to prove that my position is false (as you have claimed multiple times without producing documents or records refuting me), and now that you have declared me an enemy, I cannot comment on your page anymore. So hopefully this time you'll put your money where your mouth is.
I'll take the initiative in providing a source supporting my position. In Islam's very own scripture, the Sahih Bukhari Hadiths, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64, it is written:
"that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years..." This is also restated in the following verse, Number 65.
Here are a few online translations of the Hadith concurring on this interpretation (also, these are not atheist, Christian, or Jewish websites, so don't try to claim they are biased):
(http://www.ikfm.se/ig/albukhari/
(http://www.luvu4luv.com/
(http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/
(http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/hadith/
Now it's your turn, Mumin. Since you're so confident that I am wrong, you must have a bounty of contrary information with reputable sources to back it all up with, correct? Let's hear it.
"God answers prayers"
Prove it.
http://www.livescience.com/health/
"the power of vocalizing your ultimate objectives that you want to see through would definitely improve your efforts"
The psychological benefits you mention are by no means exclusive to prayer itself. Seeking counsel with trusted friends or family members offers the same confidence and vocalizes your objectives. In fact, I think speaking to other humans is even more reassuring because there's no doubt that they are listening. Psychologists also can give counsel. Whereas you make a request to the idea of god and don't get any response back confirming that he heard you, other humans give affirmations. Also, there are people who do mistake prayer as being the solution to all their problems, and their faith in prayer can erode their sense of responsibility. Not saying this is always the case, but I've known a few theists who put too much faith in an unknown entity to run their life.
I'm not denying prayer has its benefits, psychologically (although these can easily be gained through other methods); I just deny that god answers prayers because it's not even known whether a god exists or not, and even if it was known, there's still no evidence indicating it answers prayers. It may be that the self-confidence some achieve through prayer is what helps them achieve their goals - not divine influence. This would explain the inconsistency in prayer answering much better than the cop-outs generally used by theists.
"he same way as you aren't a religious scholar, a philosopher or a sea monkey"
You used the phrase "I'd say" when speaking about what the brain's function is. That's much more daring than anything I've said; I actually try to take information from external sources.
You don't seem to comprehend that consciousness and self-awareness are not independent of the brain, they are PRODUCED by the brain. Therefore your argument that they continue to exist after we die is moot.
"using this organic machinery to operate in the physical realm"
You're using backwards logic; we have observed consciousness and self-awareness to be tied directly to the brain. This indicates consciousness is produced by the brain - you say that the consciousness existed before it happened to possess the body or something to that effect. You have no evidence to this claim whatsoever and therefore that argument is moot as well.
Prayers have a number of logical flaws inherent in their very design, the foremost of which is lack of evidence that they are even answered. While some people claim their prayers have been answered in the past, obviously there is a multitude of other people who have not had their requests fulfilled, often for vital issues. Here are two extreme examples:
1. President George Bush praying for the people of New Orleans right after they were hit by hurricane Katrina, displacing thousands of people. Great load of good that did.
2. Madeline Neumann, an 11-year old girl, died of diabetes. Her parents opted for prayer instead of taking her to the hospital when she showed very noticeable signs of illness and weakening. For 30 days her insulin level dropped, dying as her parents prayed (knowing that she had diabetes).
Here's an article with some research done on the effectiveness of prayer: http://www.livescience.com/health/
Naturally, religious people have rushed to generate excuses for unanswered prayers. The most common excuses are:
1) There is no unanswered prayer; God just answers them in different ways than we expect them. If that is the case, what is the point of praying in the first place, especially if fatal consequences result? And even if you believe that God had answered the prayer in such a way that it appears he didn't do anything for you, HOW is that any proof that prayer is effective, in any way?
2) God chooses not to answer them. Obviously a convenient cop-out; if your prayer is not answered, why doubt the validity or effectiveness of praying when you can just assume God simply chose not to answer it? This also produces the problem that you essentially get a 50/50 chance at your prayer being fulfilled. That's the same chance you get if you were to just hope for something to happen, or carry a lucky object with you to somehow increase the chances of something good happening to you. This in no way indicates a divine power.
3) You don't believe deeply enough/ didn't pray hard enough/ lacked faith in the baby Jeebus/ etc. So only believers are able to use prayer, and if their prayers are unanswered then they just didn't pray hard enough? You think Madeline Neuman's parents prayed hard enough, considering they did so for 30 days straight? Once more, a cop-out.
For a bit of scientific research on how effective prayer is (yes, those pesky scientists are foiling religious dogma once more), check out this article: http://www.livescience.com/health/
There is no evidence that prayer does help. It's a 50/50 chance to get what you want, which are the odds you have if you do nothing. Thus, there's no reason to believe prayer works in the first place. If prayer worked for you, bravo, now explain how my prayers were never answered (back when I was a Christian and did have faith), or why Neuman's parents didn't have their prayers answer. Hell, tell me what makes you so special that the being who CREATED THE UNIVERSE spends his time and attention catering to your need?
Prayer is good for people who have nothing else to turn to and need comfort. Hoping that this theoretical being will take care of you does provide some solace (at least, to those who don't mind the possibility of it not existing in the first place). Then again, talking with a close friend or family member does the same. And one detrimental effect of prayer is that is erode's a person's self-reliance, putting his or her life in the hands of some unknown force, rather than taking control and responsibility themselves. For more on self-reliance, here's an interesting article from a book on Theosophy:
Before prayer can be considered valid, we need some powerful evidence, such as multiple prayers being answered of things that were incredibly unlikely if not impossible to have occurred otherwise (without any human influence). As it stands, prayer is indeed nonsense.
The majority of your comment is pure conjecture, until you put forth your only concrete evidence: "official letters from Jesus' apostles of the time period". Could you perhaps post a link or two detailing the nature of these letters, when they were written, what they said, who they were addressed to, etc.?
Also, there have been plenty of people who willingly die for their beliefs - doesn't make their convictions any more tangible than anyone else's. Suicide bombers do this on a daily basis. Is that proof that their god is real? No. Same goes for Jesus' apostles.
And finally... do you think it's appropriate to explain what Jesus was to you when you haven't even proven his existence yet? You kind of have to do the argumentation first, then your opinion second.
"his argument and the one above it clearly show the authors have so self respect, or respect for others."
How the hell did you manage to deduce that? You don't think that a person who feels they have a right to control their life can possibly respect themselves, or respect other people? Please explain to me how it "shows" that I have no self respect or respect for others. I'd love to hear your logic behind that utterly inept accusation. Especially with the "respect for others" part - affirming my right to die if I'm in incredible amounts of pain is somehow not respecting other people? How so?
Personally I'm more into R&B;-based rock than I am in pop rock. They both were very influential bands in their own right, and I like the more political nature of the Beatles' later songs, however I personally like the Rolling Stones' music better. You just can't beat Paint It Black (which was one of the first well-known rock songs in a Natural Minor key, which was a huge development in having more varied rock sounds and feels).
Tests just measure your ability to memorize facts or formulas. Homework and classwork reinforce learning so students can retain the information they are exposed to. If you pass a final exam, you could either know the material very well or studied like hell for a few days for that one test while slacking off an all other classwork.
Having the final exam being the only important assignment to passing a class will undoubtedly encourage students to not even attempt homework assignments or other classwork, or study for other tests. Not a very efficient system of education (if imparting knowledge is the actual goal, rather than receiving a piece of paper to show off and get a better job, whether or not competence was required to obtain said piece of paper).
That said, I don't think students should automatically fail the class if they don't pass the final; if grades really did reflect the learning progress of a particular student, I think the overall grade should be important. Though grades don't always ensure a student getting the most out of an education. Back when I was in high school, I passed Geometry with flying colors (class rank 1), but subsequently forgot 70% of what we learned in that class over the summer. Not very good when a year and a half later I took the SAT's. That sucked.
Also, I haven't read the God delusion. Congrats for being presumptuous. And do you really think being a Catholic had anything to do with Gutenberg being an inventor? You think religion breeds invention or something? Do you believe those without religion do not have inventive or creative minds? That's a rather inept statement to make.
"nearly 83% of American's believe in the divine power of Jesus Christ"
Irrelevant. They were taught as children to believe in the mythological "diving power" as a truth, going purely on faith - they don't believe it because it's proven or a fact. It's actually sad so many choose to believe in a folk story to inspire changes in their lives; it shows how people can't really rely upon their own strength of will to make the correct choices on their own.
"he is fact or fiction a historical figure"
Doesn't mean he is real. If I said I thought Anubis was the most respectable person in history, would you think that's a valid choice? No, because Anubis was a fictional mythological figure, as was the Jewish messiah (even if a man with that name did live at one point 2000 years ago, there's still no empirical evidence showing he was the son of a god [whose existence is even more heavily disputed] and was resurrected).
I'm pretty sure the creator of this debate intended for REAL people to be chosen, not debatable mythological figures. I could cite any number of inspiring fictional characters, such as Frodo or Jean Valjean, and I'd probably take a lot of heat for it. And you're surprised about someone opposing your choice?
"Prove it. Self awareness and consciousness are absolutely personal to the subject."
Yes, because the subject's brain generates what we would call consciousness. And once the brain dies, it's over. We have every reason to believe this is the case and none to believe there is something apart from the physical operations of the brain that somehow "lives on" once the brain is shut off. You're the one who has to prove that something does continue to exist that is intrinsic in the "identity (which is a culmination of electric impulses, memories and features of the brain itself)" of the person who dies.
"The brain is an organ that helps you process your thoughts, I'd say, rather than being the thought itself."
Are you a neurobiologist, by any chance? If not, then I don't recommend saying "I'd say" when speaking of science. Neurobiologists have found a strong correlation between the physical operations of the brain and the formation of what one would call a consciousness. Neuroscientists have observed humans exhibiting a loss of consciousness due to brain conditions such as PVS (Present Vegetative State), or epileptic seizures. Other biological causes of a loss of consciousness, such as cardiac problems, can be found here:
(http://www.medterms.com/script/main/
There is a connection between what is understood to be consciousness and biological mechanisms, indicating that consciousness is indeed a product of higher cognitive centers in the brain. People in PVS, for example, lose higher cerebral powers of the brain yet maintain sleep-wake cycles and partial or full autonomic functions. Comparative studies done with fully awake subjects show a much lower level of cortex function in the PVS subjects, as well as an impaired connectivity between the lower and the upper areas of the brain.
Do we know for a fact that consciousness ceases? No, but due to the correlating evidence linking brain function to consciousness, we have much more reason to assume it does cease when the brain shuts down than it somehow continuing to exist without any biological mechanisms to process sensory information. Self-awareness is the culmination of sensory input, therefore consciousness could be described as a processing of that input, rather than a separate entity altogether.
"You're debate is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at anti-islamization"
No. Muhammad slept with a 9 year old. He's technically a pedophile. That's all that's on the table right now, whether he's a pedophile or not. If you want to excuse his behavior, that's your prerogative. However you can't deny that he was a pedophile nonetheless. It's not "anti-islamization (whatever the hell that means)" to state a commonly known - and accepted - fact.
Jesus Christ's existence is still disputed. And if he did exist, there is no evidence he was "without sin", and no evidence that he was sent by some divine power to "save all". If you want to believe that, go ahead. Just don't try to claim it as a solid fact, because it isn't.
The more reliant we are on technology, the more it'll hurt if we lose that. We depend on this artificial environment we have built called society - away from natural selection. If we were pitted against the forces of nature without technology, I'm sure many 1st world people would die.
I'm not sure if we can dig ourselves out of this "hole" without forsaking technology completely (which would result in a massacre and halt all scientific progress in discovering the mysteries of the universe, which I think is something we're obligated to do as self-aware beings). Maybe we can't. All we can do is hope society keeps progressing, however due to crises such as peak oil the future is uncertain.
Really the only thing we can do is enjoy it while we still have it. What else is there to do?
If we continue to breed at the rate we are, then no. Peak oil is still a big obstacle to overcome; switching to renewable sources of energy would be a difficult task in itself. And that's just energy - we'd still have to find a substitute for oil in manufacturing the thousands of products that depend on oil (such as plastics, which alone encompass a massive portion of manufactured goods). Food items depend on oil as well, and shipping rations via air to starving regions of the world may prove to be infeasible if an energy source is not found to replace jet fuel.
I hope that technological advancements can keep up with population increases. However, peak oil, land loss, and cropland destruction may prove to be formidable obstacles to stall scientific advancements. The fact is that we are reproducing at an unsustainable rate, and when the former science capital of the world has degenerated to a nation of couch potatoes, spending money on a pointless war and squandering money it doesn't have, things look grim.
"So really, we just gotta stop having so many kids!"
Bingo. China had the right idea when they implemented their birth policy, however their culture made it go to hell. Males were valued more than females throughout China's history, and this cultural belief still carries on to this day, making the ratio of males to females in China greater. Sucks for them, but hopefully if a similar policy were to be implemented in the US and other first world countries, people might have more common sense.
I wanted to make it clear I wasn't advocating mass genocide because, as seen with Dr. Pianka, there are some people who jump to conclusions and assume anyone speaking of the dangers of overpopulation are Nazis or mass murderers or other likewise absurd labels.
I do agree with your point on less resource consumption; I don't think it's too much to ask for first world nations (particularly the US) to limit power consumption or develop methods of saving energy, as well as evolving our technology to be more environmentally friendly and energy efficient (or at least using renewable sources of energy).
The resource crisis has two sides to it: technological limits and environmental limits. For example, as oil goes into terminal decline worldwide, there will be lest petroleum to fuel the machinery needed to extract more oil, or not enough funds for the companies to continue excavation prospects (cost to benefit ratio). There is predicted to be enough oil to last for 27 years (at our current rate of consumption, which is growing yearly). Due to the increased consumption and the aforementioned technology problem, oil likely won't last two decades, possibly in 10-15 years.
The shrinking farmland is a major issue that's primarily environmental - sure, cities can be built on the expanding deserts, however the loss of fertile cropland would be a huge blow to global food supply. Already wheat prices are rising sharply, and when more cropland is either destroyed due to over plowing or rising sea levels (for delta farmlands), the prices will continue to rise. And with wheat fields being destroyed, the thousands of kinds of foods made with wheat will also increase in price. Will it be apocalyptic? No, but it sure as hell won't be pretty.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with the 4 sq metre house argument. Cramming as many people in as small a space as possible really doesn't sound like a tantalizing solution to the issue, and you also must account for the space needed for a bed, a toilet, a food storage space, a water source, as well as any personal belongings one owns. And people also need jobs, so more structures there. Roads to provide travel, stores to buy food, public services... it's not as simple as housing everyone on the planet in sheds.
And waiting for the population to level off isn't that great of a solution either. By then oil will be gone completely, the human population will increase to 12 billion people (in the worst case scenario), and society will be unsustainable. Even if people decided to forgo modern appliances and technology and attempt to live off the land (since that might be the only alternative if infrastructure fails), the temperature increase from global warming, coupled with the damage of the natural environment (in particular the infertility of cropland), would kill off hundreds of millions of people, if not billions. And if first world nations find alternative sources of energy to run their society, the food crisis would still be a problem, and the people in third world nations might starve. As the population gets bigger, fewer people will be able to live with the modern technology and luxuries available to first world nations, and more people will be stuck at the bottom with poor health services, inadequate dwellings, much less food, etc.
Not trying to paint some doomsday picture, but things will not be good if we continue breeding and consuming at our current rate, just waiting for the population to level off. The core of this issue is sustainability, and 12 or even 9 billion people is not a sustainable population. The discrepancy between the wealthy and the impoverished will become greater and greater.
Another issue about overpopulation is the threat of disease. With land loss from rising sea levels and heightened immigration at people leave infertile croplands to head into larger cities, population density increases. This means a higher chance for a pandemic of a deadly and highly contagious virus to occur. Ebola, while not dangerous on a large scale currently, could reach pandemic status if an outbreak occurred in a densely populated city. Not good.
I think limiting the points one can add to a debate is a good idea. Actually, it'd be nice if the whole down/up voting system was removed (or at least, have the moderator choose whether to allow votes or not), then people can stop "voting" and actually present counter-arguments.
It reminds me of Youtube where your comment can be down-voted into nonexistence, not necessarily because the comment was offensive or pointless, but the majority of people who saw it didn't agree with your position, so they voted it down. Meanwhile, short, offensive, even ignorant comments are voted up because they voiced the most popular position.
Of course, removing the voting system would mean getting rid of the "efficiency" stat, which wouldn't be good, so I guess a limit would be a better improvement.
It may level off the world population growth, but did you read the part in my comment about how if everyone in the world consumed as much as the average American, the earth could only sustain a
population of 1.8 billion people (and even if everyone didn't, they still would consume a far greater amount of natural resources than they would have in a 3rd or 2nd world country)? If we had infinite resources and land, this would be no problem and I would agree with you. However, a huge detrimental factor of population growth is resource depletion, and bringing all countries to 1st world status would cause an unprecedented depletion of natural resources; we'd probably spend all the oil, natural gas and goal to provide energy to the world, which would greatly increase CO2 emissions, cause the water levels to rise even more rapidly, and possibly cause another mass extinction as indicated by the article I posted in the Peak Oil debate (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/
About your inverse correlation - true, but not quite as you stated. As nations are modernized, death rates decrease as more advanced health services are made available. Take Sri Lanka for instance; in 1945 the death rate was 22/1000. In 1946, a large-scale mosquito-control program using DDT was implemented, greatly reducing the number of malaria cases. The death rate dropped to 10/1000 in nine years, and by 2006, it was 6/1000. A decline in birth rates occurred, however at a much slower rate (19/1000 in 2006). While there is a loose negative correlation, it is not always the case, and more often than not the decline in birth rates happens at a much slower pace than the decline in death rates, still resulting in an increase in population growth (take a look at this graph of China's population/birth rate/death rate from 1949-1996: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/
And, just for reference sake: I'm not saying "SCREW ALL SUFFERING PEOPLE!" or anything to that effect; I wish there was a way to have everyone have an equal shot at living a good life without worrying about starving or being killed in a war or whatnot, but we can't possibly achieve that at our current rate. That's the crappy part about this population problem.
The issue I take with the whole "god is a viable explanation for the origins of the universe" argument is that there's absolutely no basis for that statement. Why even bring it up? There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate any type of involvement from some "higher power" that's beyond our existence and understanding.
All the arguments for the existence of god, such as the universe is too complicated to exist without a creator (to this I argue that a universe coming into existence through natural forces and gradually producing complex lifeforms is a lot more plausible than a complex being already existing and manually creating a universe through incomprehensible mechanisms); the universe is magnificent/beautiful/wonderful/etc.; or "I feel the baby Jesus in my heart", are all based on subjective opinions. We have evidence for the big bang, yet don't know what came before it. Theists are of the OPINION that the universe is too "perfect" for us (a futile argument in and of itself) to exist without a conscious creator. This is an assumption, born out of personal bias, with absolutely no hard, empirical evidence to back it up with. Therefore, the possibility of a god shouldn't even be on the table for discussion.
Let's think about this: would scientists really spend their time not looking for the natural causes of the big bang, but rather searching for some scrap of evidence to hint at the existence of a theoretical being that allegedly exists beyond this universe's existence even though no empirical evidence has turned up to even consider it as a scientific possibility? It's a wild goose chase because there's no incentive to chase the idea in the first place; only personal, biased beliefs.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the subject, and I do not try to debase someone else's faith if it gives them comfort (provided they aren't annoying or harming other people because of it), however don't try to bring the idea of a conscious creator being into the scientific realm for debate, because there's nothing to go on. No reason to disprove it if there's nothing indicating it was even partially "proved" in the first place. The god idea isn't even a theory. It's an idea, a belief.
"How much more grand the world/universe have to be to make it amazing?"
"Grand" and "amazing" are both subjective terms invented by humans to describe what they see. Do you think chimpanzees look at the beauty of the night sky? Do you believe an ostrich contemplates the enormity of the world it lives in? Most importantly, do you think anyone's going to be praising a theorized "god" in a few thousand or even a few million years when the human race is gone? No, because the conscious minds that invented the idea of god, as well as the concepts of beauty and grandeur, will be gone.
You may think the universe is grand (as I do), but that does not mean it is objectively so; it is only grand by our standards, grand by our subjective perception of the universe. You can't use an opinion as fact or evidence of anything.
"Humans were the lucky winners in evolution, that should be enough reason to believe a god is looking out for you."
Do you think gorillas believe the same thing? How about parrots? Gophers? Dolphins? Again, you're bringing your own personal interests in to use as evidence. If dinosaurs were capable of higher cognitive functions, do you think they would have believed in a god or whatnot, using the same reason as you? Perhaps, right up until they were wiped off the face of the planet.
You're only seeing purpose and favor because you're alive. You won't be after a few decades. And the human race will be extinct in time, just like all the extinct species who came before us. And if no other species evolves to have consciousness, to have self-awareness, then where is the purpose there? There is none, because there's no mind to devise the concept of purpose.
Now, personally I think one could weasel his way into saying there's no conflict in the question, however your particular argument holds no water because it is based on a heavily biased opinion.
Here's some information on overpopulation for anyone who's interested:
The current human population is roughly 6.67 billion people worldwide (according to the U.S. Census Bureau). Resource depletion increases along with the population. The energy crisis is easily explainable using Harvard professor John Holdren's formula for finding energy consumption: E = P x e (where E = total energy use, P = population, e = energy use per capita). As societies become more developed, population growth increases as technology advances - and energy consumption increases as well. For example, in terms of oil use, adding one person to the US is akin to adding 15 in China.
Energy is only the tip of the iceberg, however. Productive land is also shrinking, as deserts are spreading due to overstocking grasslands and over plowing land. In China, 1,400 square miles of (at least partially) fertile land were lost to desert annually by 2000. Rising sea levels due to burning fossil fuels also shrinks available land - this century seas may rise 4 to 35 inches, however with the explosion in fossil fuel burning the number could be far greater. The Greenland ice sheet is thawing, and if it were to melt it would raise sea levels by 23 feet (7 meters). To put this in perspective, a one meter rise would destroy cropland in many of the deltas and flood-plains of Thailand, Vietnam, India, Indonesia, and China. 7 meters would displace cities worldwide.
The population is growing at an alarming rate - in the US, another person is born every 11 seconds. This is significant because the average American consumes 20 times as much in natural resources as the average African, and consumes as much oil as 15 Chinese. The US has only 5% of the world's population yet accounts for almost a quarter of global emissions. Now imagine if China catches up in terms of technology and natural resource use. If every nation consumed as much resources as the US, the world could only support 1.8 billion people (roughly the population in 1915).
Dr. Eric Pianka has done several seminars regarding overpopulation and the dangers of it; quite often conspiracy theorists claimed he advocated mass killings to reduce the population to further a "new world over". Even though he never made such a proposition - he was attacked by those who don't want to face the facts.
Here's a link to his site with a video on overpopulation (if you don't have 25 minutes to spare to see the whole thing, there's a shorter one that gets the basic idea across):
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/
What can be done to somehow moderate this population explosion? Or, more specifically, what peaceful actions can we take? What nonviolent policies will be effective in controlling population growth? Or is this too taboo of a subject to discuss, and you would rather ignore the issue? Some animals regulate their fertility if food becomes scarce - why can't we do the same?
I have some ideas of my own but I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on the subject.
If it's government funded, then corporations wouldn't have as stringent a control over the results as the pharmaceutical industry. One reason why medication is so expensive these days is because pharmaceutical corporations spend hundreds of millions of dollars just on R&D;for a new drug. After testing and making modifications to pass FDA standards, the costs of producing and marketing the drug are huge. If stem cell research were privatized, treatments given based on the findings would be very expensive - more so than if the government covered R&D;costs. And if health insurance companies were to not cover stem cell-based treatments, those in the middle and lower socioeconomic classes would likely not be able to afford them.
Either way, companies will make profits off stem cell technology, but the cost of treatments would probably be far greater than if the government subsidized the research. Of course, with the Iraq war and our mountainous deficit, the chances of the government funding this already controversial prospect are slim, and the large number of citizens against additional domestic spending won't likely take this lying down.
"Once you get above 50 billion, the number is basically meaningless."
Not if you try to make the claim that only half of all humans who were born have died - which is a horrendous statistical inaccuracy, by the way. And yes, you will die, based on the general trend we've observed with every form of life to ever exist.
Bravo on bringing Global Warming into this - the two issues are intricately linked. The trick is to wean ourselves off carbon-based fuels altogether; when oil production craps out totally, coal and natural gas will be used to provide electricity, however these will continue to produce greenhouse gases and accelerate global warming (since coal is even more harmful to the environment than oil). They are likewise in finite quantities, so they are a temporary fix at best yet still will do damage.
If manic weather patterns, increased global temperatures and the destruction of many species of animals as habitats are turned upside down, aren't enough of a motivation to at least try to quell global warming in addition to peak oil, read this article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/
Now, this is the Permian extinction we're talking about, the most massive extinction in earth's history (90% of ALL life was wiped out). That's a crapload of bad news, if global warming trends continue. It may not necessarily cause an extinction as massive as the Permian, however those frozen peat bogs in Siberia might release millions of tons of toxic methane into the atmosphere if thawed... and that can't be good.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/
Snowball effect, anyone?
"I believe it was some diety or force which acts outside what humans perceive as logical."
Do you have any evidence that it was a diety? A force is one thing, but a conscious entity? You'd definitely need some backing information that would indicate a higher being's involvement if you want to pass that off as a plausible answer.
New oil reserves found "on a regular basis"? Can you maybe cite some statistics to back this up? Here's a few for you to look at:
http://www.lastoilshock.com/map.html
http://dieoff.org/42Countries/
http://www.ccs.neu.
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2325
To understand this you really must study up on geophysicist Marion King Hubbert's theory on Peak Oil which was published in 1956. He subsequently devised THREE separate methods for predicting peak oil, which were all extremely accurate. For simplicity's sake, here's a Wikipedia article summing up the basics of his peak theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
I highly suggest The Last Oil Shock by David Strahan, which covers an immense amount of ground on this issue. A very well-documented book and backed by over 360 sources (including government documents released under the Freedom of Information Act). A very good read with some fantastic journalism behind it. Peak Oil isn't disputed; even Dick Cheney admitted that oil production is in decline.
It's quite simple... oil is not a renewable resource. Production and discovery are declining yearly. The largest oil reserves have already been discovered, now smaller and smaller ones are left (and those only two football fields in area or smaller are not cost-effective to drill). Peak oil is a fact, it's already happening. The North Sea recently peaked and now its production is in terminal decline. The US hit peak in 1970 - right in line with Hubbert's prediction.
If we don't do something by the time oil runs out, it'll be too late. All our energy and production capacity will be halted, the multitude of products (such as plastics, styrofoam, as well as hundreds of types of food products) that depend on oil will cease to be produced, transportation will stop (which means no air or sea shipping). It's not so simple as "let's just wait until it runs out and then we'll figure something out".
Our society is built on oil. If we don't wean ourselves off of it immediately, we will crash and may never recover.
You're claiming a higher power exists, however we don't know it exists and we cannot possibly comprehend it exists. I never claimed we know all there is, however you are making an assumption that because we do not know everything, that means there MUST be a higher power somewhere. Your rhetoric portrays certainty, yet there is no possible way for you to be certain because, as you stated, we don't know everything about the universe.
Hence my asking for proof of this alleged "higher power" that you jump to saying exists.
