Story's still going, brother. Or did you not notice that the world continued rotating so the western hemisphere faces the sun again today? As far as I can see, time did not stop, nor did scientific debate.

And what is this revolution you speak of? Crusading is soooo last millenium.

Ok, misunderstood what you meant. No, the slaughterhouse I attended did not seem to abuse animals in any way (exception for the tour?) and maybe that might have affected me differently, though I can honestly say that at least for myself, I doubt it. However, I may now be an active member of PETA ... heh.

As far as the farmland goes, I did not mean to suggest what takes more to farm, merely suggesting that, because of how many people are in the world and the growing demand for food, clearing land for farming destroys ecosystems. Fertilizers can do harm to streamlife, as does animal waste product. Pesticides do the same to some local flora just as they do their intended crop targets, killing insects that feed the local fauna and poison streams as well.

Do we do away with fertilizers and pesticides? Certainly they help maintain the food supply and protect farmer interests. What steps must be taken to do away with both and still ensure that large portions of crops be protected for human consumption?

I'm sorry to bump this old thread up, but I'm new to the forums and there's not many new topics going on so ...

As far as I've understood it (with the help of Richard Dawkins, but I've taken some liberties). There's:

1. Fundamentalists - those who believe in their holy book as the source of all knowledge, undeniably. There is no room for discussion or possibility otherwise. Their minds are (usually) eternally made up.

2. Moderates - those who believe the tenets, but believe the holy book is merely a guideline for behavior.

3. Agnostics - those who do not commit to the idea of (or lack of) God, either way. Empirical evidence is lacking (or they just don't think about it) so they're withholding judgment.

4. Atheists - (Dawkins said the following for Agnostics) those who hold to the idea that, based on a lack of empirical evidence and the weight of what is most probable, there likely is no God.

5. Anti-theists - (Dawkins said the following for atheists, but George Carlin was an Anti-theist, so I made adjustments) just as bad as the fundamentalists. They believe, without doubt that there is no God, there is no room for discussion or possibility because the decision has been made to them already.

LOL. Same here. But yes, I've seen it. Also saw a billboard with the following adorable quote:

God is dead.
-Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead.
-God

Nice, Arcamedees.

If God loves everyone, why would no one deserve to see Heaven? That's like telling my daughter "I love you, but you can't live in my house. Ever, unless you prove yourself worthy." I've heard of tough love, but ... forcing my daughter to live in a tarpit for the rest of her life because she made some bad (not even technically immoral) decisions... harsh.

I'm sure it was one of the "better" facilities, but the point remains the same. Its the slaughter of the animals that's supposed to be traumatic enough for me to never want to eat meat again, right?

My point is that there are--closing on--seven billion people in the world, in order for any food to be had for consumption, lots of things have to lose out. You want to eat vegetables? Fine, but you have to destroy alot of ecosystems for enough farmland for EVERYone to eat. Do I agree with conditions at a lot of places that I've also seen on the documentary "Food Inc"? No, but I'm also an omnivore by nature, as all humans are. Transcend, yes and all that, but sorry, I like steak.

Actually, I've seen what happens in a slaughterhouse and I still likes me steak!



Even a lot of the "organic" food at supermarkets is not really organic. Anything that claims organic that starts with the number 6 (don't have any examples here, but if you have ever noticed Chaquita bananas are food code "4011" then you'll know what I mean), they're just close enough to qualify as "semi-organic" and are allowed to be labeled simply "organic". Anything that starts with 8 is supposed to actually be organic.

But I say, since you can't avoid it, you might as well enjoy it.

As far as resources, though, as I stated before, I think what matters is how much you're self-sufficient as opposed to an empirical "am" or "not". If I had a generator that supplied all my power, then I would be sufficient in that, though maybe not in other areas.

@LadyLovely Just to clarify, I never attacked your right to speak about God, I was trying to correct your misunderstanding of what topic was about ... which I see you've realized. If you had seen it as such, we could have avoided this whole fiasco. I think we can now move on.

I was not copy spamming, merely listing definitions before I stated my thoughts. =)

@heavenlyboy - You can destroy and harm nature ... set a forest fire and you'll see an ecosystem destroyed. That doesn't mean its not recoverable, but you break a valuable balance that sustains life in that region.

The point I was trying to make was that to sustain human life on this planet, there must be a balance of chemicals such as that we have been living in for thousands of years. Our atmosphere, for example (and correct me if I'm wrong, its been a while) used to be composed of a much greater amount of oxygen than it is today. The less oxygen in the atmosphere, the less efficiently our bodies (and brains) work.

The earth has had many climates over the millions of years its been around. Many of them not so suitable for humanity. So in that, no you can't really destroy nature, it changes and adapts, the climate in which we survive can change and cause harm to US.

Ah, the "Devil's Advocate" role. I've played this many times (though never to avoid logic traps) yet I never prefer to play this role and usually leave it to a friend of mine who has a degree in philosophy.



I'd say those that are both ... because then they feel no matter what they do, it won't matter in the long run, so they could practically get away with anything. =)



Every system has its faults and loopholes that can be exploited. Communism is not inherently bad, just as Capitalism is not. I think the problem lies with the population, not necessarily in being required to behave one way or another, but in not acting against the injustice of those who do the exploiting. Most consider it is not their concern, so long as they themselves are not affected (or seem not to be affected).

I know this has nothing to do with either system, but let's take for example the war in Iraq. The moment we knew the WMDs were a farce and it was obvious that the American population had been swindled (for whatever reason, but I'll keep my own conclusions out of this particular discussion), there should have been a far bigger commotion about someone exploiting the system for their own benefit. After all, the previous president had gotten impeached for far less of an infringement.

I'll dismiss myself, thank you. I never said "don't speak", ever. But you cast the first stone. Your original post was snide, condescending and had nothing to contribute to the conversation other than your belief in God. The topic was about whether self-sufficiency (or self-reliance as it was apparently intended) of PEOPLE pertaining to RESOURCES on this planet. This was not about a physical trait in human beings and how they acquired that trait. If you're going to be stupid enough to inject your ignorance on the subject, then I have every right in the world to point out that ignorance and make the attempt (however much you may deny it) to correct you. Period.



I tried politely to push you into a more coherent direction for the conversation at hand and you took offense. Not my problem. I thanked another member for once again contributing to the actual conversation and you took offense. Not my problem. This has nothing to do with my disbelief in God, just as if someone said "I like swiss cheese" in the topic. My problem is people who interrupt a thread simply so they can "spread the Good Word".

Blow off.

To reply or not to reply ...

To reply! So nice to see you can laugh at yourself. I didn't think you'd have it in you, that's a good first step. Now, if you can form some opinions that don't come straight from the Bible, I'll be impressed.

Dude ... why bother with 9 monitors like that? Why not at that point get yourself a HD digital projector and rock an entire wall? It'll be far more awesome and there's the side benefit of saving some money.

I'd have to more agree with Chrono-Trigger myself. I loved Ocarina of Time, but hated constantly hearing "Hey! Listen!". If the auto-help wasn't there for everything (in the form of the fairy), I think it would have been a better game.

As for recent games, Resident Evil 4 for Wii was absolutely amazing, I haven't played 5 but heard from several sources that it was a cheap rip-off and once again reduced the series to cheese. RE 4 for PC sucked because of the lack of control factor that was present on the Wii.

Dragon Age: Origins is also amazing thus far as I've played it, but I have to say that Half-Life 2 and its episodes are probably my hands-down favorites amongst FPSs.

BTW, I love how this conversation took a more positive and intellectual turn again, suddenly. Thank you, Redykeulous.

When you're considering RESOURCES, then yes, they are self-sufficient (including energy as you listed, since the energy in question is a self-sustained nuclear reaction based on the star's chemical composition and gravitational mass). I do understand what you're trying to say about space-time, but its not really about "resources" per say.

Dark matter is yet conjecture and yes, I have seen recent articles involving its "discovery" but it is yet to be fully embraced as law by the scientific community and therefore, also, cannot yet be classified in the category of "resource" as of yet, since the properties of dark matter/energy are the opposite of normal matter/energy and the complete effects are as yet not completely fathomable.

Air: a mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, and minute amounts of other gases that surrounds the earth and forms its atmosphere.

Carbon Dioxide: a colorless, odorless, incombustible gas, CO2, present in the atmosphere and formed during respiration, usually obtained from coal, coke, or natural gas by combustion, from carbohydrates by fermentation, by reaction of acid with limestone or other carbonates, or naturally from springs: used extensively in industry as dry ice, or carbon dioxide snow, in carbonated beverages, fire extinguishers, etc.

The earth's climate, for millions of years relied on a balance. Flora vs fauna. Air breathing animals exhale carbon dioxide which is then used by plants during photosynthesis to create sugar and release oxygen back into the atmosphere. Then humans come along ... cut down and remove about 60% of the world's plant life, use manufacturing techniques that release even more carbon dioxide into the air (not to mention sulfur dioxide and hundreds of other--worse--toxins into the atmosphere).

Come on, is it so hard to believe humanity hasn't screwed SOMEthing up? Really?

Actually, any star is self-sufficient by that definition, as they do not require any energy or resources outside of what they already contain themselves. True, they eventually burn out, but in the meantime ... entirely self-sufficient.

Um ... try paying back your school loans, maintaining at least an apartment, transportation and oh yeah, that trifling little need to eat something while you're doing your research.

NASA needs money. Sorry.

I'd have to invalidate the questions based on how AWEsome all participating are ... except for Cloud and Sephiroth. Sorry, not a big VII fan.

Here's a better question ... Cloud vs Kain?

BTW, Vader only quit for Luke ... sorry Link, you're dead and so's Yoda (as far as the original trilogy goes). I'd put Vader on top (again, going by original trilogy here).

Um ... for those that believe, is that not EXACTLY what God's doing when promising eternal suffering for those that don't do what he says?

Food for thought.