Re: RE: an informed opinion

Page: 1 2
ID:154521
 
Jun 29 2001, 10:45 pm
Moving this over to the Design Philosophy forum, since despite my message saying that it should be continued here, Jobe decided to reply in Creations anyway...



not so! in real life it helps keep the population down(or not riseing so fast..)

Promoting violence is even worse than committing it, I think. Violence is a bad thing, and if you say it isn't, I can't say anything other than you're stupid, or that your thoughts on that subject are stupid. Probably the latter, since I'm not inclined to insult your intelligence over a single belief.


and you can have a verry sucsessful vidio game without it(just look at the sim games..)

Jobe, did you even read the part you had quoted? I said, and I quote, "pre-, post-, and current adolescents." I.e. people aged 10-20.

I'll refer to The Sims as an example. The people who bought The Sims were for the most part adults and people in their late teens. That's because SimCity and the like appealed to those people when they were younger, and now that they're adults, they're still hooked on those sorts of games.

Today's children, as far as I know, are hooked on DBZ, and DBZ is far from being peaceful (or having a real plot >=D). While The Sims appeals to some adolescents, that's probably only because they downloaded the 'no blurring' patch.

What I'm trying to say is that most of today's children are complete advocates of in-game violence. If it isn't violent, then they probably aren't going to play it.

As for me, I like one or both of those things in games. Violence and/or strategy. I can still play a game of SimCopter without becoming a withdrawn reject. I can also play a game of Quake II without craving red meat.
Jun 30 2001, 1:07 am
"Only two things sell: Sex and Violence."
Somebody said this before...Who??? I don't know.
Sex is not available in games, at least not realistic ones. So only violence i left.
Of course I have to say that I have not bothered to read the original post. Something about short attention span. I was dreaming when it was reported...
Jun 30 2001, 4:03 am

not so! in real life it helps keep the population down(or not riseing so fast

There's no way of knowing that. We only have the population figures with violence, there's no way to know how fast the population would rise in the absence of violence. It's a fallacy to assume that if we removed violence from the world, all other things being equal, that all other things WOULD be equal. Violence is a very pervasive part of our reality, and it's impossible to predict what effect removing it would have... since it's never been removed. If it were gone from our lives, we might (for instance) have a very well-ordered society where people would voluntarily limit births to just those necessary.

The other fallacy contained in your thinking is the idea that the earth is, or soon will be, overpopulated. Bull. We have more than enough space and more than enough resources. We just have a crummy system for distributing and using both of them.
Jun 30 2001, 5:07 am
Promoting violence is even worse than committing it, I think. Violence is a bad thing, and if you say it isn't, I can't say anything other than you're stupid, or that your thoughts on that subject are stupid.

Unprovoked violence is certainly a bad thing. Retaliatory violence isn't always so easy to pigeonhole, though, at least for me.
Jun 30 2001, 5:13 am
On 6/30/01 1:45 am Spuzzum wrote:
Today's children, as far as I know, are hooked on DBZ, and DBZ is far from being peaceful (or having a real plot >=D). While The Sims appeals to some adolescents, that's probably only because they downloaded the 'no blurring' patch.

Hey, controlling the lives of little people is just plain entertaining (In my opinion). I don't need any "no blurring" patch.
Jun 30 2001, 9:42 am
In response to LexyBitch
On 6/30/01 7:03 am LexyBitch wrote:
The other fallacy contained in your thinking is the idea that the earth is, or soon will be, overpopulated. Bull. We have more than enough space and more than enough resources. We just have a crummy system for distributing and using both of them.

The entire Earth population could fit with reasonably comfortable density in Texas, I believe. So space ain't a problem.

And in the last 30 years a miracle happened...we learned how to grow tougher grain much more efficiently, such that we are not in danger of running out of food as used to be feared.

So as Lexy says it's all a question of distribution. And fortunately we've gotten much better at that. These days, most starving people in the world are only starving because their government wants them to. There is a fraction of the non-government-caused starvation that their used to be.

As usual, the world is getting better but people like to pretend it isn't.
Jun 30 2001, 9:56 am
In response to Deadron
As usual, the world is getting better but people like to pretend it isn't.

Yes. I'm an eensy weensy bit scared, though, living right next-door to a superpower like the 'States.

We don't have a laughable army by any means (heck, we were part of D-Day too, you know), but against the 'States we wouldn't stand a chance if worse came to worse.

You can't disagree that the United States of North America would be really freakin' powerful... instead of having to benefit from international trade, it would be easier to benefit from intranational trade.


I'm not too worried, though, despite the civilian insults back and forth, since Americans and Canadians really do get along rather well. Darned Yankees. Long Live Communism! ;-)

(I'm once again reminded of the link that Air Mapster gave to the 'American Map of the World'. =)
Jun 30 2001, 10:57 am
In response to Deadron
The entire Earth population could fit with reasonably comfortable density in Texas, I believe. So space ain't a problem.

Depends on how you define "reasonably comfortable." I think a good guideline is that if you can look out the window and see an inhabited house in any direction, the population density is too high.


As usual, the world is getting better but people like to pretend it isn't.

Again, depends on definition. From a health and technology standpoint, yes, it's getting better (though a single good plague, or a major disaster in an economic center, might take care of that right quick). In a lot of other ways it seems to be going to hell in a handbasket... but there's isn't anything I can say on that subject that R.F. Laird's "The Boomer Bible" hasn't already said better.
Jun 30 2001, 11:07 am
In response to Gughunter
On 6/30/01 1:57 pm Gughunter wrote:
The entire Earth population could fit with reasonably comfortable density in Texas, I believe. So space ain't a problem.

Depends on how you define "reasonably comfortable." I think a good guideline is that if you can look out the window and see an inhabited house in any direction, the population density is too high.

Well that's one way to define it. Unfortunately, people who live in distributed circumstances like this contribute to many of the problems in society (specifically in suburban areas; less so in rural). They do so because at this low population density, the cost of infrastructure skyrockets, but these people don't tend to pay their share of the infrastructure. The result is that they suck off extra resources paid for by people in high density areas, while not contributing back. This causes a loop that ends up with urban decay.

As usual, the world is getting better but people like to pretend it isn't.

Again, depends on definition. From a health and technology standpoint, yes, it's getting better (though a single good plague, or a major disaster in an economic center, might take care of that right quick).

Eh, such a plague or disaster (barring the planet getting hit by an asteroid) is a drop in the pan historically and has always happened. The average quality and length of life these days is so drastically higher than it was even 100 years ago that there's no real way to come to any other conclusion than vast improvement over the past. (See the 1900 House series for an example of the difference even at the middle class level.)


In a lot of other ways it seems to be going to hell in a handbasket...

With the exception of devastation caused by AIDs (which is still not yet spectacular compared to previous plagues including the 1910 flu epidemic that just about wiped all of us out), I don't see this personally. My perspective is that of a gay uneducated man in America...I have been given vast opportunities unavailable to me at any time in the past.

Being in a wealthy country means that I'm better off than most, but the same advances hold true for most of the rest of the world.

Again we're talking relative to the past. But problems have always existed, while the current level of years lived, calories consumed, life options, and general enjoyment of life is absolutely higher than anytime before.
Jun 30 2001, 11:31 am
In response to Gughunter
On 6/30/01 1:57 pm Gughunter wrote:
The entire Earth population could fit with reasonably comfortable density in Texas, I believe. So space ain't a problem.

Depends on how you define "reasonably comfortable." I think a good guideline is that if you can look out the window and see an inhabited house in any direction, the population density is too high.

Solution: Very tall, opaque fences.
Jun 30 2001, 11:51 am

Jobe, did you even read the part you had quoted? I said, and I quote, "pre-, post-, and current adolescents." I.e. people aged 10-20.

I'll refer to The Sims as an example. The people who bought The Sims were for the most part adults and people in their late teens. That's because SimCity and the like appealed to those people when they were younger, and now that they're adults, they're still hooked on those sorts of games.

Today's children, as far as I know, are hooked on DBZ, and DBZ is far from being peaceful (or having a real plot >=D). While The Sims appeals to some adolescents, that's probably only because they downloaded the 'no blurring' patch.

What I'm trying to say is that most of today's children are complete advocates of in-game violence. If it isn't violent, then they probably aren't going to play it.

As for me, I like one or both of those things in games. Violence and/or strategy. I can still play a game of SimCopter without becoming a withdrawn reject. I can also play a game of Quake II without craving red meat.

i was reffering to real sims... SpaceShuttle Sim, Filight Sims, so on..
Jun 30 2001, 11:55 am
In response to Deadron
They do so because at this low population density, the cost of infrastructure skyrockets, but these people don't tend to pay their share of the infrastructure.

True, to a point... but how much infrastructure do people need? A dirt road and phone/power lines. I can't imagine it's all that pricey. For water, most rural folks do just fine with wells or cisterns. Gas and cable are nice options, but not essentials.


Eh, such a plague or disaster (barring the planet getting hit by an asteroid) is a drop in the pan historically and has always happened.

Granted, though I think the nature of modern society is such that a disaster in the right place could have much more far-reaching implications than it might have before the railroad and the telegraph. It's hard to say, though... we'll just have to wait and see!


In a lot of other ways it seems to be going to hell in a handbasket...

Again we're talking relative to the past. But problems have always existed, while the current level of years lived, calories consumed, life options, and general enjoyment of life is absolutely higher than anytime before.

I'm thinking more of the stuff contributing to that general enjoyment of life--e.g., "reality television." In fact, I suspect it's the spiritual equivalent of "The Stuff": after a while, the viewers still look like people, but inside they're just filled with horrible goo!

I'm also dumbstruck by some of the absurdities that people can utter with straight faces these days--e.g., that dodge-ball article I posted a while back. But I readily admit that I'm bitter beyond my years. Plus I spend hours each week writing, playing, and reading about video games, so I can't get too high up on a horse...
Jun 30 2001, 12:07 pm
In response to Gughunter
On 6/30/01 1:57 pm Gughunter wrote:
The entire Earth population could fit with reasonably comfortable density in Texas, I believe. So space ain't a problem.

Depends on how you define "reasonably comfortable." I think a good guideline is that if you can look out the window and see an inhabited house in any direction, the population density is too high.
I AGREE!

As usual, the world is getting better but people like to pretend it isn't.

Again, depends on definition. From a health and technology standpoint, yes, it's getting better (though a single good plague, or a major disaster in an economic center, might take care of that right quick). In a lot of other ways it seems to be going to hell in a handbasket... but there's isn't anything I can say on that subject that R.F. Laird's "The Boomer Bible" hasn't already said better.

ok, lets look at this, we have goton rid of alot of wild grain and plants and replaced it with "better" grain and plants. Just one problem, the human made plants wont grow back. The producers made it so you HAVE to buy the seed from then becase it dose not make useable seed on its own. This is the same with most garden plants.

And again, we have medicine. it helps keep peaple alive. the more peaple alive there are.. the more products they buy, with more of a need for a product there is more growth, with more growth there are more factories, more smaug, more geneticly engineered plants, more buildings, less fule, higher global temp, and so on till there is nothing to save.

you know what our problem is? we are too damn SMART! something like HIV was put on this earth to get rid of some of population and keep us in cheack. it dident work. we are too smart to let it spread too fast, we have fixed all our problems and we are growing.

lets take animals, What animals? EXACTLY! we try to keep anmials out of our life unless we can breed all of there instinks out of them. we are getting rid of there habitats and building more for them in captation in order to "help them survive" WELL FUCK IT!

if anyone here thinks the world is good today and it would not help if all the major cities and factories suddonly disappeared with everyone inside them also disappearing, then your mad.


just so you know, right now i am working my ass off so i have enof money to invest, then i hope to make more, and more. and if i make enof im going to buy every ounce of land that i can and gather as meany peaple who belive we need to HELP the earth as i can, then live off of that land with no outside interaction! and anyone who would enter would be SHOT!

so.... anyone want to live in the woods? or has your luxury and sin taken you over?
Jun 30 2001, 12:20 pm
In response to jobe
jobe, you're not a hippie, and you're not a religious prophet. These are vitally important issues, and there are tremendous evils associated with progress--evils which most people would like to ignore, or simply write off as being necessary costs of progress. The fact that progress is fueled largely by market pressures is a very sad one which inevitably leads to some very grave consequences, but completely rejecting technology is not an answer. Sure, we all wish we could just lounge around in some idyllic garden of paradise with no need for work or progress. We already tried that--remember? With the whole Eden thing? Didn't work out too well. Even if you're not one to buy into Christian mythology, there's some important, lasting symbolism inherent in the story of Adam and Eve. Humans are very curious creatures. Even if we did manage to create a paradise on earth, it wouldn't last--we simply wouldn't be able to let it well enough alone, and paradises are probably pretty fragile things.

Simply put, don't blame the technology. Blame the apples.
Jun 30 2001, 1:03 pm
In response to Gughunter
On 6/30/01 2:55 pm Gughunter wrote:
They do so because at this low population density, the cost of infrastructure skyrockets, but these people don't tend to pay their share of the infrastructure.

True, to a point... but how much infrastructure do people need? A dirt road and phone/power lines. I can't imagine it's all that pricey. For water, most rural folks do just fine with wells or cisterns. Gas and cable are nice options, but not essentials.

If some people want to live in a self-sustaining manner that doesn't suck up resources beyond their means, that's cool.

But almost everyone except a few people living in the wilds of Montana is not doing that. They are demanding all the infrastructure -- plumbing, water, roads, medical care, fire and police protection -- while not paying their part.

If you do want the amenities, and if you aren't willing to pay the full cost of them in remote areas, then you do everyone a favor by living in a dense city, which vastly reduces the impact of your presence on the planet, while also providing you with the benefits you want.

As for reality television, I love a lot of it. Cops is a pretty great show if you ask me, for example...because it shows that 90% of the time, cops are going around trying to talk loser kids out of sniffing glue and keeping the neighbors from breaking each other's windows, which are much more interesting stories than chasing purps through mall parking lots.
Jun 30 2001, 1:37 pm
In response to Leftley


ok look, i dont think it should be like that at all, in fact i think you got it ass backwards.

im not taliking about paridise, im talking about MORE work and LESS luxury...

and this 'PROGRESS' that you speak of.. what good is it doing? it is helping peaple live longer and live happier lives right? do you think thats a GOOD thing? i DONT! this leads to over population! and with more population you have more need for PROGRESS and that takes up resorces, and helps more of the stupid people breed... so more of a population..... so on and so forth,

did you know that it only took a 10 degrees dif to end the ice age? and we have already raised the world temp 2 degrees scince the 70s....

all im saying is.. im not going to be a part of it. i am WAITING for the disaster. i happen to think that the world would be better off without humans.

you know what! DAMNIT IM DOING THE MOVIE FOR DARK TOWER! then i will get my point across verry well!
Jun 30 2001, 1:55 pm
In response to jobe
OK... so you're saying you personally want to live a short life filled with grueling, unsatisfying work, in uncomfortable conditions? That goal is entirely within your power as of right now.
Jun 30 2001, 2:11 pm
In response to jobe
On 6/30/01 3:07 pm jobe wrote:
On 6/30/01 1:57 pm Gughunter wrote:
The entire Earth population could fit with reasonably comfortable density in Texas, I believe. So space ain't a problem.

Depends on how you define "reasonably comfortable." I think a good guideline is that if you can look out the window and see an inhabited house in any direction, the population density is too high.
I AGREE!

As usual, the world is getting better but people like to pretend it isn't.

Again, depends on definition. From a health and technology standpoint, yes, it's getting better (though a single good plague, or a major disaster in an economic center, might take care of that right quick). In a lot of other ways it seems to be going to hell in a handbasket... but there's isn't anything I can say on that subject that R.F. Laird's "The Boomer Bible" hasn't already said better.

ok, lets look at this, we have goton rid of alot of wild grain and plants and replaced it with "better" grain and plants. Just one problem, the human made plants wont grow back. The producers made it so you HAVE to buy the seed from then becase it dose not make useable seed on its own. This is the same with most garden plants.

And again, we have medicine. it helps keep peaple alive. the more peaple alive there are.. the more products they buy, with more of a need for a product there is more growth, with more growth there are more factories, more smaug, more geneticly engineered plants, more buildings, less fule, higher global temp, and so on till there is nothing to save.

you know what our problem is? we are too damn SMART! something like HIV was put on this earth to get rid of some of population and keep us in cheack. it dident work. we are too smart to let it spread too fast, we have fixed all our problems and we are growing.

lets take animals, What animals? EXACTLY! we try to keep anmials out of our life unless we can breed all of there instinks out of them. we are getting rid of there habitats and building more for them in captation in order to "help them survive" WELL FUCK IT!

if anyone here thinks the world is good today and it would not help if all the major cities and factories suddonly disappeared with everyone inside them also disappearing, then your mad.


just so you know, right now i am working my ass off so i have enof money to invest, then i hope to make more, and more. and if i make enof im going to buy every ounce of land that i can and gather as meany peaple who belive we need to HELP the earth as i can, then live off of that land with no outside interaction! and anyone who would enter would be SHOT!

so.... anyone want to live in the woods? or has your luxury and sin taken you over?

As much as I agree that it would help the earth if you and everyone like you went off and lived by yourselves, I have to say I'm struck by the absurdity of the numerous contradictions in what I can barely describe as your "philosophy."

You want people to live shorter, less productive, and less happy lives... in order to make life better? You want anyone who wants to join you to be free to do so, but you'll shoot anyone who comes near?

What exactly are you going to invest in to make your money? Industries, tobacco companies? Things that make money aren't the sort of things that are "Jobe's earth-vision friendly," you know... and however much money you as an investor make, the company you're investing in is going to be making more with your money than you get back. So, basically, in order to get enough money to be a tiny little drop in the bucket as far as a solution goes, you're going to contribute a somewhat larger drop in the "problem bucket." I think you'd do your earth a little bit bigger of a favor by not bothering.

And that's all you'd be... a drop in the bucket. If you want to be the next whacko from Waco, go ahead and knock yourself out, just remember... the mountain men seldom come to Muhammed.
Jun 30 2001, 2:18 pm
In response to Leftley
On 6/30/01 4:55 pm Leftley wrote:
OK... so you're saying you personally want to live a short life filled with grueling, unsatisfying work, in uncomfortable conditions? That goal is entirely within your power as of right now.


yes I want to.. but everyone else needs to also (and by everyone else i mean all 1 million humans should be liveing on earth)

this planet wont survive much more of the over population and industrialization
Jun 30 2001, 2:24 pm
In response to LexyBitch
On 6/30/01 5:11 pm LexyBitch wrote:
On 6/30/01 3:07 pm jobe wrote:
On 6/30/01 1:57 pm Gughunter wrote:
The entire Earth population could fit with reasonably comfortable density in Texas, I believe. So space ain't a problem.

Depends on how you define "reasonably comfortable." I think a good guideline is that if you can look out the window and see an inhabited house in any direction, the population density is too high.
I AGREE!

As usual, the world is getting better but people like to pretend it isn't.

Again, depends on definition. From a health and technology standpoint, yes, it's getting better (though a single good plague, or a major disaster in an economic center, might take care of that right quick). In a lot of other ways it seems to be going to hell in a handbasket... but there's isn't anything I can say on that subject that R.F. Laird's "The Boomer Bible" hasn't already said better.

ok, lets look at this, we have goton rid of alot of wild grain and plants and replaced it with "better" grain and plants. Just one problem, the human made plants wont grow back. The producers made it so you HAVE to buy the seed from then becase it dose not make useable seed on its own. This is the same with most garden plants.

And again, we have medicine. it helps keep peaple alive. the more peaple alive there are.. the more products they buy, with more of a need for a product there is more growth, with more growth there are more factories, more smaug, more geneticly engineered plants, more buildings, less fule, higher global temp, and so on till there is nothing to save.

you know what our problem is? we are too damn SMART! something like HIV was put on this earth to get rid of some of population and keep us in cheack. it dident work. we are too smart to let it spread too fast, we have fixed all our problems and we are growing.

lets take animals, What animals? EXACTLY! we try to keep anmials out of our life unless we can breed all of there instinks out of them. we are getting rid of there habitats and building more for them in captation in order to "help them survive" WELL FUCK IT!

if anyone here thinks the world is good today and it would not help if all the major cities and factories suddonly disappeared with everyone inside them also disappearing, then your mad.


just so you know, right now i am working my ass off so i have enof money to invest, then i hope to make more, and more. and if i make enof im going to buy every ounce of land that i can and gather as meany peaple who belive we need to HELP the earth as i can, then live off of that land with no outside interaction! and anyone who would enter would be SHOT!

so.... anyone want to live in the woods? or has your luxury and sin taken you over?

As much as I agree that it would help the earth if you and everyone like you went off and lived by yourselves, I have to say I'm struck by the absurdity of the numerous contradictions in what I can barely describe as your "philosophy."

You want people to live shorter, less productive, and less happy lives... in order to make life better? You want anyone who wants to join you to be free to do so, but you'll shoot anyone who comes near?

What exactly are you going to invest in to make your money? Industries, tobacco companies? Things that make money aren't the sort of things that are "Jobe's earth-vision friendly," you know... and however much money you as an investor make, the company you're investing in is going to be making more with your money than you get back. So, basically, in order to get enough money to be a tiny little drop in the bucket as far as a solution goes, you're going to contribute a somewhat larger drop in the "problem bucket." I think you'd do your earth a little bit bigger of a favor by not bothering.

And that's all you'd be... a drop in the bucket. If you want to be the next whacko from Waco, go ahead and knock yourself out, just remember... the mountain men seldom come to Muhammed.

the idea was to distroy the economy as i left... but i forgot to say that..

i just dont woant to be a part of the distruction of our world.

the idea is to prtect as much raw land as i can. but killing.. i only ment poachers and industrialists..
Page: 1 2