Ok, store up 500+lbs of fat and see how long you "survive" ...

fuse is still kicking around somewhere.


I'm 1/5 through Omnivore's Dilemma - it's good

Ok, store up 500+lbs of fat and see how long you "survive" ...

how dare you question the failsafe logic that eating whatever and as much as you want are the keys to fitness and longevity.

by the way, who the hell has serious food shortages? this is 2010, not 1148, and nobody's being run out of chicago for being a heretic and forced to live on twigs and beetles for survival. but hey, if i could somehow run you out of civilization (and by run i mean i would run and you would waddle, lardass) please know that it's less than comforting to think that you could actually live off your own body fat for a while.

I'm 1/5 through Omnivore's Dilemma - it's good

that's actually next on my booklist, right after this:

There are a few posters here who are big dudes who could probably lose a couple pounds, myself and mosh included, but I don't think most of us qualify as fat fucks.

by the way, who the hell has serious food shortages?

Poor people, homeless. I would not be surprised to hear stories of it here at least, and I'm sure some of those soup kitchens are getting harder to keep running.

Anyway, being a vegetarian I don't think meats necessary. I personally need milk though. We have milk and butter in the house but rarely any egg containing products and never egg itself.

by the way, who the hell has serious food shortages?

Poor people, homeless. I would not be surprised to hear stories of it here at least, and I'm sure some of those soup kitchens are getting harder to keep running.

natural selection is a fucking bitch. get your shit together or drop dead. problem solved!

Agreed ...
Sam Kinison was right after all!!!

I wouldnt call that natural selection.

what would you call it, little hairy one?

Your wit is just amazing.

go ahead. revel in it.

*swoon* ?

Actually, it really does fall under all definitions of "natural selection", ...
... even if we, as humans, have learned to manipulate nature for an (unfair?) advantage

Those species that live in deserts and die, die due to lack of food growing/to grow ...
... same with Those that live in deserts here
... they can't grow or survive, they populate more, and have less
... it really IS "natural selection"

I know, there's arguable variation on the thought-process for this ...
... I'm sure Emp'll "set me straight"

God was made by man. God is real.

Well, the pics and statues are; indeed!

I think an argument could be made that through the development of culture humanity has become a "super-organism" like ant colonies. On our own we would none of us live very long. It's only through the development of infrastructure that we live as long as we do. As we've become a global community, the reasoned decision of the rich portions of the super-organism that is mankind to give up on the poor portions of the super-organism can't really be seen as natural selection in the sense that Darwin understood it. Then again cultural evolution has long been known to follow Lamarckian principles so the definition of environment may be altered, but I think it might still be called natural selection in a Lamarckian sense. Kind of a bleak nihilistic perspective.

If we adopt the "learn to adapt or die" model, though, then I don't want to hear any bitching when the poor people rob you at knife-point to cover their food or heroin needs or rape you because they feel the evolutionary urge to procreate and they're too inferior according to cultural scales. Because both are viable strategies in this cultural environment and this is the culture that the ruling classes have embraced.

and i carry both pepper spray and a knife on my person almost every day for the express purpose of defending myself against such individuals. winner take all.

Do you have a switch-blade? Because that would be hot.

...when the poor people rob you at knife-point to cover their food or heroin needs or rape you...

...or lead you into dark alleys with trails of Lego to do either or both of those things.

Joke's on them. I don't carry money so that only leaves them with one option.

...oh. fml.

Actually, it really does fall under all definitions of "natural selection", ...
... even if we, as humans, have learned to manipulate nature for an (unfair?) advantage

Those species that live in deserts and die, die due to lack of food growing/to grow ...
... same with Those that live in deserts here
... they can't grow or survive, they populate more, and have less
... it really IS "natural selection"

I know, there's arguable variation on the thought-process for this ...
... I'm sure Emp'll "set me straight"

Just read in the Smithsonian this morning , 9 billion+ by the end of the century.

I don't think there is  golden rule you can apply here. On one hand, people who can't afford to eat in countries like NZ or Japan doesn't make sense on many levels. The land is fertile, the countries are certainly rich enough to feed everyone. However some of those basket cases in Africa, what is the point of facilitating an increased population there? The land can't support more people and there's no cultural or economic reason to suggest that given time it could.

Also my point ...

For less than the amount of the recent international bank bail outs we could have built enough desalinization plants to irrigate all of Africa forever.

Tens of billions in precious metals and minerals extracted from sea water in the process would simply be frosting.

Well what about a Eugenics argument then? I think we all agree on the basic evolutionary aspects, but maybe we should be using this grand cultural framework we've developed to keep as many people alive as possible. By increasing the number of reproducing adults we increase the likelihood that we'll produce the next Einstein. This helps us as a species. So there's your argument for keeping poor people alive despite the cruelty of nature.

Any takers?

Well, it takes about a 2.1:1 birth ratio to keep a country alive; most civilized countries are averaging 1.4:1 or so ...
Most of us are doomed either way ...

Just read in the Smithsonian this morning , 9 billion+ by the end of the century.

I don't understand that math. In the last century, we've gone from 1 billion to over 6 billion. What's gonna slow us down?

Well, it takes about a 2.1:1 birth ratio to keep a country alive

I don't understand that math.

Surely a 1:1 birth to death ratio is the minimum required to prevent shrinking of the population. A 2:1 birth:death ratio would mean that every succeeding generation was larger than the one before it. Heck even a 1.4:1 birth:death ratio would mean the population is growing. I guess the question is what is meant by "keeping the country alive." Is it only "alive" if growing at a certain rate?

I quoted that wrong ...
I was viewing parents as "1" ...

2.3:2 minimum ...
Things are running 1.4 or so to 2 ...

Sorry about that ...
I knew what I meant, I just didn't express it correctly ...