# Nature is a really messed up design



## marblecloud95 (Aug 12, 2015)

﻿ＶＨＳＤＥＡＴＨ１９８４​(╯︵╰,) (,╯︵╰)​


----------



## magi83 (Sep 25, 2012)

@LittleDickyTry this as a starting point:http://holybooks.lichtenbergpress.n...-Spoke-Zarathustra-by-F.-Nietzsche.pdf?351736


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

Well, I think the Earth could hold all people who ever lived.

The number they throw out is 108 billion, but I'm a creationist so it's probably less than that.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Indeed.

(A) --> Observation(s) ---> Anecdotal / socializations. --> (B) --> _Lose / lose_ (i.e., nonsense / stupidity / broken / bad) situations ---> (C) Metabolism. (re: Cannibalization) +_ Living things feeding off other living things_. 

''Nature'' & all its _opulent_ *beauty*.

_____________________


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

95134hks said:


> It is just as likely that we will live forever and that we will expire into nihilism.
> 
> Only question then is what do the Gods eat ??
> 
> ...


More importantly, He *shared* it.


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

g_w said:


> More importantly, He *shared* it.


I'm thinking about when he appeared in the night after his resurrection, and he was hungry, and he asked for leftover fish, and he ate some.

It shows that the Gods get hungry and eat too. Not just nectar and ambrosia.


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

Catwalk said:


> Indeed.
> 
> (A) --> Observation(s) ---> Anecdotal / socializations. --> (B) --> _Lose / lose_ (i.e., nonsense / stupidity / broken / bad) situations ---> (C) Metabolism. (re: Cannibalization) +_ Living things feeding off other living things_.
> 
> ...


Fish will cannibalize smaller fish of their same species.

Land animals tend not to cannibalize although bears will.

Most species feed on other species.

One of my cats gave birth to a deformed kitten and she ate it. That surprised me.


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

Razare said:


> Well, I think the Earth could hold all people who ever lived.
> 
> The number they throw out is 108 billion, but I'm a creationist so it's probably less than that.


The latest estimate that I have heard that the Earth can hold max is 10 billion humans.

How Many People Can Planet Earth Support? | When Will the Human Population Start to Decline?

It will reach this max around 2050 most likely, assuming we do not have a major pestilence, famine, or war in the meantime.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45165#.Vo4PDnlIiaE

The USA is a net food producer, so our exports of grains and meats should become extremely valuable at that time, and most jobs will likely be in agribusiness by then.


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

cybersloth81 said:


> We are all just Pokémon.
> 
> The Gods have put us on this earth to see which is the best.





LittleDicky said:


> This might be the most geeky reference and interesting philosophical point I have read so far.


This is what the ancient Greeks also believed.

Heracles was their prime example.

As a philosophy it violates the notion that God(s) is/are all knowing and already know everything.

Therefore philosophically it makes more sense that the God(s) placed US here to show US who is the best, since HE/SHE/THEY already know who.


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

cybersloth81 said:


> We are all just Pokémon.
> 
> The Gods have put us on this earth to see which is the best.





LittleDicky said:


> This might be the most geeky reference and interesting philosophical point I have read so far.





RubiksCubix said:


> no self-propagating system has a fulfilling human purpose
> 
> it is merely a system
> 
> If you seek purpose, then virtue and the sublime are what you must pursue.


This is exactly what Plato said as well.

Nietzsche and Machiavelli however said POWER (rather than virtue) was the greatest achievement.

Machiavelli was trying to flatter the Roman Pope however. At the time this pope was quite corrupt.

Nietzsche was a sickly person and angry at God therefore he blamed God.

Plato was trying to show that for everyone in a city state to get along they had to be good people.


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

LondonBaker said:


> Maybe you are looking for meaning where there is none.
> 
> To quote the great Carl Sagan "_The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent_."
> 
> ...


Descartes would disagree with Sagan vociferously.

Descartes' reasoning goes like this.

Descartes inherited and was a rich man.

Descartes was therefore able to do anything he wanted and he wanted to think about philosophy and figure out everything and why it was.

Descartes concluded that he had a good life therefore Someone had been good to him.

This Someone is God -- the philosophy God.

Therefore the Universe is good because God had been good to Descartes.

Sagan died fairly young of bone cancer complications (pneumonia).

So perhaps he felt life and the Universe was neither friendly nor hostile to him. In his case that might be optimistic.

Most people with adequate health care and good health can live into their 80's and 90's.

Sagan was not so lucky.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

95134hks said:


> The latest estimate that I have heard that the Earth can hold max is 10 billion humans.
> 
> How Many People Can Planet Earth Support? | When Will the Human Population Start to Decline?


Well you still have to take account the factor of how many people it can hold does not mean the same as it can house, job, and support. For example if we have too many kids and not enough parents we need more parents for the kids, but if we dont have enough than we have issues supporting it. In fact in the movie anarchy "No I am not saying we do this as its horribly unethical" they let the people kill off enough people to stabalize the economy. Which means the first too die were the people the economy could not support. Which are the jobless, the homeless, the underemployed. Which if we kill all those low class and underclassed we just put a bunch more money back into the economy and its less rescources support programs. (Again this is horribly unethical and I dont agree with it). So we can have all the room in the world, it does not mean we can auctually SUPPORT those people. See this is where things get tricky. 

Nature: In nature you need food, Shelter and that is about it. Now its very easy to obtain these. A pride of lions can go lay in the dirt somewhere, wake up the next morning, go hunt, bring back some food. That is all there is. If they want sex they find another lion and have sex with them. That is seriously all there is. 

Human Society: Now what people do not realize is human society is incredibly systematic. In fact most things a person does is systematic and if you understand and learn the systems, you can rule society.

Society works like this. You need income, Shelter, Food, Transportation, schooling for children 

To have a family you need parents to watch them, you need to buy shelter, to buy a shelter you need money, to get money you need a job, and to get a good paying job where you can have children you need to go to college. To go to college you need to go to school and get good grades, which we offer more to rich students and kids in private schools since we have such an our of touch public board. So in the wild you can have a pack of 20 lions in one area and its fine, no big deal. In human society everyone needs thier own space, and we need beds, and a house, and shelter, and clothing. All of this stuff is sold at stores. So you could probobly not house as many children to the amount of parents there is and its far more difficult to raise many off spring since it costs so much to afford them.


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

95134hks said:


> The latest estimate that I have heard that the Earth can hold max is 10 billion humans.


Environmentalists have an agenda to underestimate the number to create a panic.

Humans are efficient, though when we have to be, so that's the issue. And then we're crafty too with the economics and whatnot taking care of resource distribution.

One of my college professors used to go on about how the world was going to end in the 80's because the population would surpass food production. We just increased food production, problem solved.


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

LittleDicky said:


> Well you still have to take account the factor of how many people it can hold does not mean the same as it can house, job, and support. For example if we have too many kids and not enough parents we need more parents for the kids, but if we dont have enough than we have issues supporting it. In fact in the movie anarchy "No I am not saying we do this as its horribly unethical" they let the people kill off enough people to stabalize the economy. Which means the first too die were the people the economy could not support. Which are the jobless, the homeless, the underemployed. Which if we kill all those low class and underclassed we just put a bunch more money back into the economy and its less rescources support programs. (Again this is horribly unethical and I dont agree with it). So we can have all the room in the world, it does not mean we can auctually SUPPORT those people. See this is where things get tricky.
> 
> Nature: In nature you need food, Shelter and that is about it. Now its very easy to obtain these. A pride of lions can go lay in the dirt somewhere, wake up the next morning, go hunt, bring back some food. That is all there is. If they want sex they find another lion and have sex with them. That is seriously all there is.
> 
> ...


The economic problems which you are describing are problems with capitalism in the West.

China does not have those same problems in the East.

To thrive in the West, you need to get a good education, then get a good job, then do a good job, and save your money, avoiding debt.


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

Razare said:


> Environmentalists have an agenda to underestimate the number to create a panic.
> 
> Humans are efficient, though when we have to be, so that's the issue. And then we're crafty too with the economics and whatnot taking care of resource distribution.
> 
> One of my college professors used to go on about how the world was going to end in the 80's because the population would surpass food production. We just increased food production, problem solved.


So far we have been increasing food production by MINING NITRATES as fertilizers. If this ends and we deplete it, then the top limit will be A LOT LESS than 10 billion.

Don't kid yourself.


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

LittleDicky said:


> Nature is a really messed up design if you think about it. We live so we can eventually die, and the only way to survive is to take the life from another living life form. The only creatures that can survive on their own are plants, and they can procreate by you killing them. Which is amazing! Its kind of sad though isnt it? We cant escape death, and to survive we must rob another creatures life. The idea that we go somewhere when we die comforts some, but its still up for debate. We die to make room for a another generation that suffers the same fate. We kill to live, and die to make more room. What a sad existence that is.


Eating other animals by animals is a form of cannibalism.

But then if you go see the movie "In The Heart Of The Sea" which is the Moby Dick remake, it shows how the sailors had to cannibalize each other in their boats to survive.

In the Heart of the Sea (2015) - IMDb

The same thing happened with Cambyses' armies in the Egyptian desert.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambyses_II

This only tells you who Cambyses was. To read the story about the cannibalism you need to read Herodotus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodotus

In every case where men have had to cannibalize each other, they have drawn lots.

So if there were no other way to survive, even you and I would need to draw lots to see who would kill and eat the other.

The animals are all in the same boat.

To kill and eat is required for survival.

As I said, I eat seafood and fish guilt free. And I don't worry about birds too much.

Calves and steers are the natural byproducts of the dairy industry, so I am not too guilty when I eat those, however I could never do the slaughtering although I don't mind doing the butchery.

I feel really bad about pigs and lambs though. Bacon and ham are delicious however and I can't resist it.

I try to resist lamb though. I only eat lamb once each year on Easter Thursday same as Jesus did.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

95134hks said:


> The economic problems which you are describing are problems with capitalism in the West.
> 
> China does not have those same problems in the East.
> 
> To thrive in the West, you need to get a good education, then get a good job, then do a good job, and save your money, avoiding debt.


So... How are you saying China Does it?


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

95134hks said:


> Eating other animals by animals is a form of cannibalism.
> 
> But then if you go see the movie "In The Heart Of The Sea" which is the Moby Dick remake, it shows how the sailors had to cannibalize each other in their boats to survive.
> 
> ...


Uh no eating the same species makes one a cannibal, like if a pig eats a pig, if a human eats a human, if a bear eats a bear. It goes by species not by the fact we all fall under animal/mammal


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

LittleDicky said:


> So... How are you saying China Does it?


The Chinese have a planned economy which used to be called communism however it is liberalized communism which makes it more of an extreme planned version of European socialism.

American capitalism is being stressed and torn apart at its seams.

It has gotten to the point where the really rich are really exploiting the really poor and the really young.

But that is a totally different issue which you are confusing with survival.

Our Earth should be able to support another 43% of us -- from 7 billion to 10 billion.

When we reach 10 billion we will need to eat smaller portions of meat however.

Once can of tuna per day would be the max. We could not gorge ourselves on steaks anymore.

Life would become quite austere but do-able.

My cat would be in trouble then because he eats 3 cans of tuna or cat food of the same size per day.

Humans being omnivorous can eat carbs and vegies as well as meat.


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

LittleDicky said:


> Uh no eating the same species makes one a cannibal, like if a pig eats a pig, if a human eats a human, if a bear eats a bear. It goes by species not by the fact we all fall under animal/mammal


Yah yah yah I know I know.

But when you look at all the mammals as a group, we are cannibalizing other mammals when we eat pigs, calves, steers, lamb, mutton, goat, etc.


----------

