Wall E

[edonate]

Did anyone else watch Wall E and think that it made humanity look like we were the plague of the Earth? Or like humanity would be happier in a rejection of technology and moving back to some kind of stone age?

On that, how about Happy Feet stopping the cartoon portion in the end and making it seem like this perfect fantasy land the cartoon penguin was living in became real and horrible when he made contact with people?

Is it a general tendency now to make movies that portray humans so vilely? Or have I just started realizing what has always been behind children's movies and such?

[jordanz]

Did anyone else watch Wall E and think that it made humanity look like we were the plague of the Earth? Or like humanity would be happier in a rejection of technology and moving back to some kind of stone age?

I did. I hated Wall-E.

[Chris Grieb]

Jordan; Tell us what you really think. Don't hold back.

[Kat]

I thought both Wall-e and Happy Feet had a very stinky agenda. I didn't like either. It is the brainwashing of American youth.

Kat

[Chris Grieb]

I missed Wall E when it was in theaters but I think I will wait till I don't have to pay extra for it.

There isn't much good coming out of Hollywood.

[kiaer.ts]

Well, there's always Mary Poppins if you want to corrupt the youth.

Also, I just watched The Devil and Miss Jones. I liked Jean Arthur and Charles Coburn. Robert Cummings was perfect as a loud-mouthed commie windbag. I had to laugh when my dad commented the Cummings had been hired to coach Eisenhower in speechmaking.

[Chris Grieb]

Ted; I think your father is confusing Robert Cummings with Robert Montgomery.

[kiaer.ts]

Yeah, I think so too.

[shadesofgrey]

It's relative. It's also a balance. Anything can be a plague (including humans) if you have too much of it. Plenty of other species have ballooned in size over time, but there's a system of checks and balances in nature that bring them back to a manageable level (predators, food sources, natural disasters, etc). Humans are exempt (now) from most of these checks and balances because of our ability to significantly alter the environment around us with technology to suit our needs. So, if we wanted (and we appear to want to) we can theoretically go on expanding our population as long as we have the ability to feed ourselves.

We may be able to stave off things like disease and famine for a certain period of time with our technological prowess. However, we haven't figured out a way to stave off war (the third population control of humans throughout our history) and if we don't end up nuking ourselves, then our increase in population will necessarily have to come at the expense of other species. We're in a closed system on Earth, so if one element in that systems grows, the other elements must shrink. So to an animal or plant that we drive to extinction, we could certainly be viewed as plague. However, plants and animals don't write the history books, and since we're the only sentient beings on the planet, our opinion is the only one that matters to us. So whether or not you see humanity as a plague is dependent upon the importance which you place upon human life. If we're the top dog (no pun intended), then we come first, at the expense of everything else. Wall-E took that too the extreme, simply portraying a world in which humanity had crowded out literally everything else and as a result (and a result of our own lack of sufficient ingenuity it appears) was wiped out.

At the end of the day, however, it was a cute movie about some robots and if you think it's REALLY part of the liberal agenda to corrupt and brainwash America's youth, I'd just say you were being alarmist and that you should chill out. If anything, appreciate the technology that went into making the movie. Pretty impressive for its time.

[Selene]

By the way chalk man, I did not take the opportunity to welcome you to OL;

Are you a student, businessperson...

What brought you to Ayn?

"Humans are exempt (now) from most of these checks and balances because of our ability to significantly alter the environment around us with technology to suit our needs. So, if we wanted (and we appear to want to) we can theoretically go on expanding our population as long as we have the ability to feed ourselves."

Really, care to support that red herring in your statement?

Adam

[shadesofgrey]

By the way chalk man, I did not take the opportunity to welcome you to OL;

Are you a student, businessperson...

What brought you to Ayn?

"Humans are exempt (now) from most of these checks and balances because of our ability to significantly alter the environment around us with technology to suit our needs. So, if we wanted (and we appear to want to) we can theoretically go on expanding our population as long as we have the ability to feed ourselves."

Really, care to support that red herring in your statement?

Adam

Thanks for the welcome. I work in healthcare, but I guess you could always call me a student. My friend is an objectivist, so I learned about it through her.

Well, back in the day when were stone-age, our ability to modify the environment to suit our needs was far weaker than it is today. As such, we were at the mercy of natural phenomena like disease, drought, and pestilence that could seriously impact our survivability. These are the checks and balances I was talking about that are still in place for pretty much every other species. Now, since we have vaccines and irrigation and pesticides and all the other technological advances that we do, those checks and balances are no longer as influential upon our survivability. Our biggest threat becomes ourselves if not properly tempered.

I'm not sure why you called that a red herring.

[Selene]

By the way chalk man, I did not take the opportunity to welcome you to OL;

Are you a student, businessperson...

What brought you to Ayn?

"Humans are exempt (now) from most of these checks and balances because of our ability to significantly alter the environment around us with technology to suit our needs. So, if we wanted (and we appear to want to) we can theoretically go on expanding our population as long as we have the ability to feed ourselves."

Really, care to support that red herring in your statement?

Adam

Thanks for the welcome. I work in healthcare, but I guess you could always call me a student. My friend is an objectivist, so I learned about it through her.

Well, back in the day when were stone-age, our ability to modify the environment to suit our needs was far weaker than it is today. As such, we were at the mercy of natural phenomena like disease, drought, and pestilence that could seriously impact our survivability. These are the checks and balances I was talking about that are still in place for pretty much every other species. Now, since we have vaccines and irrigation and pesticides and all the other technological advances that we do, those checks and balances are no longer as influential upon our survivability. Our biggest threat becomes ourselves if not properly tempered.

I'm not sure why you called that a red herring.

Shades:

Don't sweat the small stuff. I thought we were on the brink of extinction within 10 years unless we all bought Priuses? Or swine/H1/flu/bird of the year flu was going to kill 20-30 million,

Actually, all we have to get done is cap and trade, nationalized medicine and open borders and elect a few more marxist dictators and we should cull the herd real well.

According to another poster GS, a super "bug" "germ" that is completely resistant to pharmaceuticals or some antibiotic laden hot wing bucket of chicken wings would take us all out.

Adam

waiting to die from some unspecified bullshit

Edited December 4, 2009 by Selene

[Christopher]

Well, let's not bash the superbug theory too strongly; there actually are a growing number of cases in hospitals of these superbugs leading to fatalities.

As for Wall-E, I enjoyed it. Seemed to me like it was tempered for an audience of World-of-Warcraft players. I had quite a few friends like this awhile back... people who acted exactly like the guys on the ship, but maybe carrying a little less weight. And when you're eating pizza and fast-food all the time, you really are just piling trash up in your little home. Now from a marketing and moral standpoint: the people I would guess most interested in technology-laden/graphics-movies would be people who themselves are somewhat techie, and we're not talking about people who spend all day on philosophy websites posting thoughts; we're talking about normal in a most-normal sense. For them, the moral lesson in Wall-E is relatively accurate and healthy.

[tjohnson]

According to another poster GS, a super "bug" "germ" that is completely resistant to pharmaceuticals or some antibiotic laden hot wing bucket of chicken wings would take us all out.

If I told you once I told you a million times - don't exaggerate!

[shadesofgrey]

According to another poster GS, a super "bug" "germ" that is completely resistant to pharmaceuticals or some antibiotic laden hot wing bucket of chicken wings would take us all out.

If I told you once I told you a million times - don't exaggerate!

Unfortunately it's easy to chalk up the deadliness of the last superbug to generally poor hygeine and sanitary conditions, over-crowding, and a lack of any effective anti-viral treatment. Today most of those issues are no longer a problem in the US. That said, the virus as an organism has thus far overcome every single one of our efforts to eradicate it and has proven to be the most adaptable of organisms. Vaccines are the only treatment that offers any real promise of ridding the world of a particular virus, and that takes decades of treatment. Vaccines only compliment the body's intrinsic defenses, they're not really a purely human weapon like, say, bleach if you want to sanitize something. As such, there has never been and is not today a single cure for any virus anywhere. Our treatments focus on supportive care, which has gotten much better in the last century. That said, a sufficiently virulent virus could overwhelm our supportive care abilities and there wouldn't be a single thing we could do about it. About 4,000 have died of the H1N1 flu this year, which is comparatively small.

There already are superbugs in strains of ebola, hanta, and some EBV, but we've been fortunate that their geographic distribution is very remote. My point is that just because we haven't seen a superbug in 90 years doesn't mean we WON'T. Just because the possibility may be small, said possibility still EXISTS that at any time some virus could mutate into something that we can't control. Now I'm not going to plasticize and duct tape my house and you'd be safe betting on the idea that you're not going to die from a superbug, but it would be prudent to at least acknowledge the possibility.

[tjohnson]

That's very interesting, Shades, but I was talking about bacterial "superbugs", like Clostridium difficile

The more we use antibiotics the more resistant the bacteria become. BTW, IV use of Sodium Ascorbate has been clinically shown to stop viral diseases such as viral hepatitis dead in it's tracks. This information as been available for decades but mainstream medicine has chosen to ignore it. See here.

[shadesofgrey]

That's very interesting, Shades, but I was talking about bacterial "superbugs", like Clostridium difficile

The more we use antibiotics the more resistant the bacteria become. BTW, IV use of Sodium Ascorbate has been clinically shown to stop viral diseases such as viral hepatitis dead in it's tracks. This information as been available for decades but mainstream medicine has chosen to ignore it. See here.

Hm....interesting, I've never heard that about vitamin C before. The literature is pretty clear on megadoses of vitamin C being ineffective in preventing onset or duration of the common cold, but I haven't seen any randomized controlled trials regarding Hep C. I'll have to look into that.

C. Diff. a horse of a different color, you're right. Unfortunately it usually arises from antibiotic use to cure a different infection, like pneumonia or pancreatitis. Usually Vancomycin is used to treat it, but that's a pretty harsh antibiotic and the prevailing census is that it won't work forever. There's already at least one bacteria (VRE) that's resistent to Vanc.

[tjohnson]

The literature is pretty clear on megadoses of vitamin C being ineffective in preventing onset or duration of the common cold

I disagree with this, from my research and personal experience. I think the problem is people do not take enough C to make a difference. I have taken 45,000 mgs in 12 hrs after the signs of a cold or flu and it can stop the infection from progressing any further. The problem with most studies about the efficacy of Vit C is that they do not administer high enough doses and then declare it isn't effective. This is in spite of the fact that the work with 1000's of patients clearly states how high those doses must be.

[anonrobt]

The literature is pretty clear on megadoses of vitamin C being ineffective in preventing onset or duration of the common cold

I disagree with this, from my research and personal experience. I think the problem is people do not take enough C to make a difference. I have taken 45,000 mgs in 12 hrs after the signs of a cold or flu and it can stop the infection from progressing any further. The problem with most studies about the efficacy of Vit C is that they do not administer high enough doses and then declare it isn't effective. This is in spite of the fact that the work with 1000's of patients clearly states how high those doses must be.

Agree......

[Barbara Branden]

Shadesofgrey wrote: "Humans are exempt (now) from most of these checks and balances because of our ability to significantly alter the environment around us with technology to suit our needs. So, if we wanted (and we appear to want to) we can theoretically go on expanding our population as long as we have the ability to feed ourselves."

In fact, as science and technology in the countries with the most freedom become more and more advanced, people tend to have smaller families. The more backward a society, the more children people have. Further, we are very far from having to worry about overpopulation. Today, everyone on the planet could fit comfortably into Texas. And then, of course, there is the moon, Mars, and the rest of the galaxy.

Barbara

[tjohnson]

Today, everyone on the planet could fit comfortably into Texas. And then, of course, there is the moon, Mars, and the rest of the galaxy.

Barbara

LOL, that would be one gigantic feedlot! The rest of the galaxy is not fit for humans to live in so I suggest we take care of this planet if we can.

[shadesofgrey]

In fact, as science and technology in the countries with the most freedom become more and more advanced, people tend to have smaller families. The more backward a society, the more children people have. Further, we are very far from having to worry about overpopulation. Today, everyone on the planet could fit comfortably into Texas. And then, of course, there is the moon, Mars, and the rest of the galaxy.

Barbara

I agree with the first part. "First-world" countries have markedly lower birthrates than developing countries probably for the same reasons that the poor and uneducated tend to have more children. Additionally, now, with the jobless rate being what it is, birthrates in the US have dropped measurably as people are more into "planning" family growth.

Overpopulation doesn't really have to do with physical space though. Sure, if you get too many people together in an area that's too small, you have to deal with santation issues, disease, strife, environmental degredation, etc. Usually the term is applied in reference to resource allocation though. How much room it takes to SUPPORT an individual (to grow food, provide for recreation, etc.). Obviously these measurements vary per person and as such can only be a rough average estimate, but eventually there's going to be a number of people on the planet that exceeds our ability to produce food for them all. We currently have the production, but secondary to politics and logistical issues, it doesn't always get to where it needs to go. Hence there's plenty of hungry people around.

Also, this uses the assumption that we're using our environmental resources in a way that is sustainable, which we're almost always NOT doing. At the moment, we have the luxury to do so because our stores of these resources aren't exhausted yet. We're not making any more coal or oil or natural gas or gold for all practical purposes. When it's gone, it's gone. Commodities like timber are obviously renewable, but we have not approached a level of renewal that matches our use. If we had, maybe 97% of the original forest in this country wouldn't be gone.

In any case, in a perfect world our resources would have the right level of renewability and would be dispersed equally. They are not, so it muddles the actual "tipping point" at which there becomes too many people on the planet. Which would explain the current conflict over that number, with some people thinking up to 13 billion and some people thinking we already passed it.

[tjohnson]

I would like to emphasize that if we were to to practice more environmentally friendly agriculture I wonder if we could even feed the population we have now? There is a difference between using natural resources and abusing them and I think we need to look closely at this difference.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

Human inventiveness is not a limited resource. Environmentalists tend to think it is.

For example, you are more than welcome to plant crops and feed as many of the human population as you are able to. I have no doubt that, with your brain, if you apply yourself, you will feed a whole bunch of people and not abuse anything at all.

So what's stopping you?

Michael

[Selene]

In fact, as science and technology in the countries with the most freedom become more and more advanced, people tend to have smaller families. The more backward a society, the more children people have. Further, we are very far from having to worry about overpopulation. Today, everyone on the planet could fit comfortably into Texas. And then, of course, there is the moon, Mars, and the rest of the galaxy.

Barbara

I agree with the first part. "First-world" countries have markedly lower birthrates than developing countries probably for the same reasons that the poor and uneducated tend to have more children. Additionally, now, with the jobless rate being what it is, birthrates in the US have dropped measurably as people are more into "planning" family growth.

Overpopulation doesn't really have to do with physical space though. Sure, if you get too many people together in an area that's too small, you have to deal with santation issues, disease, strife, environmental degredation, etc. Usually the term is applied in reference to resource allocation though. How much room it takes to SUPPORT an individual (to grow food, provide for recreation, etc.). Obviously these measurements vary per person and as such can only be a rough average estimate, but eventually there's going to be a number of people on the planet that exceeds our ability to produce food for them all. We currently have the production, but secondary to politics and logistical issues, it doesn't always get to where it needs to go. Hence there's plenty of hungry people around.

Also, this uses the assumption that we're using our environmental resources in a way that is sustainable, which we're almost always NOT doing. At the moment, we have the luxury to do so because our stores of these resources aren't exhausted yet. We're not making any more coal or oil or natural gas or gold for all practical purposes. When it's gone, it's gone. Commodities like timber are obviously renewable, but we have not approached a level of renewal that matches our use. If we had, maybe 97% of the original forest in this country wouldn't be gone.

In any case, in a perfect world our resources would have the right level of renewability and would be dispersed equally. They are not, so it muddles the actual "tipping point" at which there becomes too many people on the planet. Which would explain the current conflict over that number, with some people thinking up to 13 billion and some people thinking we already passed it.

Folks:

I have been following this part of the debate and although it is still a contested theory, our assumptions about what is renewable or replenishable is not "settled science" as if there ever could be settled science!

The link to the entire article is: http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm

"Deep underwater, and deeper underground, scientists see surprising hints that gas and oil deposits can be replenished, filling up again, sometimes rapidly. Although it sounds too good to be true, increasing evidence from the Gulf of Mexico suggests that some old oil fields are being refilled by petroleum surging up from deep below, scientists report. That may mean that current estimates of oil and gas abundance are far too low. Recent measurements in a major oil field show "that the fluids were changing over time; that very light oil and gas were being injected from below, even as the producing [oil pumping] was going on," said chemical oceanographer Mahlon "Chuck" Kennicutt. "They are refilling as we speak. But whether this is a worldwide phenomenon, we don't know." Also not known, Kennicutt said, is whether the injection of new oil from deeper strata is of any economic significance, whether there will be enough to be exploitable. The discovery was unexpected, and it is still "somewhat controversial" within the oil industry". Adam