Which will enable Albertans to assume their rightful place as rulers of the planet.
Don’t worry - we’ll limit the mandatory "Yee-Haw"s to two a week.
I didn’t use them as synonyms. Cassandra may be right, but nobody will ever listen to her. Why bother? When someone goes on about the sky falling, they’re either nuts for being wrong, or nuts for thinking people would change their behavior even if it’s true.
Y’know, that would make a great bumper sticker.
Better still: “Cassandra was an optimist.”
Old joke from, I think, Reader’s Digest:\
The pessimist sees only the tunnel.
The optimist sees only the light at the end of the tunnel.
The realist sees the tunnel and the light . . . and the next tunnel.
I hear ya on that. What with things like polyester, 8-tracks, disco, and the Ford Pinto, it’s no wonder the “Evil Commies” didn’t attack. They were just waiting for us to self-destruct.
In a similar thread to this one about 2 years ago, somebody wrote:
What ,you think today is bad----Just ask my father about the time he got his emergency call from the national guard, put on his uniform, loaded his gun, and ran to defend his home town from the imminent attack of…5 Negro girls coming to school.
And that’ll only last until the natural gas you’re using to cook the oil out of the oil sands riuns out… Didn’t Shell just say that their proposed $7-billion oil-sands expansion is now going to cost $11 billion due to rising energy costs? Better get moving on that nuke plant, eh?
Redusing demand through conservation and improving efficiency is so much more cost-effective.
Yes, the human race is seriously fucked up. Human society has failed miserably to provide us a rationale to buy into it while acheiveing a decent sense of self-worth and satisfaction. Within a few years or centuries, someone will do something catastrophic to the environment by accident or design, and the human race will, if not disappear, certainly go into long decline.
So what? For now, let’s dance, dance, dance! I find as much comfort in atheism and existentialsm as others do in their religious faith. You know why?
The human race has no Destiny or Duty it is failing at. Nor do YOU. We do not “owe” anything to future generations. Or to the Earth. We are just another life form that crept out if the mud; we will survive or we won’t. It seems many species would consume their own environment to the point of their own destruction, were they not checked by other environmental factors like predators or disease.
So drive your Hummer, fuck everything you can reach, and don’t sweat the small stuff.
I’ve occasionally argued on this Board that the U.S. should just surrender to Canada, if only we can get single-payer health care out of the deal.
But, of course, for the sake of national pride, a token nuclear exchange would be necessary, just to show we don’t just roll over without a fight.
We are prepared to limit the destruction strictly to Alberta, just for the general public good, and to make sure no one in any of the remaining nine provinces will hold any slightest grudge against us.
And for the sake of goodwill, we will sell you a couple of dozen nukes in advance and, 48 hours before the scheduled commencement of hostilities, we will stand down all defenses in the airspace over and leading to Texas! Everybody wins! 
This offer holds good until Tuesday week.
I always thought it was: “The light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of the oncoming train”
Oh, and to the OP:
“Cheer up,” they said. “Things could be worse!”
So I cheered up… and sure enough, things got worse…
Sounds like Schindler’s List . . .
Bullshit. It’s still an explosion; the fact that something is getting worse all the time, but at a gradually lessening rate, isn’t a huge comfort. It’ll be a miracle if we can hold civilization together long enough for population growth to slow down, eventually stop (at a peak of, conservatively half again as many people as we have now) and then (we can hope) reverse itself.
Global population has indeed nearly doubled, I believe, since Ehrlich published The Population Bomb. But the key factor is results. Ehrlich predicted a Malthusian crisis – population outstripping food production. So far, that hasn’t happened and does not appear likely, because of improved food-production technology.
… but it’s a dry heat.
Non-sarky question, why then do we still have famine/food shortages/starvation in Africa?
I don’t think one can rely on technology only. A huge part of Africa’s food problems arise from a limited amount of arable land. Theoretically, one can enhance yield, but one needs the available soil to start with. Also, accepted wisdom and models on one continent do not always apply in reality to another. Soil types, rainfall, climate and yields vary from continent to continent. What is good for the USA, is not necessarily good for Africa.
Lawrence of Arabia, British Beatlemania
Ole Miss, John Glenn, Liston beats Patterson
Pope Paul, Malcolm X, British Politician sex
J.F.K. blown away, what else do I have to say
We didn’t start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world’s been turning
We didn’t start the fire
No we didn’t light it
But we tried to fight it
The non-snarky answer being the constant fighting, the chaos of various warlord bands who are in control of huge swaths of the parts of Africa that happen to be where the famine/food shortages/starvation, etc are occuring. This has little to do with the carrying capacity of the soil in Africa, little to do with technology in agriculture, and lots to do with shortcomings in the local infrastructure (you know, to TRANSPORT the food to the people who are starving), and even more to do with various groups of thugs who take all the food for themselves, burn out farms and villages, and generally are the scum of the earth.
Depends on the ‘technology’. I don’t see what you are basing this all on though…your cite is about soil conditions in South Africa…a nation that, afaik, does NOT have a problem with ‘famine/food shortages/starvation’. Quite the contrary unless I’m mistaken. Even if we assume that all of Africa has the same poor soil as South Africa ( :dubious: ), THEY seem to be doing quite well using technology. Perhaps the problem isn’t growing the food (well, growing it and actually letting it grow to become a crop…as opposed to growing it for a while before some warlord and his chums trot up and burn it all down, while raping and murdering the farmer and his family in the process. This tends to have a detrimental effect on agriculture for some odd reason), but actually getting it to the starving people?
As for your assertion as to whats good for the US may not be good in Africa…well, a couple of things. FIrst off, the US is a big place…with a very wide variety of climate and soil types. I’m sure that if we can grow things from the deserts of the South West to the frozen North West/East, from Florida to California…hell, even in Alaska! I’m pretty sure that SOMETHING in all that would be useful in Africa. Secondly, no one that I know of is saying that they have to be (or grow things) just like America. I don’t see how this is an arguement though that technology can’t and wouldn’t solve the problems of famine in Africa…assuming you could first solve the real problems of the region that are actually causing said famines (and which have very little or nothing to do with agricultural technology, soil type or rain fall patterns).
-XT
Please, please, please nuke Winnipeg.
What the man said: Zimbabwe, under the rule of Robert Mugabe and his cronies, has gone from being a net food exporter to being forced to rely on international handouts to stave off starvation. So what changed? The land’s as arable as ever…
I think it was P. J. O’Rourke who pointed out that there has never been a famine in a country with a genuinely representative government and a free press.
My guess is it’s due more to political than technological or environmental factors. Certainly agricultural scientists such as Norman Borlaug have helped Africa become much more food-productive than it once was.