Race for the Arctic - hot war in no longer frozen hell?
 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...604338,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...579265,00.html

The future looks exciting. Natural ressources are a prime argument why to expect wars in the future. Different to my usual, more relaxed stand regarding Russia, here I would agree that one needs to keep them under tight surveillance - not as if western powers wouldn't also aggressively push into the Arctic, but still...

As opposed to limited resources not being a factor in the wars of the past?

Don't many people think we live in an age of peace and big wars between the major powers have become unimaginable? western-Eastern-Chinese wars over borderlines and ideologies - are unlikely,sure. Wars between these powers over gasfields and sweet water reservoirs and oil - that is something different.

Such wars in the future are not a given. But they are a reasonable possibility of how the future could turn out. Hot proxy wars about these and other ressources, all three of them, already are being fought, in Africa (ores), South America (genetic and pharmaceutical ressources, oil, ores) and the Middle East (sweet water, oil).

All the better reason to stop our rampant population growth.

It seems that every argument comes back to overpopulation.

Of course. Overpopulation is behind most of our problems, for example that race to the Arctic resources. Would we need them if there were only 100 million humans in the whole earth? Obviously not.

Many of the current thrid world countries wouldn't see poverty and hunger at all if their population had a reasonable size. But they don't, and there do many problems begin.

Sounds like pure paradise to me. Just a few more than there are living in Germany today - but scattered around all the globe - I love the mere idea of it. Fantastic. :yeah:

And many of our problems - would just solve themselves.

"be fruitful and multiply" - if so many absurd things today can be charged as hate speech, I wonder why this crime against humanity (that's what that statement in my view is, and nothing else, for all the suffering and dying and misery that comes directly from it and means doom for hundreds of millions) does not get rated as hate speech, too. Control of population size is key to all and everything else. Without it, you can forget all idealism and plans and aid projects and technological progress, it'S not a question of "if" crisis from uncontrolled birth rates occur, but only "when".

But even if the Russians do have the geological evidence to justify under law the expansion of their sea border it will be refuted and denied for political reasons.

Let's wait for the geological evidence they can produce. What they have come up with so far has not found the wide acceptance of the international (non-politcal) academic community. So far, between claim and evidence there still is a huge gap, and a "war of data".

Which is an argument in favour of marriage...:rotfl:

Maybe because when it was written we didn't have the overpopulation problems we have today? Indeed had people NOT been fruitful and multiplied back then perhaps neither of us would be around for you to put me on your ignore list...

But hey, never miss a chance to slam other peoples beliefs right Skybird? :yeah:

Good point, August. Too bad SB won't know what that point was.:) I wondered, too, if Skybird would be willing to give up his place on Earth for the good of the planet? :hmmm:

Only 100 million people scattered over the Earth? I'm guessing it would be fairly primitive since there wouldn't be enough people to keep the current infrastructure functional for long.

Yeah i'm thinking 100 million is pretty small. Maybe 2.5 - 3 billion would be a more realistic number that would allow us to continue living in the 21st century.

Sounds awefully repressive, Skybird. And is certainly against our nature.

I find it funny that the same lefties who cry about overpopulation are the ones railing the loudest against measures that would help control the population (war, famine, disease, etc.).

I'm pretty sure that your ideas of repressing speech and population controls would be human rights abuses, as well, Skybird.

"Be fruitful and multiply" is a motto that is held up by the vatican until today - the denial of contraceptives as well. The church's arguments defending that claim to be oh so high riding on the moral horse, in fact are cynical, inhumane, and man-hating, and put the claim of the church to lead and define morals abiut humanity, human kindness, and accept millions to fall into suffering and miserbale detah every month and every year. That is a church of death, and what it has made of Christ'S teachings are a message of fear, terror and death as well. shame on everybody who demands my respect for this, and that I should tolerate people liking this cult of thanatos, it is so very very much too much demanded from any sensible, reasonable, thinking mind.

Finally, many people in Africa for example do not "f#ck for fun", as Firewall has implied, but for power as defined in their patriarchalic tribe structures, and even more: they try to raise as many children as possible, because they know so many will die, but they depend on having sufficient children who will take care of their parents once they are old and weak. It's a vicious circle, and here we come to the hypocrisy of the West claiming the misery of Africa to be based on it's own "laziness", and completely ignoring that the West helps so very much in violence and coups and corruption in Africa to see the Wests economic advantages being taken care of, as some days ago described in another thread, too. I still deny that colonialism is the only cause of the evil in Africa, but I say it had aspects of imporvement, and worstening existing conditons, and it lives on until today, in a changed form.

Tyrannies kill by their own hands. Democracies accept to secure their power by not less killing - it's just that they do not kill with their own hands so much, but let it happen, let it getting done by proxies they support, and do not stop it even if they could. Both tyrannies and democracies are wading in a sea of blood. The tyrannt at least is easy to be recognised. But western democracies lie and betray about their true nature and ambitions, like a wolf in sheep'S clothing. The US does so, and the EU as well. the agricultural policies they enforce both on Africa and South America, should be an object at an international tribunal.

Save me your pseudo-religious hypocrisy and dishonest calls for tolerance, therefor, where in reality you just want to dominate yourself and silence opposition to your ambitions. Maybe you can deceive some people out there with your virtuous playacting, but certainly not me. I have seen through you hypocrisy and lies. And I'll never fall for that kind of cynical poison again - no matter how much you smile.

You guys claim to talk in defense of religion? Ha! Spit out the blood in your mouths first, wash it off your hands, and then rinse your mouths with ox-gall soap. You yourself give religion it's bad name, you pharisees. :03:

Now, the objects were two essays about the race for the Arctic ressources, and the possibilities of major military operations being launched in fight for these, and the assessement of Russian ambitions regarding this issue. Just a reminder for the few slow minds amongst us whose minds always get overruled by their reflexes to start balking when they read my name.

How sick are you in your heart and how troubled and unscrupelous is your mind that you consider war and desease acceptable measures of population control? Of what kind is the pain your soul is suffering of, what evil has been done to you that you are so eager to promote darkness? How inpertinent are you, and others, to imply that I have said anywhere that my remark on that I would like to see a planet with a very small human population - must be reached by tools like this? Or can be reached? I was talking about a romantic daydream, not more. Is your argument against the promotion of using contraceptives in the third world so weak and so thin, that you must hide it in the dress of demonising others who call for that measure? Can you express your own idea only by trying to hurt me? Is that all you can show up with?

Wqar and epidemics do have a population-decreasing effect. But that is a sober mathemtical statement only. It is not and should not be part of any "argument", plan or estimation on what tools are morally acceptable to redcue population, and what not.

Some very poor and very devious behavior has been displayed by some of the latest posters here. And no surprise to me that once again, it is the the same bunch of supects. even those who know that I have started to evade them by ignoring them - they cannot help themselves, they must try to provoke nevertheless and try to get that stab at my back from behind and all for free. They are really like groopies scratching at my sleeping room's door to get in. they just can't give it up.

How noble, how honest it all is.

How smart. :lol:

Neal, never ask me again to respect religious views like these poisenous hypocrisy to be seen here as long as you allow behavior like this taking place in your forums - that is double standards in my book. I may accept deals, and in fact have suggested them - but I do not accept to get ripped of.

And now let's get this locked, before it gets out of hand completely. Just my suggestion, of course.

1.) You need to come off your high horse.. you have proven more than once that you are pretty clueless.

2.) You need grow a thicker skin.

3.) You need to brush up on your English.. "be fruitful and multiply" does not really imply a religious background nor a defense of religion. It is a concept that is as old as nature is.

4.) You shot yourself pretty much in your own foot with ...

and took whatever credibility was left in your posts.

Less fluff, more substance might do the trick if you want to be taken seriously and not just look like a pompous ass.

Just my suggestion of course . ;)

I only ask people to cooperate and take it easy in order to avoid banning them.

It appears you introduced the religous theme in this thread... :03:

And before you blast me with a reply, I agree that the time is over for being fruitful and all, but let's oppose that concept without nuking the vatican. Steady pressure will work in the end.

Nice assumption. I don't recall using the term "acceptable" or even implying as much. I was simply pointing out a FACT, like it or not (judging by your 1000-word response, I'm going with "not").Wow, you really stepped off the deep end, friend...

I'd suggest leaving the rhetorical grandstanding at the door and sticking to the specifics.Right. Equivocating the advocation of raising a family as "hate speech" is an odd "romantic daydream"...Actually, I 100% agree with the use of contraceptives in the third world. I don't recall stating otherwise.

Please refrain from assumptions.Again, I don't advocate war, disease, or any other calamity as a population-controlling "plan". Instead, I was attempting to illustrate that I don't believe any "plan" is possible. Basic human rights will be violated in any situation (if not the right to eat, the right to reproduce).

But see, the funny thing is, no plan is really necessary. The problem is indeed self-resolving. When the Earth can no longer sustain the amount of human life present, it will, well, stop sustaining.

It's a cruel reality but it IS reality. Nature is cruel - don't hate me for pointing out that obvious fact.You're kidding, right? Please tell me this is nothing more than a drunken rant.

This self-indulgent, "I'm a target" crap is a tad beneath you, isn't it?Respect is something you seem to be in short supply of.

Dude, get it through your skull and into your grey mush - no one here really gives a damn if you respect any views, religious or otherwise. Everyone knows where you stand, and it's not changing anyone else's positions. Sometimes you have well thought-out arguments ... sometimes not. Either way, those of us interested in the concept of the discussion will simply say our piece in response to yours.

This is a "Discussion Forum".That would be consistant with your typical ultra-leftist leanings, of course. Make sure you can make your argument and do your damnest to prevent any rebuttal, right?

I find it ironic how lefties only cherish freedom of expression when it comes to their own ideas. Skybird's wet dream is for discussion advocating the procreation of the human race to be considered "hate speech", all the while he is free to speak overtly hatefully regarding the religions of the world. Oddly hypocritical...

Skybird, let me explain something to you that should be pretty easy to understand: there is NO HATE in discussing birthing children and raising them to be productive. There is IMMENSE HATE in your typical views on religion.

If there is hate speech here, friend, it's coming from you.