Science project Oil and shutting up the tree huggers for good.

**deathgodusmc** · 01-23-12, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

I think that we're getting a little caught up on this cat and dog book. Whether or not their point was over the top, their message along with the message shared by environmentalists - that our lifestyles have an impact which should be considered - is perfectly valid.

I dont think anyone has every stated anything other wise. However there is only an issue until the planet pushes reset and starts over.

**deathgodusmc** · 01-23-12, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Unless they have greater than perfect efficiency, any animal is going to use more energy than the sum of its prey, so the answer to your question is, always more. And that's ignoring the fact that cats and dogs aren't hunting wild animals, they're eating farmed animals, which wouldn't be raised if the demand were not there.

No, what's stupid is ignoring the fact that everything that we do, including keeping pets, has an environmental impact. This impact exists whether or not you ignore it.

The dog and cat population is absolutely higher than naturally sustainable populations.

Bullshit. It is stupid to do a study like this. We aready know everything has an effect on the environment. Trying to pretend we know everything about everything and misrepresenting numbers is whats make people think the whole thing is garbage. This study and this book did just that. You would do better tucking this thing in a corner and never mentioning it again. Wasted money. At least it wasnt done here and maybe we didnt pay for it.

You have no way of knowing what animal populations would be if we were not here. Evolution would have taken its course and there is no pretending we know what the next step is. Lets not forget wild dogs, wolves, cats, and wild cats can bread out of proportion in the wild when we do not interveen.

**WickedTribe** · 01-23-12, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I dont think anyone has every stated anything other wise. However there is only an issue until the planet pushes reset and starts over.

Please explain.

**WickedTribe** · 01-23-12, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Bullshit. It is stupid to do a study like this. We aready know everything has an effect on the environment. Trying to pretend we know everything about everything and misrepresenting numbers is whats make people think the whole thing is garbage. This study and this book did just that. You would do better tucking this thing in a corner and never mentioning it again. Wasted money. At least it wasnt done here and maybe we didnt pay for it.

It certainly seems to have riled you up, maybe that was the point.

You have no way of knowing what animal populations would be if we were not here. Evolution would have taken its course and there is no pretending we know what the next step is. Lets not forget wild dogs, wolves, cats, and wild cats can bread out of proportion in the wild when we do not interveen.

Actually, we have plenty of ways of knowing. You clearly don't know, but that doesn't mean that it's unknown. There's a certain amount of food energy available in a given area, and it will support a certain number of predators of a given size, give or take. Evolution isn't going to allow the dog to violate the laws of thermodynamics.

**WickedTribe** · 01-23-12, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Bullshit. It is stupid to do a study like this. We aready know everything has an effect on the environment. Trying to pretend we know everything about everything and misrepresenting numbers is whats make people think the whole thing is garbage. This study and this book did just that. You would do better tucking this thing in a corner and never mentioning it again. Wasted money. At least it wasnt done here and maybe we didnt pay for it.

It certainly seems to have riled you up, maybe that was the point.

You have no way of knowing what animal populations would be if we were not here. Evolution would have taken its course and there is no pretending we know what the next step is. Lets not forget wild dogs, wolves, cats, and wild cats can bread out of proportion in the wild when we do not interveen.

Actually, we have plenty of ways of knowing. You clearly don't know, but that doesn't mean that it's unknown. There's a certain amount of food energy available in a given area, and it will support a certain number of predators of a given size, give or take. Evolution isn't going to allow the dog to violate the laws of thermodynamics.

**SapiensErus** · 01-23-12, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Bullshit. It is stupid to do a study like this. We aready know everything has an effect on the environment. Trying to pretend we know everything about everything and misrepresenting numbers is whats make people think the whole thing is garbage. This study and this book did just that. You would do better tucking this thing in a corner and never mentioning it again. Wasted money. At least it wasnt done here and maybe we didnt pay for it.

You have no way of knowing what animal populations would be if we were not here. Evolution would have taken its course and there is no pretending we know what the next step is. Lets not forget wild dogs, wolves, cats, and wild cats can bread out of proportion in the wild when we do not interveen.

Lions, tigers, lynx, etc. exist in vastly smaller numbers. Wolves and coyotes do too. And we can speculate, because at one point they were not here, and we were not, and we have many probes in different topics: The fossil record, peat bogs, frozen critters, etc.

And tiny little housecats likely never would have happened because the energy demand is far to great for a natural system. We needed to feed them (a lot) to get them where they are today.

But in the end, if the reset button as you call it gets pushed, it is over. So, since these stupid studies all coalesce via multiple probes to help determine what things might push that reset button, is that not a good idea?

Saying something like "we know we affect the environment [so why study how]" is like saying "we know there are enemies over there coming to kill us, but gathering intelligence about them is stupid." Oh wait, "trying to pretend like we know ..." So it is impossible for us to know? I disagree, we have nukes, spacecraft, microchips, we have altered our planets environment more than any other single organism in it's history; I think we are easily smart enough to make those models.

We can successfully predict countless natural phenomena with 100% accuracy, There are many things we cannot predict with 100% accuracy (yet) or at all. But we should try, so we don't press reset.

Frankly, I would assume any logical human would agree that accidentally killing ourselves through ignorance is far more stupid than studying natural science and acting on the findings.

**deathgodusmc** · 01-23-12, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Please explain.

The planet isnt in any danger. Worst case scenario we go extinct and the planet recovers.

**deathgodusmc** · 01-23-12, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

It certainly seems to have riled you up, maybe that was the point.

Actually, we have plenty of ways of knowing. You clearly don't know, but that doesn't mean that it's unknown. There's a certain amount of food energy available in a given area, and it will support a certain number of predators of a given size, give or take. Evolution isn't going to allow the dog to violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Animals also tend to move to new areas or hunting grounds. We are the only retards that think living in areas with no food supply is a good idea.

**SapiensErus** · 01-23-12, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Animals also tend to move to new areas or hunting grounds. We are the only retards that think living in areas with no food supply is a good idea.

they can only do that with enough energy. When populations migrate, many die; ocassinally resulting in extinction. As we are witnessing right now, many species have died because they could not migrate easily in response to the changing climate.

**SapiensErus** · 01-23-12, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

The planet isnt in any danger. Worst case scenario we go extinct and the planet recovers.

I lol'd.

I can think right now of a number of ways we can irreparably damage the Earth. Mars was likely also homeostatic at one time, too.

Without looking at the internet, can you tell me specifically why Mars can't stay in a tight ring anymore?