Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Study: Obesity Could Lead To Depletion Of Earth’s Resources
http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2012/06/21/ ... resources/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BDKJMU wrote:Study: Obesity Could Lead To Depletion Of Earth’s Resources
http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2012/06/21/ ... resources/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fat people need to be...............................skinnied.........................or shot.

But don't dare question any of this research. It's soft science, but it's still infallible, and if you want to question it you are no different than someone who denies gravity exists!

Pwns wrote:But don't dare question any of this research. It's soft science, but it's still infallible, and if you want to question it you are no different than someone who denies gravity exists!

(said the fat guy)







i joke

By similar reasoning better health care and nutrition also depletes the planets resources at a faster rate. We in the United States, for example, would be much bigger on average than the population of the country was 150 years ago even if we had the same or even a lower obesity rate because we have better nutrition, pre natal care, etc. It's not obesity per se that is the "cause" by their reckoning. It's biomass.

So anything that increases biomass is a problem. A greater life expectancy is huge. By their reckoning, we should not be trying to combat famine and disease where it exists. We should be trying to facilitate it. War too. A real good war where hundreds of millions or even billions would be eliminated would be very helpful. Unless it's nuclear of course. That might cause long lasting problems. A war involving the use of biological weapons...pathogens bred/designed to kill...would be great as long as the pathogens couldn't make the leap to other animals. That way we wouldn't have a bunch of trees blown up and such.

It's all true if you think of managing the population of humans as you think of managing a population of another animal.

JohnStOnge wrote:By similar reasoning better health care and nutrition also depletes the planets resources at a faster rate. We in the United States, for example, would be much bigger on average than the population of the country was 150 years ago even if we had the same or even a lower obesity rate because we have better nutrition, pre natal care, etc. It's not obesity per se that is the "cause" by their reckoning. It's biomass.

So anything that increases biomass is a problem. A greater life expectancy is huge. By their reckoning, we should not be trying to combat famine and disease where it exists. We should be trying to facilitate it. War too. A real good war where hundreds of millions or even billions would be eliminated would be very helpful. Unless it's nuclear of course. That might cause long lasting problems. A war involving the use of biological weapons...pathogens bred/designed to kill...would be great as long as the pathogens couldn't make the leap to other animals. That way we wouldn't have a bunch of trees blown up and such.

It's all true if you think of managing the population of humans as you think of managing a population of another animal.

Damn, I was just gonna post that "people are bad for the environment". Beat me to it.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:By similar reasoning better health care and nutrition also depletes the planets resources at a faster rate. We in the United States, for example, would be much bigger on average than the population of the country was 150 years ago even if we had the same or even a lower obesity rate because we have better nutrition, pre natal care, etc. It's not obesity per se that is the "cause" by their reckoning. It's biomass.

So anything that increases biomass is a problem. A greater life expectancy is huge. By their reckoning, we should not be trying to combat famine and disease where it exists. We should be trying to facilitate it. War too. A real good war where hundreds of millions or even billions would be eliminated would be very helpful. Unless it's nuclear of course. That might cause long lasting problems. A war involving the use of biological weapons...pathogens bred/designed to kill...would be great as long as the pathogens couldn't make the leap to other animals. That way we wouldn't have a bunch of trees blown up and such.

It's all true if you think of managing the population of humans as you think of managing a population of another animal.

Damn, I was just gonna post that "people are bad for the environment". Beat me to it.

Sustainable environments are about "Balance" which is why things like islands have so many bio-diversity issues change one thing and the balance is shifted and shit goes haywire pretty fast...

If you think of this planet as an island floating in space (for example)
The most unusual change over the past "blink" or ten thousand years has been the explosion of humans and all that goes along with that - it doesn't take a rocket scientists - this blue planet is moving towards "out of balance"

Now don't confuse this post and observation with me giving a fuck
Because I don't - but I'm not blind and I'm not in denial about what is happening