An Argument to Legalize Murder

[Anders Schlander]

not sure how to respond to that now. but I would say that material wealth is very helpful and productive, but most people's attitudes towards it is really nasty, and it's definitely very mis-guided the way people are ignorant of the consequences of building mansions too big for themselves, using giant cars, and using redicolous amounts of electricity. It's also very disheartening that what matters is how much stuff you have, not whether you are a genuine person.

@ E isabelle, people that are singled out would settle into groups as they always do, where they can protect themselves from people killing them, it might split more people up into gangs. Wars against people would be legal, the consequence would be that people that killed also got killed, BUT, the vast majority would most likely be ordinary people that couldn't be bothered with wars, and they wudnt have anything to do with small minority groups.

The small minority groups might also be hunted by people, but they wouldn't be a large chunk of the pop, so only if some minority groups sucessfully thinned everybody out, would a significant amount of people die


The most lengthy strategy, albeit effective in the long run, is to limit the amount of people born somehow, it is the time-length that is the issue, since the planet isn't going to keep up for long with so many billions of people starting to havoc it, with India and China coming up and all.

I suspect part of the reason you went with this, is the immidiate urgency for our planet and future? no doubt, it would take decades to be noticeable if people had much less children.

[Tomas]

Well, that was unexpected, Eliz: from advocate of world peace to advocate of legalised murder. They seem pretty incongruous, but I understand where you're coming from with population control. I honestly don't think that being able to randomly shoot people in the head is the answer, but it's an interesting proposal: back to the days of the Wild West without a sheriff.

Not really, Elizabeth, with some of her other threads, espouses a "kinder, gentler" version of national fascism.

Another fear-mongering thread was "the oceans are gonna rise 25 feet."

My (unsolicited) advice? Move out of metropolitan areas, Elizabeth.

-Laird writes-
...back to the days of the Wild West without a sheriff.


-tomas-
Read below, Laird.

by Allison Kilkenny [see her photo]

Normalizing the police state (and how it ends with taser-firing drones)

-snips from article-
That student was asking for it. Grandma shoulda kept her mouth shut.

Taser's distributor has announced plans for a flying drone
that fires stun darts at criminal suspects or rioters.

It all sounds like science fiction. Sane individuals read stuff about the
taser-firing drones and think, "That'll never happen!" But consider
that 30 years ago, people would have laughed at the idea that police
would one day be permitted to electrocute citizens for getting mouthy.

Other nifty inventions include >> http://trueslant.com/allisonkilkenny/20 ... ing-drones

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

"the oceans are gonna rise 25 feet."

Well, they are...

BUT, the vast majority would most likely be ordinary people that couldn't be bothered with wars, and they wudnt have anything to do with small minority groups.

How would this group, not provoking anyone, incur the vast majority of casualties? They might get the most unretaliated casualties, but I also believe that more of them would get involved than you think. When people you care about get killed, the "couldn't be bothered with" attitude goes out the window pretty fast for many people.

[Tomas]

.


-Tomas earlier-
"the oceans are gonna rise 25 feet."

-Elizabeth-
Well, they are...

-tomas-
Where? You live by the ocean... Kindly don't come up with the islets in the middle
of the Pacific Ocean, either. That's nothing more than natural erosion..

Where?

[Talking Ass]

I think she means 'in the future'. They're going to rise 25' in the future, when the icecaps melt.

Anders wrote: "not sure how to respond to that now."

I understand. When in doubt, remain silent. First rule of the wise. I often resort to it myself. True, I don't too often suffer from doubt so don't often remain silent. In this case, the second rule overrides the first while also proving it. (And surely I need not remind you of the second rule, right?)

Anyway, everything came clear to me this evening with a full bucket of Friday's barley:

Briefly, no one of us imagines anyone is going to legalize murder anytime soon. (In any case, why legalize it when it could be 'strongly condoned'?). As some of you know, here in Colombia, there was a time---in fact there is still a time---when there were all sorts of juvenile delinquents who were also assassins. If you wanted someone killed it was just a question of having the money...making the arrangement. And it was cheap, dirt cheap. They used motorcycles, one guy on the back with the weapon. Now, it is illegal here for a man to carry another man or adolescent on the back. Also, everyone has to wear a vest with the license plate number clearly visible and on the helmut too. But let's face it: It is not a good idea if everyone starts killing everyone else. It makes for a very paranoid situation. (Things are getting better here: the big hyper-markets are moving in, all the goods are there on display, it is just a question of getting the money to but them. Thus, Colombia joins the peaceful nations).

But really, what I am here to propose is Enlightenment Camps. Forced Enlightenment Camps. 'Really?' you say. 'How would you pull that off? What government has the will to forcibly enlighten its citizens?' Okay, you got a point. Still, the murder thing was hypothetical so why not hypothetical Forced Enlightenment Internment Camps? I just don't see why not.

My idea is better than Scientology, hands down. And while I commend Elizabeth I think we need to recognize legalizing murder will not help us reach our objectives.

I'll let the idea stew in your consciousness. If you get inspired, pleaase share your thoughts. I'm 'all ears' as the saying goes. But make no mistake about it: in this Enlightenment Camp you will either get enlightened or you will be eliminated. When you show a man the Abyss while simultaneously giving him an avenue to redeem himself, that is where Miracles occur.

More, much more, later.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I think she means 'in the future'. They're going to rise 25' in the future, when the icecaps melt.

"Will" rather inherently means "in the future." Yes, when the icecaps melt AND when the oceans expand due to temperature increases. Actually it is the ocean expansion that scientists predict will do the most to make the ocean levels rise.

in this Enlightenment Camp you will either get enlightened or you will be eliminated.

I like it.

As I mentioned, all you'd get is gangs.

I could see people grouping up, but gangs arene't necessarily all bad... especially if we were to have enlightened gang leaders. Before you fall off your chair laughing, what's the difference between gangs with enlightened gang leaders and ancient Buddhist monistaries?

There would be no population reduction, the exponential rate of increase would actually become more dramatic.

I just don't see it that way, but neither of us has a way to prove it - since murder is not likely to be legalized or even strongly condoned until/unless we have ravaged the world with overpopulation anyway.

Legalize drugs

That could help

and nudity and the world will change.

Change, yeah, but I don't see legalized nudity reducing population. Maybe there would be more disease, but probably not by a whole lot.

We don't want the change to come incidentally as a 'relief', but rather through experiment, by choice.

Choice, or conscious experiment, rather than Nature's haphazard experiment, is what TA and I are proposing.

[Tomas]

I think she means 'in the future'. They're going to rise 25' in the future, when the icecaps melt.

Oh. Yeah, right. Will the sky be falling, too?

When the icecaps melt? Is that when the Sun expands?

PS - I predict the oceans will be rising 37'. After I'm dead, of course.

[Tomas]

I think she means 'in the future'. They're going to rise 25' in the future, when the icecaps melt.

"Will" rather inherently means "in the future." Yes, when the icecaps melt AND when the oceans expand due to temperature increases. Actually it is the ocean expansion that scientists predict will do the most to make the ocean levels rise.

Well then, Talking Ass better find (relocate) Noah's ark and start looking for his mate. Only two-per-species will be admitted.

PS - Al Gore's hot air will raise the ocean level by 4'. Guaranteed..

[Jamesh]

Although worrisome little Lizzies idea is harebrained, as amongst other things, it would lead to genocide, there is some merit in non-court, but consensus based, vigilante activities who would have the power to "silence" criminals like priests, politicians and the overly wealthy :).

The fact is that most of the worlds problems could be solved without any significant violence. It's simple really, all every nation has to do is to tax everyone that earns or owns more than 50 times the average income for that nation at 100% for all earnings above that level. If such persons hide income/wealth, then they are striped of everything.

Also no company should be allowed to remain incorporated if they grow larger than 25,000 times average income per nation. That does not mean that say Microsoft or Boeing would be limited to a capitalisation of 1 or 2 billion, but that such companies must divide and set up separately listed and owned companies around the world, where the bulk of the income is received locally.

This would decrease the cost of goods and services by about 50%, and provide ample tax reserves for governments to allocate resources where they are most needed. 100's of millions of jobs would move from supporting the wealthy with luxury goods and services to more efficient uses of these resources, including the sustainable use of the environment.

Most importantly though is that there would be a gradual shift away from excessive greed, and human values would shift more to cooperative activities.

50 times average income in Australia is 2.5 million - surely that is sufficient for all ones needs. This level does not take away the drive to succeed, there will still be a societal hierarchy, still be a need for 15 million dollar homes (just not one person with 20 of them). All it does is take away the fact that 95% of power is held by 5% of the population - no person would have such wealth that "they can do make their own rules".

It would take a revolution to take power out of the hands of the wealthy, but the above is something at least 80% of the worlds population would support, therefore it is possible. To avoid turmoil, it would need to be introduced at much higher levels than the 50 times and 25,000 times started above (maybe 1000 times average income in the west and 3000 times in developing countries), but then the maximum level could be progressively reduced over 20 or so years.

By the way, in the US Lizzies idea may occur in any case, the country is most probably a Dead Man Walking, as is much of Europe. The population will become very volatile within 10 or 15 years when the debt shit really hits the fan. Clearly they will move from a superpower to being just a top 10 country, so soon will be the time to start thinking of reining in the destructive forces of capitalism. Much of the US's income comes from global companies whom will have almost no loyalty to a deeply troubled US, and the ownership is already shifting in any case to where the new wealth is being created - like Greece they are the Greek Islands that you might have to sell for the debt already owed. The Asians won’t treat the US with respect, so you'd be better off working to limit capitalism's excesses before a few thousand of the Asian wealthy start to play the same excessive greed game that your large companies have done to the rest of the world.

Socialism is actually the only answer for the world. It only fails when wealthy power groups such as business and religion own the politicians and courts, which is why I also feel Australia is beginning to fail. Australia population growth comes from immigration, which makes "work quality" trend downward to lower common denominators and together with dog-eat-dog capitalistic memes mostly copied from the US, makes the average level of greed trend upwards.

The other things required to "fix the world" are:

Separation of powers -
1. No politician should be allowed to ever even mention their religion.
2. No party funding should be allowed from business, nor should public moneys be spent on political parties electioneering. If they cannot afford TV ads well and good.
3. No lobbyists should be allowed to meet politicians without public observers being in attendance.

[Talking Ass]

Deja-vu, you just have't gazed long enough in the Ass's Dharma Eye.

Life---'this life' as they say---indeed has a function. It didn't just come about, it was designed as an incubator of souls. This is something all Dharma Rats know: the samsara-realm is a pain-palace where pain's constant prodding, like demons with sharp lances, eventually produces a conscious, realized soul. The understructure to everything that you see and all that exists, is nothing more or less than 'Golden Mind'. Come at it from the valley below, or from the highest peak where the raven plays, or come up from the bottom of the ocean on a wave of consciousness: it all tends to Golden Mind.

Enlightenment Internment Camps® is just a technology-based social modification process that mirrors but accentuates (with patented Enhancement technology) Life's own utterly terrible processes: birth, life, death in an ever-recurring cycle. So, for example, instead of being slightly and accumulatingly disappointed time and time again by 'love', in our virtual reality simulators, 'love' all in one turning becomes a literal descent into hell. You see the girl from afar, she waves and smiles. You soon 'hook-up', you lose your discrimination, she manifests as a demon, but you are utterly addicted by then. You begin a descent into the most sordid places within your psychology, Dostoyevskian crimes are committed, your own parents are beheaded at your bequest, 'the face that launched a thousand ships' grins maliciously at you while the cold steel glints (well, you get the idea).

You come out of this experience trembling like old Kierkegaard! You will use your man-thing for one purpose only ever again: urinating. We offer the same excursion for the oft more romantic female. Simulators, brain implants, chemicals, contrived realities overseen by extremely complex computer systems that monitor all processes.

There will be 30 different Reeducation Centers and 'all roads lead to EIC®' we might say. Shaped like funnels, they'll bring 'em in by the busload and drop them off at what looks like an enormous Theme Park. Rides, delighted screams, pretty scenery, theme restaurants, comfy bedroom suites. Piles of cash. Malls filled with every glimmering trinket! It will be like a dream come true, like arriving at long last in Shangrila!

But every sparkling dream turns into a Boschean nightmare of living horrors! Yet, instead of taking 10 or 50 or 1000 incarnations (and ruining the planet in the process) our specially designed Experience Compactor© will allow the subject to live out, in a 3 month period, the equivalent of 300 distinct incarnations---incarnations so horrid, so agonizing, so utterly depressing that, when we THEN offer them the Road to Redemption® they will scamper down its glorious and industrious paths without hesitation or grumbling.

An electrode, of course, will be left installed at the center of their brain. Three molecules wide by 3 molecules wide (we are that advanced!) any deviation from Enlightened Etiquette will result in a succession of 5 utterly terrible incarnations of pure suffering lived back to back---all in the space of 10 minutes!

Needless to say, they will get right back on the Dharma Path...

This is our offering to the World Peace Process.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Elizabeth,

How does that address the overpopulation problem though?

Overpopulation is only a major problem because of the crude way that we creating energy, and the chemical byproducts resulting.

With better technology comes less environmental destruction. Also, the current urbanization, and the fall of rural populations is a good thing. Concentrating humans into a small space decreases the use of energy, and it is better then having human spread out along large spaces.

I don't believe we need any crazy murder laws, and as far as Jamesh's ideas. very imaginative, but the situation will sort itself out. For instance: when nanotechnology makes humans able to create any product from essentially garbage, accumulating wealth will suddenly become pointless. Basically, when survival security becomes easy, the desire to accumulate wealth and power is meaningless. That is why some celebrities give all their money away, and start over. Their lives are so empty that they need to feel the ambition created from survival pressure again. That is the only way life has any meaning to them.

[Jamesh]

and as far as Jamesh's ideas. very imaginative, but the situation will sort itself out.

Yeah, I occasionally get a little idealistic. My idea is certainly not likely, but if the global warming and thinning resources doomsayers are more right than wrong, the causes that may allow such a revolution may arise.

I totally distrust global companies and the people that run or are attracted to them. I know their mindlessness, it's the same as politicians "We are the ruling class, and the only ones fit to be so". They always end up destroying something via there short term or expansion-for-the-sake of expansion of their wealth/status base.

And yes, the situation is likely to sort itself out, we humans are inventive. I'm quite confident low cost sustainable energy isn't that far away - 20 years for the technology, 20 odd more for dissemination of this technology across the world.

For instance: when nanotechnology makes humans able to create any product from essentially garbage, accumulating wealth will suddenly become pointless.

No it will not, at least not for a while. Status and competition will not suddenly cease to be a factor.

Nor will the globals allow such a situation to arise, without something first causing them to lose the power of technological and ownership. Status wars between the most powerful individuals over technology will possibly precede the freeing up of nanotechnology to the masses.

I still view nanotechnology with wideranging low cost uses of the type you are thinking of, as being a long way off.

Basically, when survival security becomes easy, the desire to accumulate wealth and power is meaningless

For most it is, but not for some, and it is these some that will continue to damage humanities future.

[Ryan Rudolph]

I suppose my main point is that all hypothetical solutions are limited due to their inability to ever be implemented by a consenting majority. For instance: Legalizing murder would never be accepted by the majority, and I would prefer to see changes in a more sustainable direction without a lot of crude forms of violence and disorder. There must be a more sane and gentle way to get there.

One should never compromise their own morals and values to reach some desired goal in the future. That is my problem with utilitarianism thought as a whole. It will sacrifice immediate stability for future stability. It will cause disorder in the present to secure future order. Such thinking is a slippery slope, and many atrocities around the globe have been committed with the best of utilitarian intentions.

sound reasoning by having faith in logic and truth, with a bit of scientific innovation will get us much farther than wacky murder laws.

[Nick]

That's right Ryan. I don't even need to think this proposal of Elizabeth's all the way through to dismiss it out right. Also, the way she keeps bringing up methods of killing people as a solution to some of humanity's problems is very strange, if not disturbing. Efficiency, sustainability, technology, and renewable energy will easily solve any problems humans might encounter due to high populations and their demand for resources. The only thing we have to do is make the choice to move in the right direction.

Currently there's a political battle in the United State's congress going on over shifting our economy and industry in a "green direction", which is nice to see, but naturally there are people and corporations with vested interests in the current state of affairs who buy off politicians (mainly republicans) to obstruct and bog down the process in order to maintain the status quo.

[Anders Schlander]

That's right Ryan. I don't even need to think this proposal of Elizabeth's all the way through to dismiss it out right. Also, the way she keeps bringing up methods of killing people as a solution to some of humanity's problems is very strange, if not disturbing. Efficiency, sustainability, technology, and renewable energy will easily solve any problems humans might encounter due to high populations and their demand for resources. The only thing we have to do is make the choice to move in the right direction.

Currently there's a political battle in the United State's congress going on over shifting our economy and industry in a "green direction", which is nice to see, but naturally there are people and corporations with vested interests in the current state of affairs who buy off politicians (mainly republicans) to obstruct and bog down the process in order to maintain the status quo.

All these solutions "Efficiency, sustainability, technology, and renewable energy" that you mention would be made so much easier without a huge population, though. Whatever the means, reducing the population is the most effective method by far.

[Nick]

Anders,

I don't necessarily have a problem with a "huge population", so long as it's sustainable and respectful of the biosphere. Either way, legalizing murder is hardly the only way to reduce the population. In fact, those things I mentioned have proven to be extremely effective in limiting population growth, as evidenced in how industrialized nations have a much lower fertility rate than less developed areas of the world. So if we want to limit the human population of our planet to a reasonable number, we should start with those things anyway.

[Cory Duchesne]

Reducing the population isn't even quite the issue, because what's the statistic, something like a single western person consumes the amount of an entire African village? I wouldn't be surprised if that's accurate. With that, you could argue that reducing fertility of a culture by modernizing them with technology is really only going to cause greater consumption among those who do exist, to the point where any gains made by reduced fertility are really just drop in contrast to the increased overall increased consumption of each person.

Do you want every 1000 people consuming 1, or do you want each person consuming a 1000? That's what scares me about Africa or any massively populated third world area. Bring them technology and civilization, and their desires grow and grow and grow. The world can't support it.

However, breakthroughs in clean free energy may eventually allow for incredible indulgence for everyone, I suppose. So we'll see.

[Ryan Rudolph]

The way I see it is that if an overly populated nation modernizes too fast, the local ecosystem suffers such extreme damage that the death rate increases to compensate. China is a good example. This country is modernizing faster than any nation in history. What took America centuries to accomplish, China is doing in decades. The result is that cancer rates are incredibly high due to abrupt pollution of life sustaining resources such as fresh water, air and soil.

We are definitely heading into a mass extinction event, but the earth has seen five of them in its history, according to biologists, and the biosphere is able to rebound back from extreme stress and calamity.

Our biggest concern should be if the global heating of the earth makes life temporarily unadaptive for aerobic animals. David Suzuki highlights a theory to explain some of the mass extinction events, where he proposes that the biggest threat is if global heating causes oceanic currents to stop flowing due to the melting of the ice caps, which keeps convention cycles of warm waters and cold water circulating. If this engine stops, the oxygen in the ocean disappears, and aerobic marine animals are the first to die off. Then microbes take over, which produce vast quantities of sulfuric acid as a byproduct of their digestion. This is a problem because the oceans become toxic, and sulfuric gas is released causing land plants and animals to die off, as oxygen is choked out of the atmosphere as well. And apparently it takes millions of years for the cycle to end, and aerobic conditions to return.

And I suspect humans would find it incredibly difficult to adapt to an environment that lacks oxygen. The microbes may rule again! So I say we legalize the murder of microbes. Grab a newspaper people, and start smacking very surface in your immediate living area. We have zillions of microbes to kill.

[Cory Duchesne]

The way I see it is that if an overly populated nation modernizes too fast, the local ecosystem suffers such extreme damage that the death rate increases to compensate. China is a good example. This country is modernizing faster than any nation in history. What took America centuries to accomplish, China is doing in decades. The result is that cancer rates are incredibly high due to abrupt pollution of life sustaining resources such as fresh water, air and soil.

As long as the population is at an equilibrium, slightly incrementing, or slightly decrementing, I don't think the death toll in China (or anywhere) really matters. The fact is China has over a billion people, all of whom want a piece of the happiness pie. It would take massive death tolls to see any useful dents in the population, and it's hard to say what a "useful dent" in the population is anyway, because the true danger is the promise of unlimited egotistical freedom to almost any population. If you've got over 500'000 egotistical people, then I say you've got a danger. Consider Qatar, with it's mere 907,229 persons. They are ranked number 1 in carbon dioxide emissions! Just insane...

One thing I am surprised about is China's carbon emissions. According to wiki, It's not very high at all, they are ranked 99. Not sure what to make of that. It will be interesting to watch how quickly they climb up the ranks as their economy grows.

We are definitely heading into a mass extinction event, but the earth has seen five of them in its history, according to biologists, and the biosphere is able to rebound back from extreme stress and calamity.

Our biggest concern should be if the global heating of the earth makes life temporarily unadaptive for aerobic animals. David Suzuki highlights a theory to explain some of the mass extinction events, where he proposes that the biggest threat is if global heating causes oceanic currents to stop flowing due to the melting of the ice caps, which keeps convention cycles of warm waters and cold water circulating. If this engine stops, the oxygen in the ocean disappears, and aerobic marine animals are the first to die off. Then microbes take over, which produce vast quantities of sulfuric acid as a byproduct of their digestion. This is a problem because the oceans become toxic, and sulfuric gas is released causing land plants and animals to die off, as oxygen is choked out of the atmosphere as well. And apparently it takes millions of years for the cycle to end, and aerobic conditions to return.

And I suspect humans would find it incredibly difficult to adapt to an environment that lacks oxygen.

Yeah, I was watching that show last week, interesting theory. If a handful of humans do survive such harsh period of wipe outs, perhaps it's mostly going to be our best and brightest. Maybe not our best philosophers, but probably our best scientists, technologists, innovators and seers. For those of us who like the idea of humans evolving, the promise of mass wipe outs is almost exciting. It's a cleansing of the gene pool.

Doomsday seed vault hits 1/2 million mark. Some people apparently do plan ahead. God knows what other resources are being implemented for the long term survival of a small elite.

[Kelly Jones]

Our biggest concern should be if the global heating of the earth makes life temporarily unadaptive for aerobic animals.

It's possible that anaerobic animals evolve to be a super-intelligent life-form over the next billions or millions of years. Hopefully, their biggest concern would be wisdom.

.

[Tomas]

.


-Anders Schlander-
theres easier ways to sterilize people,

-tomas-
No problem there as long as it is voluntary.


-Anders-
+ it wouldn't be a good idea if you suddenly needed to populate. duh?

-tomas-
Define "suddenly needed to populate"


-Anders-
+ nothing against muslims,

-tomas-
The religion is a bit bizarre (both sunni and shia).


-Anders-
the point was that it's simply enough to figure out a way to deal with overpop.

-tomas-
1st start with the convicted murderers, rapists, child molesters. Kill them all

2nd bunch to go would be people who refuse to work (the welfare bums).

3rd would be the psychiatric cases.


-Anders-
if you wanna be reasonable

-tomas-
But, of course :-)

PS - Elizabeth's "road to hell" is paved with good intentions ;-)

[Kelly Jones]

1st start with the convicted murderers

Perhaps it would be more ethical for the executioner to be hooked up intravenously to the same neurotoxin as his client, such that pressing the "murder" button might kill him instead. He has to be willing to kill himself as soon as he is convinced of the rightness of murder. That would be logical, wouldn't it?

.

[Anders Schlander]

'rightness of murder' could apply, if for example a person that generally thinks murder is wrong, but can see that murdering some people actually prevents more murders , by eliminating harmful people. Then a specific murder could actually be right, even though murder in general is wrong.


society brings up these people, and is actually responsible for what they do. They are the ones saying people shouldn't murder, but if murder isn't right, clearly, society shouldn't murder either?, Convicted people in prisons is also likely to have people around them, wouldn't it be terribly wrong to say that killing them doesn't mean murder & murdered, to somebody, and thus, is just as much a crime as the first was?

Society brings people up to be so damaged that they end up killing people, and then the very same society kills them instead of taking responsibility. Like beating and giving a dog mental traumas, then followingly euthanising the dog because it bites a family member.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory,

One thing I am surprised about is China's carbon emissions. According to wiki, It's not very high at all, they are ranked 99. Not sure what to make of that. It will be interesting to watch how quickly they climb up the ranks as their economy grows.

Yeah, reasons for degrees of pollution is an interesting topic. Many of the middle-east countries are high polluters of carbon only because oil is so plentiful and cheap in their own nations, so they use it excessively for everything.

Nations with harsh winters also have higher carbon outputs for heating, and nations who consume high quantities of beef and other meats have higher outputs as well. China is polluting their own environment locally due to overpopulation, but their overall carbon footprint is lower due most chinese being unable to afford much of the technology that produces carbon. Also, the Chinese population is sardined into small spaces, which reduces consumption levels. China also buys most of their beef as imports, so the energy needed for their beef isn't calculated into their footprint because it is produced in other nations.

And then you have nations such as Cuba, which have very low outputs, but there citizens live very sensual lives, based on music, dance, party, and an excessive desire for pleasure and happiness. I suppose it all depends on the resources a nation has access to, and how quickly it consumes those resources.

Kelly,

It's possible that anaerobic animals evolve to be a super-intelligent life-form over the next billions or millions of years. Hopefully, their biggest concern would be wisdom.

My intuition tells me that oxygen would need to be a vital component in any evolution of consciousness. This is true because multi-cellular organisms need a high quantity of oxygen to carry out their metabolic functions, and to evolve a brain requires an enormous amount of cellular work due the constant energy required, not to mention, you need an organism that can self-regulate its own body temperature, which requires even more metabolic energy. Oxygen is also vital for multi-cellular organisms because it binds to H+ ions, which is the result of cellular reactions, causing them to be less destructive to the cell as a whole.

It seems to me that with higher complexity, comes the need for oxygen due to the mechanics of how cells make their own energy. Studying the steps of ATP synthesis illustrates this necessity well. Moreover, I bet that if consciousness evolved on other planets, it must have evolved from other aerobic multi-cellular organisms. I could be wrong, but my intuition says no.

The only way I would be wrong is if Nature has totally different ways to evolve cells/life in different environments, but from what I know of chemistry, physics and biology, it seems to suggest that nature needs specific circumstances to perform complicated outcomes.

[Kelly Jones]

We could depopulate without killing anyone. Just reduce our consumer-impact, making ourselves tiny people.

What raw or new resources could you stop using? Anyone here set up their own power sources?

From a quick assessment, I'd become "invisible", resource-wise, if computer-related equipment and bicycle parts were ecologically manufactured. So even if I have no positive spiritual effects on others, at least I wouldn't have much of an negative effect long into the future.

.