Raul a no show at the airport to meet Obama.

[Tobbot]

I don't really want to talk to you about this my friend. Not because I cannot take up the banner of my beliefs, but because it will raise hell on this board.

I will leave you with this. How old are you? And, have you ever really experienced capitalism?

For the record, there is noting in my home that is not somehow regulated by a federal law. That is not capitalism. The free market is not free...! The stock market, the bond market, the currency market... all manipulated and controlled by masterminds.

We did have a system that worked, flawed, but worked. It caused the US to become a world power in decades, the decades that took other countries thousands of years. It was in the recognition of humans being human, freely human and not slaves to the state, regardless of the leader(s) of that state. The woes that you lament above are not the result of excess freedom and capitalism. They are the result of top down centralized control by those that cannot likely run a home business, let alone a 300 million man (rhetorically) economy...

With all due respect... over population!!!? I just have to ask. Where do you live and when was the last time you were on an airplane?

Thanks for asking! -Piggy

Agreed, Piggy... I wasn't sure I was going to be able to avoid getting a month ban for breaching "American Politics" subject. I will PM you soon because Im very interesting to continue this and hear your thoughts.

Cheers to all in this discussion... It still impresses me how most times in FOH these discussions/arguments are handled with respect and tact. Imo... We do this better than other boards I've been on.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Fugu]

With all due respect... over population!!!? I just have to ask. Where do you live and when was the last time you were on an airplane?

C'mon, serious, Ray?!

[PigFish]

C'mon, serious, Ray?!

Don't wish to misunderstand this statement. Restate it so a 'pig' can understand it and perhaps I will reply to it.

In general:

Folks, I am not new to forums, nor am I young. I can write for hours but it is not in my best interests (always) to do so. I will pick and choose my arguments (if you don't mind).

My goal in posting here, beyond my own amusement, is often to educate and even change minds. Some of you have criticized me for this, whether it be cigars or politics. Okay, I can take it...

You guys post what you want (within the rules) and I will do the same. But frankly, unless I have minds to win, I will not likely expend the effort to convince ideologues. It is just not worth my time.

I think the best way to store cigars is my way! BUT, I am not willing to destroy the community to prove it. I can be passionate about it, without carrying every banner to the battlefield. I hope you all understand this concept!

I am a political zealot! I have to walk away from much of the detail of many of these threads for my own good, and for the good of the community.

Cheers! -Ray

[Fugu]

You made an allusion with your statement (if I got that right), and I was just unclear whether you were kidding or are serious about it. Simple question, nothing more nothing less. But it's ok for me if you don't want to expand on it. Let's leave it at that, means derailing anyway.

Cheers

Paul

[Zigatoh]

Doers vs Talkers.

Now honestly I'm neither, but seeing the number of words people are happy to throw about on here I'm surprised the world isn't a utopia (that word has been used a lot, really, we actually believe in that apparently) already where the biggest thing we have to argue about is whether to watch ghost busters or ghost busters 2 (I'm watching the first one right now btw, they're about to not think of anything....).

God I hope some of the people writing essays on this and various other recent threads have actually done something about it.

Me? I already eat less sugar, what more do you want?!

[PigFish]

You made an allusion with your statement (if I got that right), and I was just unclear whether you were kidding or are serious about it. Simple question, nothing more nothing less. But it's ok for me if you don't want to expand on it. Let's leave it at that, means derailing anyway.

Cheers

Paul

If you wanted to know if I don't think that the world is overpopulated then I will expand on it. It is not!

It is from a cubical in a high-rise, but when you move away from the population centers, vast sections of the earth have little in the way of population density.

I stand by it.

If more (others) wish to argue the point, I will not take part. There is no point in it as I see it.

I appreciate your response by the way... Cheers! -Ray

[Ken Gargett]

If you wanted to know if I don't think that the world is overpopulated then I will expand on it. It is not!

It is from a cubical in a high-rise, but when you move away from the population centers, vast sections of the earth have little in the way of population density.

I stand by it.

If more (others) wish to argue the point, I will not take part. There is no point in it as I see it.

I appreciate your response by the way... Cheers! -Ray

hi Ray,

apols for the delay in responding. i put some posts aside because they were interesting and deserved a bit more attention than the usual flippancy.

on your thoughts about not expending the energy in responding or arguing on certain occasions - i know you often do and i suspect you do not realise how much it is appreciated by many, even if they disagree. so i hope you do. the forum would be poorer without it.

for me, the old 'i could but i won't bother' argument is really only applicable when you have people who are utterly entrenched and will not see reason no matter what (then the other option is to have that specific topic banned on the forum). no point then but on the forum, while there may be some like that, a great many of us, i believe, like to hear and consider other points of view - i can say that i have occasionally changed my mind on certain subjects because of the views put forward by others and i'll bet i am not the only one. otherwise, that argument falls flat (bit like the kid at school - i could beat you up but i won't) and is unworthy of you - i say this knowing that despite what you say, you actually do carry the torch on many occasions and members love to read your thoughts.

a great deal of what you say here i agree with and so that needs no rehashing (and i suspect i am far far closer to your thoughts on capitalism than you might think). but a few points where we might not, as yet, be on the same hymn sheet.

i'm not sure if the 'we gave cuba its freedom' stuff was tongue in cheek or not. i suspect not. but let us be serious, if you did, way back in 1898, it was largely a nice by-product. that war was a way into an international voice for the states, and earned it guam, p rico and the philippines (for a little dosh). not too sure the cuban freedom was top of the agenda, just a nice bonus. and it does raise the eyebrows a little given the hell cuba has copped (and not suggesting some of it might not have been deserved) over the next century with imposed dictators etc.

before you think i'm bashing the states, what a lot of americans seem to fail to understand is simply that you are the big cheese. of course, we are going to focus on your every move. you are the leading superpower. any action you take impacts on us all. do you wonder why the faroe islands doesn't get quite the same scrutiny? you can't be the major country on the planet and then hide away. comes with the territory and no matter how much it might piss you off, tough. it will continue (of course, when china takes over then you'll have less to worry about, at least from that perspective).

anyway, all of this comes back to something i think you said, in a slightly different way - basically, every country is in it for themselves. and so it should be. i agree with this. first up, look after yourselves. sure, support your allies because it is in your interest to do so as then they will support you. foreign policy is simply about securing/improving yourselves on the international stage and so it should be. the states did not enter the 1898 war from some sense of altruism. self interest first! and so it should be. name me a war the states entered where they powers that be at the time didn't believe it was in their interests to do so (and ditto any country). a more recent example - WWII. no question that when the states finally got on board, it was a massive factor in turning the war and ultimately saving many thousands of allied lives (one could argue that had you jumped in early, more would have been saved but that is moot - or mute for rob). the american people would not have accepted FDR going any earlier and so he did not. he was a pollie, after all. and had churchill not convinced FDR that it was ultimately in the states' best interest to enter the european sphere, they may have stayed in asia. this is not intended as critical but just as i see it.

anyway, i have digressed as i have one major disagreement with what you said - the world is not overpopulated. i must say that this was the first time i have ever heard such a thought. i cannot believe that anyone doesn't think that the world is massively overpopulated. it is a hell of a sensitive subject as reduction of population, even attempts to maintain it at current levels, is hardly likely to be a happy topic. sure, the earth has areas not subjected to intense population numbers but do you want them everywhere? highrise in the serengeti? the impact of climate change is just one of many adverse effects of this overpopulation. no one wants to face it or discuss, for easier to understand reasons, but it is the major issue facing the planet (or certainly one of them). population levels are fast heading towards unsustainable.

anyway, Ray, i hope you'll keep sharing your views in depth - even if they do not accord with mine (and therefore, by definition, must be wrong). all the best. i have to go and refill the glass with an excellent pinot and get back to the Boss (brizzy concert - feb 2014 - one of his very greatest ever).

[Fugu]

Thanks Ken for taking up this thread again, where I didn't want to go into further argumentation, as it really goes without saying. This is a debate that would mean a vast derailing from the original thread and might deserve its own.

But just one tiny little aspect, as I think that this is what may have caused a skewed perspective in the adumbrated airplane argumention:

Overpopulation is not measured by population/area, it is sensed by mankind's resource use!

But one might ask - and perhaps that is what Ray is alluding to - is this due to the sheer amount of people or is it basically due to man's irresponsible way of living with his massive per capita resource exploitation that is causing the problems? Such a consideration, however, would appear purely academic as, in the end, these are two factors of the same equation working in the same direction. The effects multiply, that's the basic point I guess.

Of course, and there really is no arguing here, we are far from being in balance with mother earth. While it still seems to work "somehow", we are not using our means in a sustainable way. We are running up a big bill.

[PigFish]

Here is my response guys. I have poured over it a few times and I have tried to make it as clear as I can without spending the day on it. I hope it wins minds…

It may not be exactly clear. It has not been easy to put to words. Read it generally and not at the end of a pointed stick. Read it without intention to offend as that is how it was authored and intended. Read it with good will. That was the intent.

Here is something that I want you guys to think about.

Is the world overpopulated because?

You think so?

You have proof... You don't need to send it to me!

Because people are stupid?

Because some people are stupid, yet others are smart?

Because, what some people do affects you?

Because there is noting you can do about 'some people?’

… and most importably, you would affect it if you could?

This is not really flippant or a joke. I suppose if I had a lot more time to really sally forth a considerable number of more "damning" questions I would. I really cannot devote my day to it, nor do I wish to take my replies, and tell those that reply that they have the same world view of many genocidal maniacs!

So in part, letting the cat out of the bag, that is where I will take the argument! It is a pretty awful place!

You might ask why, to win? No, not at all. To get those to understand that I am a conceptualist and not a dialectic nit-picker! I can be detail oriented of course, but far more important to me is the concepts, and where the concepts and fears of the end of the world have brought mankind in the past.

In this very short space I have detailed a concept if you have seen it. It is why I don’t wish to debate it. This is where the argument goes with me. We take a look at the history of those who think that they can affect the lives of the ‘inferior races’ that are killing the world, as they have seen it, and this is where it goes. This is the fight and argument I am going to make because that is where this leads mates, and let it be known that I am not the guy preaching it (world end by overpopulation) and this is how the conceptual argument is made!!!

If that did not sound outrageous enough, this is going to sound even more so. I know it in advance you guys might well think I am off my nut... (if you don't already!) -LOL

Here it goes. I understand that at least one of you guys who has taken up this mantel is an atheist. I don't disrespect your position, but I think it is an awful one, and frankly as a Christian I would give my left ******** to change your mind. Why...? Because I get brownie points with God? NO!!! Because as a Christian, it is the best gift I could give a person. The love of God is inspiring. Sharing my belief is a gift that could save your immortal soul (my belief, no need to argue it). That is why... (Don't let me lose you, this is a tangential topic, but one to understand.)

With my belief, as with all belief comes a ‘belief system’ (this is a theory of mine, by the way). A belief creates with it an antithetical belief. As a belief cannot be proven, it cannot be disproven just disbelieved, there comes with it automatically, with no counterargument, that the belief is untrue and therefore the counter argument is true. To put it simply, for every yes, there is a corresponding no. A belief system puts in place the “yes,” the “no” follows whether you intend it or not.

I do not wish to argue my theory! We can talk of the concept of belief another day!

As a Christian I have in my religion, an ‘end of days’ apocalyptic scenario. I don’t know all the worlds religions, but it appears that this is not restricted to Christianity. It would appear that those that are atheists, many of them at least, also have such a belief.

Over the decades I have noticed man, and read history. And whether it is a coincidence or a design, I have seen the religion of “man as creator” (a typical atheist view point) also has a consistent belief. The cause (not the root, but the detail) has changed over the decades, but the belief withstands the test of time. Whereas in my religion this, the end of the world, is brought about by Satan, the “man as creator” religion blames man for his own follies. Overpopulation, nuclear winter, mutual destruction, global cooling, then warming, now weather, it seems to change with the seasons, but the underlying reason remains the same. Man, is mans worst enemy.

Where Satan is at the root case of my apocalypse, the ‘stupid’ man is at the root of the man based religion apocalypse.

You guys with me so far?

For the record guys, this could take a year to write a tome upon and I am not going to invest that kind of time in it… But people have been predicting the end of mankind since the beginning of mankind… Read a little history…! The difference is really in who to blame.

Here then is my point. Since the beginning of man, he has been challenged with problems. Problems for the time that seem insurmountable. Yet history has proven that mankind has survived it. Not all of mankind, mind you, but as a species, we have lived through it.

Man has also suffered though stages where man has blamed man for his problems. We therefore have one aspect of warfare! While some of our woes certainly come from other men, I think that is factual, the real threat (to mankind) is more the nature of “what” the real threat is, or what the perceived threat is (this is the kicker)? It is in our analysis of threat that we find the spark, and it often starts with academia. The problem, is the calamity that follows when the ‘superior’ (read sarcastic intent) man makes a choice to do something about it. The something generally involves the ‘superior man’ affecting the lives of the ‘inferior man.’ Read ‘inferior man’ as just, “other men.”

The aforementioned cannot be missed. Don’t gloss over the point or I have wasted my time here! Please understand the concept before going forward!

Need I state examples, or is someone going to play the Godwin's law bullshit on me???

It is in the mind of the elitist man, that most of man’s genocides have stemmed. Look at history and mans greatest manmade follies and tell me that there is not an elitist plan behind it.

There in lies my answer to your problem of overpopulation and where your mindset takes us (me and the argument), at least in my conceptual mind.

My mindset, get more energy, produce more food and try as best we can to reduce human suffering… In some cases, let these “other men” work out their own problems. That is my plan. Simple, yes? Stupid, well maybe, you can decide?

Does it feed the problem? Yes probably. But I am a Christian.

What are the other choices? Affect the lives of other men? I want you to think of the other choices and in what company these (potential) choices put those who think that they are sound choices, when viewed through the spectrum of history. Dose one become the savior by these choices or just another genocidal mad man?

Ultimately this does not mean that one cannot discuss the details of solving day to day problems. But overpopulation has, like it or not, a fatalist ‘punch line.’

With mankind so superior, I often wonder why the non-God based religions have such a fatalist view? Why does the ManGod religion also have with it an apocalypse? Is it because they to have a God as well, a religion of some form? I think so. Yet instead of a forgiving entity, the creator that rights all of mans’ wrongs in the end days, mans’, ManGod, appears to be a power to divide and save man though poor (presumed superior) planning and junk (assumed real) science. Understand please that I am not talking or condemning real science that solves many of mans’ problems, one human being at a time. But I lay the responsibility of genocide, and mans’ torment of other men on those of us that think that we by nature of superiority can lord over other men and make them, or take them to perfection. That we by our nature of ‘masterminds’ can create a better world than the collective minds of men lording over themselves.

Only in God do I see perfection my friends… And while I may just in fact be, a literate, yet ‘ignorant God fearing Christian’ I am putting forth this idea to challenge your (rhetorically, implied or inferred without intention of insult) religion, the religion of ManGod as a superior being as a comparison.

Suffering in the name of God is not uncommon. That is where my religion and yours have common ground. My religion has caused many deaths and much suffering. Yet that is not the cause of my God… That has been the cause of man, working as ManGod to bring about his beliefs, one where he insists that you believe (where he insists you believe) in his god, not Gods… Even in the name of God, has the elitist man been consistent in geocode. This is not because of God, but because of the elitist mind of man!

It is, in my humble opinion, the elitist mindset. The ManGods amongst us that threaten mankind the most.

It is in his belief that man can be perfected by other men that drives him. This is often based on poor data, junk science and ignores the nature of mankind. It is in powerful government that he wields his powerful hand. Powerful government, whether it have the form of a cross, a crescent moon, or colorful flag atop its edifice…

That is where we go with your problem of overpopulation!

Is the earth is overpopulated, I don’t think so. Nor do I wish to pour over you graphs and charts. Here is what I am going to ask you. What are you going to do about it? Does your plan forcibly affect your fellow man? What makes you different than the ‘men’ that came before you, those with the same ideas?

Thanks for reading. Your friend, Ray

[ayepatz]

The world worked so much better when us Brits ran it! Up the Empire! God save the Queen! Rule Britannia!

Gin and Dubonnet, anyone?

[Colt45]

Are we pawns in a metaphysical chess game....

Are we but ants....

Is free will an illusion....

[sengjc]

It's a powerplay - so what if you're POTUS, you're coming into my country, you come to me.

[stogieluver]

Hey Ken and Ray, before I try to find the time to read your last couple of posts, may I just ask: are Cliff's Notes available??

[PigFish]

Hey Ken and Ray, before I try to find the time to read your last couple of posts, may I just ask: are Cliff's Notes available??

... there are, but they require you suffer the cliff, before getting the note!

Ken and Ray... Separated by two spaces and three letters. Scary... -LOL

Last comment. Smoke while reading. Get a DC, it will make things easier! That was a general reply, I have not really replied to Ken yet...!!! -LOL

-Ray

[Ken Gargett]

Here is my response guys. I have poured over it a few times and I have tried to make it as clear as I can without spending the day on it. I hope it wins minds…

It may not be exactly clear. It has not been easy to put to words. Read it generally and not at the end of a pointed stick. Read it without intention to offend as that is how it was authored and intended. Read it with good will. That was the intent.

Here is something that I want you guys to think about.

Is the world overpopulated because?

You think so?

You have proof... You don't need to send it to me!

Because people are stupid?

Because some people are stupid, yet others are smart?

Because, what some people do affects you?

Because there is noting you can do about 'some people?’

… and most importably, you would affect it if you could?

This is not really flippant or a joke. I suppose if I had a lot more time to really sally forth a considerable number of more "damning" questions I would. I really cannot devote my day to it, nor do I wish to take my replies, and tell those that reply that they have the same world view of many genocidal maniacs!

So in part, letting the cat out of the bag, that is where I will take the argument! It is a pretty awful place!

You might ask why, to win? No, not at all. To get those to understand that I am a conceptualist and not a dialectic nit-picker! I can be detail oriented of course, but far more important to me is the concepts, and where the concepts and fears of the end of the world have brought mankind in the past.

In this very short space I have detailed a concept if you have seen it. It is why I don’t wish to debate it. This is where the argument goes with me. We take a look at the history of those who think that they can affect the lives of the ‘inferior races’ that are killing the world, as they have seen it, and this is where it goes. This is the fight and argument I am going to make because that is where this leads mates, and let it be known that I am not the guy preaching it (world end by overpopulation) and this is how the conceptual argument is made!!!

If that did not sound outrageous enough, this is going to sound even more so. I know it in advance you guys might well think I am off my nut... (if you don't already!) -LOL

Here it goes. I understand that at least one of you guys who has taken up this mantel is an atheist. I don't disrespect your position, but I think it is an awful one, and frankly as a Christian I would give my left ******** to change your mind. Why...? Because I get brownie points with God? NO!!! Because as a Christian, it is the best gift I could give a person. The love of God is inspiring. Sharing my belief is a gift that could save your immortal soul (my belief, no need to argue it). That is why... (Don't let me lose you, this is a tangential topic, but one to understand.)

With my belief, as with all belief comes a ‘belief system’ (this is a theory of mine, by the way). A belief creates with it an antithetical belief. As a belief cannot be proven, it cannot be disproven just disbelieved, there comes with it automatically, with no counterargument, that the belief is untrue and therefore the counter argument is true. To put it simply, for every yes, there is a corresponding no. A belief system puts in place the “yes,” the “no” follows whether you intend it or not.

I do not wish to argue my theory! We can talk of the concept of belief another day!

As a Christian I have in my religion, an ‘end of days’ apocalyptic scenario. I don’t know all the worlds religions, but it appears that this is not restricted to Christianity. It would appear that those that are atheists, many of them at least, also have such a belief.

Over the decades I have noticed man, and read history. And whether it is a coincidence or a design, I have seen the religion of “man as creator” (a typical atheist view point) also has a consistent belief. The cause (not the root, but the detail) has changed over the decades, but the belief withstands the test of time. Whereas in my religion this, the end of the world, is brought about by Satan, the “man as creator” religion blames man for his own follies. Overpopulation, nuclear winter, mutual destruction, global cooling, then warming, now weather, it seems to change with the seasons, but the underlying reason remains the same. Man, is mans worst enemy.

Where Satan is at the root case of my apocalypse, the ‘stupid’ man is at the root of the man based religion apocalypse.

You guys with me so far?

For the record guys, this could take a year to write a tome upon and I am not going to invest that kind of time in it… But people have been predicting the end of mankind since the beginning of mankind… Read a little history…! The difference is really in who to blame.

Here then is my point. Since the beginning of man, he has been challenged with problems. Problems for the time that seem insurmountable. Yet history has proven that mankind has survived it. Not all of mankind, mind you, but as a species, we have lived through it.

Man has also suffered though stages where man has blamed man for his problems. We therefore have one aspect of warfare! While some of our woes certainly come from other men, I think that is factual, the real threat (to mankind) is more the nature of “what” the real threat is, or what the perceived threat is (this is the kicker)? It is in our analysis of threat that we find the spark, and it often starts with academia. The problem, is the calamity that follows when the ‘superior’ (read sarcastic intent) man makes a choice to do something about it. The something generally involves the ‘superior man’ affecting the lives of the ‘inferior man.’ Read ‘inferior man’ as just, “other men.”

The aforementioned cannot be missed. Don’t gloss over the point or I have wasted my time here! Please understand the concept before going forward!

Need I state examples, or is someone going to play the Godwin's law bullshit on me???

It is in the mind of the elitist man, that most of man’s genocides have stemmed. Look at history and mans greatest manmade follies and tell me that there is not an elitist plan behind it.

There in lies my answer to your problem of overpopulation and where your mindset takes us (me and the argument), at least in my conceptual mind.

My mindset, get more energy, produce more food and try as best we can to reduce human suffering… In some cases, let these “other men” work out their own problems. That is my plan. Simple, yes? Stupid, well maybe, you can decide?

Does it feed the problem? Yes probably. But I am a Christian.

What are the other choices? Affect the lives of other men? I want you to think of the other choices and in what company these (potential) choices put those who think that they are sound choices, when viewed through the spectrum of history. Dose one become the savior by these choices or just another genocidal mad man?

Ultimately this does not mean that one cannot discuss the details of solving day to day problems. But overpopulation has, like it or not, a fatalist ‘punch line.’

With mankind so superior, I often wonder why the non-God based religions have such a fatalist view? Why does the ManGod religion also have with it an apocalypse? Is it because they to have a God as well, a religion of some form? I think so. Yet instead of a forgiving entity, the creator that rights all of mans’ wrongs in the end days, mans’, ManGod, appears to be a power to divide and save man though poor (presumed superior) planning and junk (assumed real) science. Understand please that I am not talking or condemning real science that solves many of mans’ problems, one human being at a time. But I lay the responsibility of genocide, and mans’ torment of other men on those of us that think that we by nature of superiority can lord over other men and make them, or take them to perfection. That we by our nature of ‘masterminds’ can create a better world than the collective minds of men lording over themselves.

Only in God do I see perfection my friends… And while I may just in fact be, a literate, yet ‘ignorant God fearing Christian’ I am putting forth this idea to challenge your (rhetorically, implied or inferred without intention of insult) religion, the religion of ManGod as a superior being as a comparison.

Suffering in the name of God is not uncommon. That is where my religion and yours have common ground. My religion has caused many deaths and much suffering. Yet that is not the cause of my God… That has been the cause of man, working as ManGod to bring about his beliefs, one where he insists that you believe (where he insists you believe) in his god, not Gods… Even in the name of God, has the elitist man been consistent in geocode. This is not because of God, but because of the elitist mind of man!

It is, in my humble opinion, the elitist mindset. The ManGods amongst us that threaten mankind the most.

It is in his belief that man can be perfected by other men that drives him. This is often based on poor data, junk science and ignores the nature of mankind. It is in powerful government that he wields his powerful hand. Powerful government, whether it have the form of a cross, a crescent moon, or colorful flag atop its edifice…

That is where we go with your problem of overpopulation!

Is the earth is overpopulated, I don’t think so. Nor do I wish to pour over you graphs and charts. Here is what I am going to ask you. What are you going to do about it? Does your plan forcibly affect your fellow man? What makes you different than the ‘men’ that came before you, those with the same ideas?

Thanks for reading. Your friend, Ray

Morning Ray. Awful lot to digest over breakfast.

Be assured your thoughts are never offensive, even if I disagree. Better we do agree to put religion to one side. I have had more than enough of the effects of ‘religion’ this week (yes, I know that there are good people…). And I am certainly not one who has any faith/belief of the ‘man as creator’ line of thinking. None at all.

I would agree that there are times when man is his own worst enemy and I certainly don’t disagree with the basis of your thoughts of the actions of the so-called superior man. I would suggest that often your elitist man could be swapped for religious man, though not all the time. And I would suggest that very often, not always, they are the same thing.

If I suggested that over-population will mean the world’s end then I apologise. Did not mean to do that. Though I do think that it is going to mean massive upheaval and traumatic times ahead (shortages of food, water and land, nuclear, chemical or biological warfare, climate change and various other by-products will ensure this). But I do think man, as a species, will find a way to get through this. I think we will come up with some extraordinary discoveries along the road to alleviate some of this. We will amaze ourselves. To me, that is down to man himself and not any divine being. And we will appal, horrify and disgust ourselves along the way, as well.

A worldwide pandemic may threaten that but then we will not be around to debate who was right or wrong.

I must say that my belief that the world is overpopulated was one that did not consider religion, and to be honest, still does not. It is simply that the explosion in numbers of humans on the face of the earth. We are causing horrendous problems, some of which may be irreparable or insurmountable, to the planet and to our future, at least as we know life to be today. There are more humans alive than have ever lived. Starvation and food shortages affect many millions. Climate change will cause rising sea levels and displace millions – you have heard it all before so I am sure I do not need to go through the endless potential problems. It will get worse before it gets better.

But I was not proposing any solutions – I wish I had some. There was no intention to play the superior man.

I must say I have always rather liked the idea of an afterlife so I could sit in the clouds and watch just what happens to this planet (and how my sports teams are faring) because I think it will be interesting – at times amazing and at other times, anything but pretty (and if I can have some sort of immortality up there, I might get to see the skins win another superbowl or the reds become good again).

Alas, I fear it will not be so.

[Ken Gargett]

double post. apols.

[Fugu]

Holy cow, this is a very spriritualistic approach, which I wasn't prepared for. No disrespect, Ray, sorry, but such a long intro to tell us it's all in the hands of God? It may well be, but that doesn't let us get away with our own responsibility. That's my belief.

Taking it even further, one could be as fatalistic to say, as some do, Homo sapiens is integral part of the biosphere, so all his actions are natural, respectively acts of nature, there is no wrong or right. No matter what's the outcome and whether mankind will survive or not, it all comes by nature. So we don't have to bother about overpopulation or any other man-induced environmental issue at all. A perspective that I am not adopting. (And I have to stress, I don't buy into the idea that the flip side means genocide.)

You take on a very human-centralistic view of the world, the old Christian view that is. "...multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it". That is where we differ most basically, I guess. And with my reference point certainly not being the "end of mankind" - that is as if your were saying, I don't get my car serviced - as long as it drives I am happy and save my means for better until it's eventually broke. My reference point is how we affect our environment and with it the well-being of our fellow human co-sufferers as well as all our fellow creatures living on this planet. Perhaps an atheistic point of view, perhaps.

But this is happening NOW, this is no far away utopic scenario, the effects are manifest already. We are discussing on a future scenario that is already happening. Biodiversity and species extinction, just to name a few, are terms that might not have a meaning to everybody, but still they are existing facts. Whether we should be concerned about it is - indeed - a matter of evaluation and perspective, and where we set our benchmarks in a global agreement.

Cheers

Paul

[helix]

Repent ! The end is near . Seriously though , some great thoughts and insights , enjoying this.

Where the hell was Raul ?

[Diamondog]

Right or wrong...ego involved or not such things can't stand in the way of progress. Both sides will need to rise above such petty issues.

[helix]

After this visit the Castro Government will find it more difficult to blame the embargo for the repression they continue too impose upon the Cuban folks , as it has been doing for decades.

[soutso]

If we could begin every post with this......

"It may not be exactly clear. It has not been easy to put to words. Read it generally and not at the end of a pointed stick. Read it without intention to offend as that is how it was authored and intended. Read it with good will. That was the intent."

......then we could safely talk about anything.

Wow, what a terrific thread this has been. I found all the different points of view fascinating, I can see where everyone is coming from and it was damned interesting. Thanks to all who participated.

Come to think of it, this thread was like some of Havana's finest. A black peppery start that evolved into sweet spice. Out of nowhere came some cocoa and chocolate with a final rush of cream. Complex, unpredictable and magnificent!

For the record, I noted that both governments have been careful to stand firm - hence no official party waiting to welcome President Obama. President Obama in his speeches constantly focussed on the 'Cuban people'. All diplomatic, still baby steps from both sides. No problem with Castro not being there to greet.

As for overpopulation? I don't think the world is overpopulated. The fact that the earth's resources are so unevenly distributed is reason that we can feel that we have overpopulated the earth. As long as we can sustainably feed, clothe, house and educate everyone then we are not overpopulated.

As for the end of the earth? I think a comet will put it's hand up for that one. I pray that Bruce Willis is still around and able to save us from it.

[Ken Gargett]

As for overpopulation? I don't think the world is overpopulated. The fact that the earth's resources are so unevenly distributed is reason that we can feel that we have overpopulated the earth. As long as we can sustainably feed, clothe, house and educate everyone then we are not overpopulated.

just on this point, currently we clearly cannot feed, clothe, house and educate everyone, sustainably or otherwise. and the population is increasing at a terrifying rate. it is just going to get worse.

[Hunter1974]

Hey Ken and Ray, before I try to find the time to read your last couple of posts, may I just ask: are Cliff's Notes available??

You read my mind brother !

[Hunter1974]

If I can make the trip to Cuba I will bring my old boxing gloves and we can sell tickets !!! Rumbling Ray vs Crusher Ken .

[Ryan]

To get back to the original question.

Barack Obama flew out of Havana for a state visit to Argentina last Tuesday.

There is currently $180m worth of trade between the U.S. and Cuba.

Estimates are that trade will be between $1 bn and $4 bn annually when the embargo falls. Cuba has 11m people.

Currently there is about $10bn worth of trade annually (imports and exports) between US and Argentina. Argentina has 40m people.

Why isn't anyone complaining that Argentina's president Mauricio Macri didn't meet President Obama at the airport either?

There is protocol and politicking behind all these occasions. When Barack Obama came here in 2011, a huge occasion for Ireland, our President wasn't at the airport to meet him either. Nobody complained about that at the time.

It's worth realising that maybe there are reasons why certain people are complaining specifically about the reception in Cuba and not all the others.