Sex Friends

[brain]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/805100.asp

[Blu]

Ignorance is only bliss for a short time...

[CornMonkey]

wow..an outbreak just waiting to happen.

[revil]

man, they get all the good stuff in japan... :shifty:

[brain]

It happens in the US as well. FTFs. But it's not really talked about very much... and not everybody has a FTF or multiple FTFs.

[Ladogaboy]

Hehe, I think we've found an "in" for Hang10. All he has to do is find Maki's social circle, and he can be one of her MANY partners. ;)

[Nija]

I see no problem, other than the lack of protection.

If they wanna whore themseleves out, I'm all for it. Getting yours from as many people as possible and not having to worry about the commitment n stuff :shrug: Whatever floats their boats :)

[faither]

Damn. Born too early, again!!!! Kids today get all the cool stuff. :eek:

[sbp]

idiots. :rolleyes:

[ribitch]

so whos moving to japan?

[LPMiller]

I married my FTF'd.

[mcs328]

Originally posted by LPMiller
I married my FTF'd.

Really??? Does your wife know u post info like that on here :P

Anyways...wow...FTF in Japan. I've heard that getting an abortion there is no big deal and their attitude is that it's normal birth control method. Scary.

*mental note* Wear double protection if I meet a Japanese girl, ask to invite her other female friends OR...walk away...fast.

[CornMonkey]

um, what's "FTF?"

[mcs328]

Originally posted by CornMonkey
um, what's "FTF?"

Friends That Freak (nice version)

[brain]

Originally posted by CornMonkey
um, what's "FTF?"

Err.... Friends that f... Or friends w/ "priveleges"

[attgig]

According to the Ministry of Health, between 1998 and 2000 (the latest figures available), the STD infection rate rose 21 percent for Japanese men under 24 and 14 percent for women in the same age group.

that's scary.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by DarkFury

I can see the Brand Image now... Laids: You can't have just one! :hmm:

hahahahaha... :heh:

[ufcrusher]

That is kind of disturbing...but its not the only place where it has happened recently.

I read an article that said unprotected sex among young gay men had dramatically risen in the past few years. According to the article, the reason was that there was a decline in AIDS, and that they didnt view AIDS the same way as they used to because of the creation of all the drugs which allow for infected people to live longer lives and the thought that a cure will be found soon.

The main problem that I have with all of this is that during the original free love time of the 60's and the casual sex re-emergence of the 80's...there wasnt the same dangers that are present today. Many of the STD's that were present then have undergone mutations which make them more resiliant to the drugs that used to clear them up. On top of that AIDS wasnt really present, and now it is a fact of life.

[LPMiller]

Someday....someday it will be ok to have causal sex. I mean casual sex. Either way, it will be ok.

Sadly now, not without protection.

[DaFunkyUnit]

Originally posted by DarkFury

I can see the Brand Image now... Laids: You can't have just one! :hmm:

Frito-Lay

:hihi:

[sleepminded]

Originally posted by ribitch
so whos moving to japan?

oooh ooh oooh...i wanna!!
:angel:

[nickel]

another way of putting it is having a f*** buddy

which is, a nice kinda buddy to have. :)

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by nickelback
another way of putting it is having a f*** buddy

which is, a nice kinda buddy to have. :)

But they have a lot of buddies. ;)

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by nickelback
another way of putting it is having a f*** buddy

which is, a nice kinda buddy to have. :)

heh, do you speak from experience?


so how many of you have "friends with benefits"?

[hang10wannabe]

Originally posted by NuTs62


heh, do you speak from experience?


so how many of you have "friends with benefits"?

me me me me i do i do!!!

http://www.morningmusume-maki.net/maki-g/maki004.jpg
:D

hehe well not really... not yet at least... ^_^

snip~
A 24-year-old named Yuji is typical. On a recent weekday, he waited to meet friends from one of his part-time jobs at Dogenzaka, Tokyo’s famous “love hotel hill.” He counts himself as a member of several social circles, and within each group occasionally sleeps with two or three girls. “It’s understood that we are all healthy, and that we’re not paying prostitutes for sex or sleeping with foreigners,” he says.

ok... WTF is that supposed to mean!!!!! :angry: that assbag-olio:dodgy:

[ShortStack]

Originally posted by Nija
I see no problem, other than the lack of protection.

If they wanna whore themseleves out, I'm all for it. Getting yours from as many people as possible and not having to worry about the commitment n stuff :shrug: Whatever floats their boats :)

I have to agree with Nija here. I mean, people can make their own choices and no one can stop them. What's scary, like Nija said, is that they aren't using condoms. Personally, I understand why they aren't - because they're dayum annoying, but if you're going to have unprotected sex without a condom, at least be on the pill. And, at least have only one partner! I used to think - oh, well I'll be ok...but you never know! I have close friends who have gotten STDs from people who claimed to be virgins. Always be careful.

[hang10wannabe]

Originally posted by ShortStack


I have to agree with Nija here. I mean, people can make their own choices and no one can stop them. What's scary, like Nija said, is that they aren't using condoms. Personally, I understand why they aren't - because they're dayum annoying, but if you're going to have unprotected sex without a condom, at least be on the pill. And, at least have only one partner! I used to think - oh, well I'll be ok...but you never know! I have close friends who have gotten STDs from people who claimed to be virgins. Always be careful.

so by ur statement... u have had unprotected SEX... with corsex... i mean corsec???... be aware... that corsec be cwazy :shifty:

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by hang10wannabe


so by ur statement... u have had unprotected SEX... with corsex... i mean corsec???... be aware... that corsec be cwazy :shifty:

eh, did you happen to be one of Corsec's victims? And Corsec "cwazy"? speak for yourself :P hehe

[Tse How]

Well I live in Japan and the place where they did the interview, shibuya, Tokyo, of course would have percentages like that. Its like, hmm...think of the most sexed up place in the United States, and that's the Japanese mirror.

Asides from that, i dont' think its anywhere near as common as that article makes it out to be. Just Tokyo and definitely the Shibuya area. Not to say it doesn't happen elsewhere, but I'm just saying, it could be just like any other place in the U.S..

As for the part, where someone got offended with the "sleeping with foreigners" comments, I agree. Why wouldn't you? After all, Japan DOES have one of the lowest STD/Aids rates in the world so a comment like that is quite reasonable. No worse than the comment about wearing double protection to sleep with a Japanese (no doubt made as a result of this story).

Anyways, to clear things up, I'm not Japanese. Just an AMerican.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by Tse How
Just an AMerican.

Uh huh. ;)

[Tse How]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy


Uh huh. ;)

wassup eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeway:)

[mcs328]

Originally posted by Tse How
*snip*

As for the part, where someone got offended with the "sleeping with foreigners" comments, I agree. Why wouldn't you? After all, Japan DOES have one of the lowest STD/Aids rates in the world so a comment like that is quite reasonable. No worse than the comment about wearing double protection to sleep with a Japanese (no doubt made as a result of this story).

Anyways, to clear things up, I'm not Japanese. Just an AMerican.

It's always a good idea to wear protection regardless if they be domestic or foreign no matter what the statistics on levels of STD/AIDS in any country. Are you saying you don't need to strap on a lil latex b/c everyone else is clean if you were a native japanese with native japanese friends with benefits? Don't be naive...take a sex class.

Does it really hurt to wear double?? I'm kidding about that comment. It's like when ppl warn their freinds to wear double underwear. :P

[ShortStack]

Originally posted by hang10wannabe


so by ur statement... u have had unprotected SEX... with corsex... i mean corsec???... be aware... that corsec be cwazy :shifty:

Who said I had sex with corsec? huh? And for your information, sex while the girl is on the pill IS protected sex. But how would you know that hang10? heh. :P

[revil]

Originally posted by ShortStack
Who said I had sex with corsec? huh? And for your information, sex while the girl is on the pill IS protected sex. But how would you know that hang10? heh. :P
oh, so i suppose the pill protects you from aids and otther STDs... :shake:

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by revil

oh, so i suppose the pill protects you from aids and otther STDs... :shake:

and of course, even if it is "protection", none of that is 100%.

[Hiro]

Originally posted by revil

oh, so i suppose the pill protects you from aids and otther STDs... :shake:
no, it doesn't. however, that is part of the risk involved with the pill.

[Hiro]

Originally posted by hang10wannabe


so by ur statement... u have had unprotected SEX... with corsex... i mean corsec???... be aware... that corsec be cwazy :shifty:
You gonna get yourself an a*s-kickin for that one boy!

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by Tse How


wassup eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeway:)

Haha, it's about time you figured it out. ;)

Oh yeah, check your Private Messages.

[UnReAL]

read something recently about girls who are "on" the pill. you are supposed to take it everyday at the same time of the day. something like 60% of those interviewed either did not take it everyday or took it at different times during the day. so watch out guys. maybe next time i will say "yea its on there, trust me" --> condom reference. :P

[Hiro]

Originally posted by UnReAL
you are supposed to take it everyday at the same time of the day. something like 60% of those interviewed either did not take it everyday or took it at different times during the day.
Yes, you are supposed to take it every day at the same time. However, when it comes to time, you have a few hours either +/- that you can take the pill.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by Corsec

Yes, you are supposed to take it every day at the same time. However, when it comes to time, you have a few hours either +/- that you can take the pill.

Not only that, but aren't only a quarter of them the actual pill and the rest only a placebo? I mean, it is good to get into a regular system, but I thought that even some them tell you which is which. :shrug:

Oh well, I don't take them... it's not like I need to know. :D

[nickel]

3/4 are actual pills and 1/4 are fakes you take to keep the routine going during your period. to keep track they are in a pack and you punch one out each day.

[Hiro]

Originally posted by nickelback
3/4 are actual pills and 1/4 are fakes you take to keep the routine going during your period. to keep track they are in a pack and you punch one out each day.
and they show which pill you need to start with. its not like it takes rocket science to figure it out.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by Corsec

and they show which pill you need to start with. its not like it takes rocket science to figure it out.

I don't know... it's not the rocket scientists who are having all the kids. :dodgy:

[kain9i6]

The only real protection is Abstinence..

Though I would very much love it to live in Japan and have multiple partners like that.. I would wear a glad bag or two just to be sure..

Girls here in america.. wow.. uh, can you say dirtier than an armpit!??! ok.. j/k, but seriously I don't think the government realizes it, but the Diseases they released into the world (AIDS for example) will wipe us all out.. Soon it will mutate into airborne and poof.. we're all gone..

Sorry, just my 2 cents..

heh.

[hang10wannabe]

Originally posted by kain9i6
The only real protection is Abstinence..

Though I would very much love it to live in Japan and have multiple partners like that.. I would wear a glad bag or two just to be sure..

Girls here in america.. wow.. uh, can you say dirtier than an armpit!??! ok.. j/k, but seriously I don't think the government realizes it, but the Diseases they released into the world (AIDS for example) will wipe us all out.. Soon it will mutate into airborne and poof.. we're all gone..

Sorry, just my 2 cents..

heh.

:eek: doomsday! :eek:
save me jeebus save me!

[Hiro]

Originally posted by kain9i6
The only real protection is Abstinence..

Though I would very much love it to live in Japan and have multiple partners like that.. I would wear a glad bag or two just to be sure..

Girls here in america.. wow.. uh, can you say dirtier than an armpit!??! ok.. j/k, but seriously I don't think the government realizes it, but the Diseases they released into the world (AIDS for example) will wipe us all out.. Soon it will mutate into airborne and poof.. we're all gone..

Sorry, just my 2 cents..

heh.
at least in your opinion, you would still be going out with a "bang" :naughty: :hehehmm:

i highly doubt AIDS will ever go airborne though.

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by kain9i6
The only real protection is Abstinence..

Though I would very much love it to live in Japan and have multiple partners like that.. I would wear a glad bag or two just to be sure..

Girls here in america.. wow.. uh, can you say dirtier than an armpit!??! ok.. j/k, but seriously I don't think the government realizes it, but the Diseases they released into the world (AIDS for example) will wipe us all out.. Soon it will mutate into airborne and poof.. we're all gone..

Sorry, just my 2 cents..

heh.

not to laugh at the whole situation.. but eh, its a form of population control. we are nearing carrying capacity, and this is one way to keep it down.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by NuTs62


not to laugh at the whole situation.. but eh, its a form of population control. we are nearing carrying capacity, and this is one way to keep it down.

By the way, nuts, we are way OVER carrying capacity.

[mojo]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy


By the way, nuts, we are way OVER carrying capacity. one word: florida

:P



(it's a joke, folks...just something that carries over from adam carolla's bit on loveline ;) )

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy


By the way, nuts, we are way OVER carrying capacity.
it depends on how you define carrying capacity ;)

if you assume that everyone should be able to live sustainably yet maintain the standard of living and the lifestyle and culture of waste that we have here in the US, then yes, we're WAY over carrying capacity.

however, i think it is entirely possible to support the earth's current population sustainably if more was done to develop efficient technologies rather than focusing our brains on "how to build a bigger suv" :rolleyes:

[mojo]

Originally posted by whitak24

it depends on how you define carrying capacity ;)

if you assume that everyone should be able to live sustainably yet maintain the standard of living and the lifestyle and culture of waste that we have here in the US, then yes, we're WAY over carrying capacity.

however, i think it is entirely possible to support the earth's current population sustainably if more was done to develop efficient technologies rather than focusing our brains on "how to build a bigger suv" :rolleyes: you and your...damned...logic...going around and making sense all the time :P

you know, philosophy majors tend to not hold the bigger paying jobs. much better for you to follow your law degree thing and defend the defective blinker-switch makers ;)

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by whitak24

it depends on how you define carrying capacity ;)

if you assume that everyone should be able to live sustainably yet maintain the standard of living and the lifestyle and culture of waste that we have here in the US, then yes, we're WAY over carrying capacity.

however, i think it is entirely possible to support the earth's current population sustainably if more was done to develop efficient technologies rather than focusing our brains on "how to build a bigger suv" :rolleyes:

Not really. My definition of carrying capacity is one that allows our population to sustain itself in HARMONY with the rest of the environment. In order for that to happen, we'd have to drop several billion people off the face of the earth. I've lived in rural, agrarian, and urban settings. I've seen the differences, and I've seen a decline in natural resources even in the last 15 years of my life. And if an idividual can see that? :eek:

Our technology would have to develop a lot more before what you are talking about could be made possible. I'm talking Star Trek, here. :D

[InfiniteNothing]

From what I remember of High School environmental science the carying capacity of the earth is 30 billion. We'll get to that around 2080??? I'm not sure about that one.
Also the US great plains could feed the world but economic reasons prevent this.
Lastly Jebus won't let the AIDS virus go airborne. Remember, evolution doesn't exist.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
From what I remember of High School environmental science the carying capacity of the earth is 30 billion. We'll get to that around 2080??? I'm not sure about that one.
Also the US great plains could feed the world but economic reasons prevent this.
Lastly Jebus won't let the AIDS virus go airborne. Remember, evolution doesn't exist.

1) There is a difference between enironmentally focused carrying capacity and human centered carrying capacity. Sure, the Earth might be able to sustain 30 billion people, but at what cost?

And...

2) Ever hear of the Dust Bowl? Not only that, as we produce larger quantities of food, the quality invariably goes down. The higher the yield, the lower the nutritional value. Sacramento Valley--California--alone produces enough food to feed the entire United States, but I've seen the cost first hand. Way to go, Monsanto. :rolleyes:

If this world ever sees the day that the human population reaches 30 billion, it is going to be a much uglier and dirtier place. People will pray to see even a weed growing in their yard--if they still even have a yard--because it will be such a rarity and chimera.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy


Not really. My definition of carrying capacity is one that allows our population to sustain itself in HARMONY with the rest of the environment. In order for that to happen, we'd have to drop several billion people off the face of the earth. I've lived in rural, agrarian, and urban settings. I've seen the differences, and I've seen a decline in natural resources even in the last 15 years of my life. And if an idividual can see that? :eek:

Our technology would have to develop a lot more before what you are talking about could be made possible. I'm talking Star Trek, here. :D
i guess it depends on how you define "harmony". i look at it from the standpoint that we're going to see continued population growth. while it might be nice to have a few billion people disappear, it's not going to happen. so if we can get to the point where we are replacing the resources we consume, i think that's an initial goal for sustainability.

[Dave_7]

Taken directly from

http://www.ashastd.org/stdfaqs/statistics.html


"One in five Americans have genital herpes, yet at least 80 percent of those with herpes are unaware they have it."



Watch out!

And I think I remember reading that 1 in 4 women have herpes (I'll try to get a confirming story). I'll say it again... Watch out!


Next time you're in a small crowd (naked or otherwise)... count to yourself... statistically speaking... how many of those people have herpes?

Yikes.

Worse, yet... using a condom does not necessarily protect you. And... if you didn't know... there's NO CURE.

Now THAT's scary.





Cripes... I'm glad I made it out of that pool with a clean ween.






Dave.

[sleepminded]

Originally posted by Corsec

You gonna get yourself an a*s-kickin for that one boy!

i wanna help :D

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy


1) There is a difference between enironmentally focused carrying capacity and human centered carrying capacity. Sure, the Earth might be able to sustain 30 billion people, but at what cost?

And...

2) Ever hear of the Dust Bowl? Not only that, as we produce larger quantities of food, the quality invariably goes down. The higher the yield, the lower the nutritional value. Sacramento Valley--California--alone produces enough food to feed the entire United States, but I've seen the cost first hand. Way to go, Monsanto. :rolleyes:

If this world ever sees the day that the human population reaches 30 billion, it is going to be a much uglier and dirtier place. People will pray to see even a weed growing in their yard--if they still even have a yard--because it will be such a rarity and chimera.

30 billion carrying capacity is an estimate... i have seen estimates from 10-30 bil. we'll see as we approach it...

higher yield and lower quality are not at all "invariably" correlated. new technologies are squeezing higher yields out of land every year, and breeding programs are making rice that is more nutritionally complete, corn that has more oil or more sugar, etc.

and, it is much more "efficient" to eat plants instead of animals... it takes 400 times the amount of land to get a pound of meat for a human to eat as it does a pound of grain. as population goes up, the cost of meat will increas, consumption will drop...

unfortunately, we can fit a lot more people on this planet before we populate ourselves up to a crash-causing critical mass.

[hang10wannabe]

Originally posted by welfareloser


30 billion carrying capacity is an estimate... i have seen estimates from 10-30 bil. we'll see as we approach it...

higher yield and lower quality are not at all "invariably" correlated. new technologies are squeezing higher yields out of land every year, and breeding programs are making rice that is more nutritionally complete, corn that has more oil or more sugar, etc.

and, it is much more "efficient" to eat plants instead of animals... it takes 400 times the amount of land to get a pound of meat for a human to eat as it does a pound of grain. as population goes up, the cost of meat will increas, consumption will drop...

unfortunately, we can fit a lot more people on this planet before we populate ourselves up to a crash-causing critical mass.

whoa ur back... and i wonder when we hit that mark "like any of us will be alive then" but... i wonder if itll be like in the 5th Element... where we have like 400 story buildings etc and were livin on top of eachother? :hmm:

[ShortStack]

Originally posted by revil

oh, so i suppose the pill protects you from aids and otther STDs... :shake:

Condoms were not made to protect you from AIDs. The percentage of it actually stopping AIDs isn't that high of a number. And yes, it does stop some STDs, but again - not nearly as high as what condoms were made for, which is preventing pregnancy. Besides, the people I choose to have sex with are only boyfriends who I trust and know before are clean so I don't have much to worry about.

[ShortStack]

Originally posted by NuTs62


not to laugh at the whole situation.. but eh, its a form of population control. we are nearing carrying capacity, and this is one way to keep it down.

I agree - and it's a little synical, but a different way to look at it. Imagine if we didn't have diseases like AIDs and cancer...if we didn't have murderers...our population would be even bigger. So in a weird way, I think AIDs and cancer are a way to keep the population from growing so quickly. AIDs usually stops the smart people from having sex therefore stopping the process...you get the point.


Originally posted by whitak24

it depends on how you define carrying capacity ;)

if you assume that everyone should be able to live sustainably yet maintain the standard of living and the lifestyle and culture of waste that we have here in the US, then yes, we're WAY over carrying capacity.

however, i think it is entirely possible to support the earth's current population sustainably if more was done to develop efficient technologies rather than focusing our brains on "how to build a bigger suv" :rolleyes:

Personally, if people here in the U.S. weren't so dayum greedy and would share some of our good fortune, the whole world would be a better place. People wouldn't be starving in third world countries and we wouldn't have obesity here in the U.S. Isn't it ridiculous? We could solve two problems by a simple change.

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy


Not really. My definition of carrying capacity is one that allows our population to sustain itself in HARMONY with the rest of the environment. In order for that to happen, we'd have to drop several billion people off the face of the earth. I've lived in rural, agrarian, and urban settings. I've seen the differences, and I've seen a decline in natural resources even in the last 15 years of my life. And if an idividual can see that? :eek:

Our technology would have to develop a lot more before what you are talking about could be made possible. I'm talking Star Trek, here. :D

:wavey: byebye Ladogaboy!

[Hiro]

Originally posted by ShortStack
So in a weird way, I think AIDs and cancer are a way to keep the population from growing so quickly.
I have always thought that about diseases. In some strange way, it was god's intention to put them there to control the growth of our species.

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by ShortStack


I agree - and it's a little synical, but a different way to look at it. Imagine if we didn't have diseases like AIDs and cancer...if we didn't have murderers...our population would be even bigger. So in a weird way, I think AIDs and cancer are a way to keep the population from growing so quickly. AIDs usually stops the smart people from having sex therefore stopping the process...you get the point.


add to that, wars...

but our technology isn't helping whatsoever. the life expectency of an average person has risen more than two times over the past couple hundred years. we are weeding out diseases, finding cures..

hehe i remember G|A having this same discussion a while back.. and me posting part of my essay here too on this very same subject.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by welfareloser
higher yield and lower quality are not at all "invariably" correlated. new technologies are squeezing higher yields out of land every year, and breeding programs are making rice that is more nutritionally complete, corn that has more oil or more sugar, etc.


Yes, higher yields do mean a decrease in nutrition. It mainly has to do with the time span, but it also has to do with the limitations of the environment. In addition, crops have been pushed in to developing more quickly, which decreases their ability to store all the nutrients that they would otherwise be capable of. Yes, there are breeding programs and genetic alterations being made to improve the nutrition levels of certain grains, but that is done to compensate for the nutrition that has been and is being lost because of certain agricultural practices. Oh, and the nutritional value of sugar and oil is nada. What dieticians refer to as empty calories.


Originally posted by welfareloser
and, it is much more "efficient" to eat plants instead of animals... it takes 400 times the amount of land to get a pound of meat for a human to eat as it does a pound of grain. as population goes up, the cost of meat will increas, consumption will drop...


You are completely right about plants being a more efficient food source, but I think your numbers are off by quite a bit. Also, there are more efficient ways to produce the meat, but our market really doesn't support that method. The cow has to be from birth canal to slaughter house in 18 months, and that means steriods, force feeding, and anything else you can do to make the cattle fatter.

Anyway, though, sure, a lot of things are possible, agriculturally speaking, and they are great in theory, but no one ever stops to think of the repercussions. I've seen first hand what the chemical pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers do. It isn't pretty, and after just a few years of high yield crops, the only thing that is keeping the land alive is more chemicals. The water becomes undrinkable. The habitat is decimated. It is really sad, actually.

[sbp]

Originally posted by ShortStack
[quote][b]Personally, if people here in the U.S. weren't so dayum greedy and would share some of our good fortune, the whole world would be a better place. People wouldn't be starving in third world countries and we wouldn't have obesity here in the U.S. Isn't it ridiculous? We could solve two problems by a simple change. We are the worlds largest food donor by far.

In South African countries millions are starving {much of this sad situation is due to the rotten governments there} and food was turned down. Listening to those fearmongering Greenies. :2far:
Zambia rejects food aid (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/08/23/MN129529.DTL)

At the recently concluded Earth Summit II, Colin Powell got booed. The US is increasing its aid to poor countries. Some gratitude. :2far:

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy


Yes, higher yields do mean a decrease in nutrition. It mainly has to do with the time span, but it also has to do with the limitations of the environment. In addition, crops have been pushed in to developing more quickly, which decreases their ability to store all the nutrients that they would otherwise be capable of. Yes, there are breeding programs and genetic alterations being made to improve the nutrition levels of certain grains, but that is done to compensate for the nutrition that has been and is being lost because of certain agricultural practices. Oh, and the nutritional value of sugar and oil is nada. What dieticians refer to as empty calories.



okay, you seem pretty sure of this... i have an ag degree... i've never seen any studies to back this up... any linkage?

yes, of course, sugar alone and fat alone are "empty" calories... but they are essential parts of nutrition. those were examples. other essential nutrients are also increased in breeding programs.


You are completely right about plants being a more efficient food source, but I think your numbers are off by quite a bit. Also, there are more efficient ways to produce the meat, but our market really doesn't support that method.

the number was an estimate i saw... i'm sure there are other equally valid estimates out there, but you get the idea...


Anyway, though, sure, a lot of things are possible, agriculturally speaking, and they are great in theory, but no one ever stops to think of the repercussions. I've seen first hand what the chemical pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers do. It isn't pretty, and after just a few years of high yield crops, the only thing that is keeping the land alive is more chemicals. The water becomes undrinkable. The habitat is decimated. It is really sad, actually.

:stupid:

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by ShortStack

Besides, the people I choose to have sex with are only boyfriends who I trust and know before are clean so I don't have much to worry about.

:heh:

you have lots to worry about. ever trusted someone and just been wrong? ever met someone who was totally trustworthy, and he thought he was clean, but he later turned out to be wrong (maybe because at some point he trusted the wrong person... or trusted a trustworthy person who had previously trusted the wrong person...)

i mean seriously... trace it out six degrees... do you think it's maybe possible in that extended web of sexual partners that someone somewhere got drunk and forgot having sex with someone one night, and that someone had herpes? or someone just didn't know the symptoms of the std they've had for years? or any of a hundred other unhappy possibilities that could lead to you getting an std without knowing it for awhile?

if you're rolling your eyes right now, or getting self-righteously miffed in a "how dare she" or "she doesn't know my sexual partnerS" kinda way... your head is up your patootie.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy
Yes, higher yields do mean a decrease in nutrition. It mainly has to do with the time span, but it also has to do with the limitations of the environment. In addition, crops have been pushed in to developing more quickly, which decreases their ability to store all the nutrients that they would otherwise be capable of. Yes, there are breeding programs and genetic alterations being made to improve the nutrition levels of certain grains, but that is done to compensate for the nutrition that has been and is being lost because of certain agricultural practices. Oh, and the nutritional value of sugar and oil is nada. What dieticians refer to as empty calories.
i have to disagree here. some of your points make sense, but at the same time, we are obviously coaxing much higher quality and much higher nutritional values from an acre of corn today than the natives were getting from early species of corn that were developed hundreds of years ago in mexico.

does food grown on a compressed time-frame and with pesticides, fertilizers, etc have the maximum nutritional value? no. but is the total nutrition produced per acre greater than anything that could have been produced 150 years ago? i think so.

of course, pushing production in an area like the great plains has the disadvantage that there really is not enough rainfall in most areas of the plains to support the growth of anything besides prarie grasses, forcing heavy irrigation. as a result, the olagala (sp?) aquafer, which supplies water for most of the area west of the mississippi and east of the rockies is being drained much more quickly than the water can be replaced. if stronger conservation measures are not instituted, a lot of wells out there are going to run dry and we'll have BIG problems on our hands.

but from my research, i think what will impact food quality to a greater extent is the increasing CO2 level in the atmosphere, which will cause plants to grow faster, but at a much poorer quality level. experiments at the university of michigan have shown that in a high-CO2 environment, plants grow at exponential rates compared to what they do now. however, when those plants are fed to rabbits, the nutritional quality seems to be low and the rabbits have a greatly increased rate of disease, shorter life expectancies, a larger number of birth defects and miscarriages, etc. it's not pretty.

unfortunately, CO2 levels have been rising at an exponential rate since the mid-1800s, even if we stopped all CO2 emissions immediately, it would take years for the levels to return to normal. but since it hasn't caused a crisis yet, no one wants to do anything about it. basically, it takes a giant crisis to get the powers that be to do anything -- but by the time a crisis comes, so much long-lasting damage is done that it takes decades to recover :2far:

Originally posted by Ladogaboy
You are completely right about plants being a more efficient food source, but I think your numbers are off by quite a bit. Also, there are more efficient ways to produce the meat, but our market really doesn't support that method. The cow has to be from birth canal to slaughter house in 18 months, and that means steriods, force feeding, and anything else you can do to make the cattle fatter.
no matter how you raise it, meat (at least that raised on land -- i'm not sure about fish) is the world's most inefficent nutritional source. i wish i had the book "How Many People Can the Earth Support" handy, because it has good information (with references to scientific studies) about how many resources are used to produce each pound of meat. unfortunately, it is so buried under other crap in some closet that i probably wouldn't find it till next monday if i started looking :eek:

but the number welfare threw out seemed close to the estimates i've seen. basically, you have to feed so many calories of plant mass to a cow to get it to produce 1 calorie of meat, plus you have hundreds of gallons of water consumed, all of the manure (which in a natural environment isn't a big problem but when you have a few hundred cattle in a couple acres, it's a big issue), etc.

actually, if all of the agricultural production in the world was reoriented to produce food for humans instead of food to feed animals to fatten them up, we'd never have to worry about a food shortage.

Originally posted by Ladogaboy
We are the worlds largest food donor by far.

In South African countries millions are starving {much of this sad situation is due to the rotten governments there} and food was turned down. Listening to those fearmongering Greenies.
Zambia rejects food aid

At the recently concluded Earth Summit II, Colin Powell got booed. The US is increasing its aid to poor countries. Some gratitude.

i agree that the u.s. does much to assist other countries with food aid and other foreign aid. we give away plenty of money. that's not the problem

i think where we're greedy is that we insist that it is our right to have a certain level of resources consumption, no matter what the impact of that consumption is on the rest of the world. per capita, the u.s consumes far more than any other nation (i have references for this too, but once again the book is buried). and we're arrogant enough to assume that we should be able to continue sucking up the world's resources because we're "the superpower". we can continue doing that, but if we do, we won't be the superpower forever. no one wants to give up the shirt off their back so the big kid can have two.

[kain9i6]

So many great points from everyone.. Call me uncaring, but I do believe in population control. Some call diseases obstacles, but I call them necessity.. Sure it's hard to see those we love dying and in pain, but imagine if everyone who had some kind of disease (that our world is fighting so frantically to contain and/or extinguish) just went *p00f* no more disease, imagine how many more people there would be on the world.. In just one year, that's all it would take.. The maximum occupancy for the world would be reached in absolutly no time. But still, we fight to find the cure (of course I absolutely do believe many of the cures have been found, but aren't being made public.. or at least public to the poor) Take Magic Johnson for example.. HIV positive.. has money.. now not HIV positive.. hmm.. Miracle?? Is it because his name is MAGIC? no.. it's because his bank account allows for these things. And he's a public figure who the world would hate to see pass.. Also, what's better for the morale of the earth than a nice story about a prominent public figure just compeletely recovering from a fatal disease..

Easy-E on the other hand.. Money, Famous (to some), dead.. hmm.. did he not get to it in time? Or did the government just not care enough because they really don't agree with his views, his background.. Anyways.. I'm rambling.

I am a big believe in "everything happens for a reason".. And if I were in a coma, I would want my family to pull the plug and not wait for me. Put me back in the earth and let nature take it's course.. Don't hook me up to machines in hopes to keep my survival. Sure, when I did wake up (if I ever did) I'd be happy.. But would I really have known if they just pulled the plug..

Ok.. enough.. Don't want to start any controversy among the G|A'ers.. just speaking my mind.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by kain9i6
So many great points from everyone.. Call me uncaring, but I do believe in population control. Some call diseases obstacles, but I call them necessity.. Sure it's hard to see those we love dying and in pain, but imagine if everyone who had some kind of disease (that our world is fighting so frantically to contain and/or extinguish) just went *p00f* no more disease, imagine how many more people there would be on the world.. In just one year, that's all it would take.. The maximum occupancy for the world would be reached in absolutly no time.
disease is not necessary for population control when we have many effective birth control technologies. if people, on average, reproduced at replacement level (2 kids for each couple), the population would be static. in the u.s. right now, we're at about 2.12 (i believe) -- people like kb0wwp and his wife make up for people like me who don't want kids ;) in most parts of europe, they are below replacement level (about 1.8 in many places, i think).

basically, historical/sociological studies show that in general, as a country industrializes and becomes more technologically advanced (with better healthcare), birthrates fall. (this is because, in an agrarian society, large families are needed to help "work the land", and when healthcare is poor or non-existant, so many children die at childbirth or before reaching adulthood that it is necessary to have many children to ensure that "some of them" survive. however, when children are no longer necessary to help the parents raise enough food to survive and are simply a "gift" the parents give to society, many potential parents have no desire to have many children).

the situation we are in right now is that many "third-world" areas have not followed a normal progression for economic development. a few factories and other pieces of industrialization have moved in, and western aid organizations have brought advanced health care (while many of these areas still have very poor public health compared to "western" nations, it is far better than it was). as a result, in the span of a generation, some hallmarks of economic development have been thrust upon these cultures, but they have not had time to go through the normal development process (not to mention that many of them still depend on subsitance farming to survive).

as a result, birthrates have stayed consistent (and even increased in some cases), while better medical care is slashing infant mortality rates and increasing life expectancy dramatically. this is why the world's population has been growing by billions over the past 20 years or so.

cultural change occurs at a faster rate today than it has at any point in human history. but no culture can go from traditional subsistance farming to a technologically advanced modern society in the span of 2 generations. old habits and traditions die slowly.

but my point is that once birthrates slow down (which they will), the world's population will begin to level off without the help of disease or any other natural disasters that wipe out big chunks of human life. hopefully, this point will be reached before the population grows so large that it triggers major disasters.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Originally posted by whitak24

disease is not necessary for population control when we have many effective birth control technologies. if people, on average, reproduced at replacement level (2 kids for each couple), the population would be static. in the u.s. right now, we're at about 2.12 (i believe) -- people like kb0wwp and his wife make up for people like me who don't want kids ;) in most parts of europe, they are below replacement level (about 1.8 in many places, i think).

A replacement birth rate of 2 per couple assumes everyone gets married and has children. Of course, we know they don't. Most estimates I've read put the replacement birth rate at 2.4 children per married couple. That accounts for people who die before reacing marriage age, and those who don't have children.

The US birth rate is below replacement level, but we're still growing because of immigration.

Italy has the lowest birth rate in Europe - it is 1.2 kids per couple.

Now, what is this "birth control" you speak of? :D

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by kain9i6
So many great points from everyone.. Call me uncaring, but I do believe in population control. Some call diseases obstacles, but I call them necessity.. Sure it's hard to see those we love dying and in pain, but imagine if everyone who had some kind of disease (that our world is fighting so frantically to contain and/or extinguish) just went *p00f* no more disease, imagine how many more people there would be on the world.. In just one year, that's all it would take.. The maximum occupancy for the world would be reached in absolutly no time. But still, we fight to find the cure (of course I absolutely do believe many of the cures have been found, but aren't being made public.. or at least public to the poor) Take Magic Johnson for example.. HIV positive.. has money.. now not HIV positive.. hmm.. Miracle?? Is it because his name is MAGIC? no.. it's because his bank account allows for these things. And he's a public figure who the world would hate to see pass.. Also, what's better for the morale of the earth than a nice story about a prominent public figure just compeletely recovering from a fatal disease..

Easy-E on the other hand.. Money, Famous (to some), dead.. hmm.. did he not get to it in time? Or did the government just not care enough because they really don't agree with his views, his background.. Anyways.. I'm rambling.

I am a big believe in "everything happens for a reason".. And if I were in a coma, I would want my family to pull the plug and not wait for me. Put me back in the earth and let nature take it's course.. Don't hook me up to machines in hopes to keep my survival. Sure, when I did wake up (if I ever did) I'd be happy.. But would I really have known if they just pulled the plug..

Ok.. enough.. Don't want to start any controversy among the G|A'ers.. just speaking my mind.

as far as conspiracy theories are concerned, you may have a case, but tell me whats your reasoning for Ronald Reagen then? I'm sure the government would do all it can to help better the life of a former president. and wasn't he republican? and its the republicans that are in office today.. so why wouldn't they lend aid?

[whitak24]

Originally posted by kb0wwp
A replacement birth rate of 2 per couple assumes everyone gets married and has children. Of course, we know they don't. Most estimates I've read put the replacement birth rate at 2.4 children per married couple. That accounts for people who die before reacing marriage age, and those who don't have children.
ok, ok, i was trying to make it simple. but of course you're right :D

Originally posted by kb0wwp
The US birth rate is below replacement level, but we're still growing because of immigration.
i thought we had a birthrate slightly above replacement level, and that immigration was making that rate seem even higher.

of course, i could be wrong. i'm really thinking that i need to undertake a closet-cleaning project this afternoon -- i need to find all my books from college.

[Ladogaboy]

Okay, to answer welfareloser and whitak24s' points:

I think the big difference here is that I'm talking about micronutrients and you guys are talking about macronutrients. Macronutrients = calories, i.e carbohydrates, protiens, and fats. Micronutrients = vitamins and minerals.

Our green revolution has been so focused on increasing macronutrients that they have forgotten about the micronutrients which are so important. And when you squeeze more plants into a single acre and cut down their growing cycle, they do loose out on a lot of micronutrients.

Oh, and sources: my Biology Professors from college. I know it might not be a link that you can click on, but I feel fairly confident that their studies that they went over in lectures were accurate. :shrug:

And as far as the meat goes. The statistics that I was quoted were that it takes 12 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of usable meet. That is far from a 400:1 ratio. But that is something I heard in my high school Ag classes, and I tend to take information I learned there with a grain of salt. We could always ask someone with first hand experience at growing his own cattle how much he fed them... kevster?

But, for the cattle ranchers in my area, they fed their cattle a half bail of alfalfa and a half bail of straw hay each, per day. And while that might sound like a lot, the straw hay is just a by product of other crops that have already been harvested, and alfalfa in my area yields three to four harvests per field, per year.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy
Okay, to answer welfareloser and whitak24s' points:

I think the big difference here is that I'm talking about micronutrients and you guys are talking about macronutrients. Macronutrients = calories, i.e carbohydrates, protiens, and fats. Micronutrients = vitamins and minerals.

Our green revolution has been so focused on increasing macronutrients that they have forgotten about the micronutrients which are so important. And when you squeeze more plants into a single acre and cut down their growing cycle, they do loose out on a lot of micronutrients.
ok, that makes sense. i don't know that much about ag, but i was discussing what you call "macronutrients", rather than "micronutrients" (woo hoo! i learned something new today. guaranteed that in the next couple weeks, i am going to bore my GF to death talking about macronutrients vs. micronutrients :heh: )

[WhiskeyPapa]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy
We could always ask someone with first hand experience at growing his own cattle how much he fed them I don't have any first-hand experience raising cattle, but I am about to take my lambs in to be butchered.

There are 4 lambs.
They have been grazing on 1/3rd of an acre.
For the last 4 weeks of their life, they are each fed about 2 lbs of corn per day (4x2x28=224 lbs)
Each lamb will yield about 70 lbs of meat.

So for my investment of 224 lbs of corn plus 1/3rd acre of pasture, I get 280 lbs of meat.

Now, a 1/3rd acre garden could easily yield many times more than 280 lbs of tomatoes, peppers, onions, squash, potatoes, etc. We do the garden thing too, so we have both.

We also raise and butcher chickens, and I grind my own feed. This year we butchered 140 chickens, each averaging 4.5 lbs dressed weight. I fed them 1700 lbs of feed, which is basically 80% corn and 20% soybeans (plus some other stuff.)

So that's 630 lbs of meat (and bone) for 1700 lbs of grain.

Forgive my rambling math, but lets figure you can get 120 bushels of corn per acre, and 50 bushels of soybeans per acre. ((1700x.8)/56)/120 = 0.20 acres of corn. ((1700x.2)/60)/50 = 0.11 acres of soybeans. So 630 lbs of chicken from 0.31 acres of land.

(224/56)/120 = 0.033 acres of corn for the lambs. 0.3333 acres for grazing. So 280 lbs of lamb from 0.366 acres of land.

My head hurts.

[mcs328]

Originally posted by DarkFury
Man... this thread really got derailed in a hurry. :hihi: :stupid:

yah..I came here to read about sex with friends and now I'm thinking about zero population growth and becoming vegetarian. :P

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by kb0wwp
My head hurts.

:heh: Mine too. But yeah, that is kind of what I was saying. But then again, like you said, if you look at how much 1/3 of an acre could produce vegetation wise... :shrug: it could be a 400:1 ratio.

[Cantacuzene]

Forget you guys, I'm eating steaks until I die. Steak and chicken taste good and I can afford to eat them (usually) so I will. Let the poor people in the 3rd world eat rice and grain 3 meals a day. (or 1 meal a day if they are lucky)

We have the money, whether thats a good thing for the world or not. But since we have the money we should be entitles to spend it as we like.

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by DarkFury
Man... this thread really got derailed in a hurry. :hihi:

all cuz i posted the words "population control" :rolleyes: :P

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Forget you guys, I'm eating steaks until I die. Steak and chicken taste good and I can afford to eat them (usually) so I will. Let the poor people in the 3rd world eat rice and grain 3 meals a day. (or 1 meal a day if they are lucky)

We have the money, whether thats a good thing for the world or not. But since we have the money we should be entitles to spend it as we like.

:rolleyes: That from the guy who photoshopped (http://www.gotapex.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49666) a pizza hut coupon :P

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by NuTs62


all cuz i posted the words "population control" :rolleyes: :P

Yeah, and you know it's your fault too! :hihi:

[ShortStack]

Lots to say, hold your breath:


Originally posted by NuTs62


but our technology isn't helping whatsoever. the life expectency of an average person has risen more than two times over the past couple hundred years. we are weeding out diseases, finding cures..

Isn't it scary how long we're supposed to actually live?? I don't want to live to be a hundred! Geez! And I understand that we want to find diseases, but your point stands - the more cures, the more lives we save, the more the population grows. Those stupid cures! (I'm kidding - cures are great, just a different angle to look at it).


Originally posted by sbp
We are the worlds largest food donor by far.

In South African countries millions are starving {much of this sad situation is due to the rotten governments there} and food was turned down. Listening to those fearmongering Greenies. :2far:
Zambia rejects food aid (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/08/23/MN129529.DTL)

At the recently concluded Earth Summit II, Colin Powell got booed. The US is increasing its aid to poor countries. Some gratitude. :2far:

I think it's almost best said here:


Originally posted by whitak24

i agree that the u.s. does much to assist other countries with food aid and other foreign aid. we give away plenty of money. that's not the problem

i think where we're greedy is that we insist that it is our right to have a certain level of resources consumption, no matter what the impact of that consumption is on the rest of the world. per capita, the u.s consumes far more than any other nation (i have references for this too, but once again the book is buried). and we're arrogant enough to assume that we should be able to continue sucking up the world's resources because we're "the superpower". we can continue doing that, but if we do, we won't be the superpower forever. no one wants to give up the shirt off their back so the big kid can have two.

There are SOME cases where other countries food, but overall we hog it all. Saying that we're the biggest donaters means diddily squat when most other countries aren't donating anything to begin with. I mean that's like saying you're the best player in a event that only two other people participated in.


Originally posted by welfareloser


:heh:

you have lots to worry about. ever trusted someone and just been wrong? ever met someone who was totally trustworthy, and he thought he was clean, but he later turned out to be wrong (maybe because at some point he trusted the wrong person... or trusted a trustworthy person who had previously trusted the wrong person...)

i mean seriously... trace it out six degrees... do you think it's maybe possible in that extended web of sexual partners that someone somewhere got drunk and forgot having sex with someone one night, and that someone had herpes? or someone just didn't know the symptoms of the std they've had for years? or any of a hundred other unhappy possibilities that could lead to you getting an std without knowing it for awhile?

if you're rolling your eyes right now, or getting self-righteously miffed in a "how dare she" or "she doesn't know my sexual partnerS" kinda way... your head is up your patootie.

Well, to be honest, I haven't had many sex partners - I'm only 19 and come on, I'm not a slut. I've a total of 3 serious sexual partners and actually, I took the virginity of one, basically took the virginity of the other (he had only had sex twice before), and then the other one lost his virginity with his previous girlfriend, who was also a virgin. I think I'm pretty safe there. (Sorry if you got confused there.) I mean...sex is a serious thing for me...I just know that so far I've been safe, especially since I have an unofficial AIDs test every 2 months (I give blood) plus an STDs test once or twice a year. I agree though, for people who have sex with several partners should be careful, but I feel I've been pretty careful.


Originally posted by whitak24

disease is not necessary for population control when we have many effective birth control technologies. if people, on average, reproduced at replacement level (2 kids for each couple), the population would be static. in the u.s. right now, we're at about 2.12 (i believe) -- people like kb0wwp and his wife make up for people like me who don't want kids ;) in most parts of europe, they are below replacement level (about 1.8 in many places, i think).


I do understand what you mean here, and eventually birthrates may go down, but in the mean time...people won't take birth control. In my opinion (statistics MAY be different) teens have more sex than adults, well more unprotected sex. No matter how much we educate them, lots of them will do the opposite of what we tell them. So I think until we kick them in the head, or until they get pregnant themselves, they won't stop. Although, my cousin having a kid didn't make her any smarter - not until she had the second one. :(

[spigidygak]

I am accepting applications to be my friend as of now :D.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by spigidygak
I am accepting applications to be my friend as of now :D.
oooohhhh! ohhhhh! pick me! pick me!

:hmm: wait.....you mean one of those kind of friends :shifty:

damn you! :angry: i don't want to be that kind of friend

:bawl:

hehe :P j/k