RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Agriculture: Unsustainable Resource Depletion, Began 10,000 Years Ago< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2008,19:02   

Agriculture: Unsustainable Resource Depletion Began 10,000 Years Ago

Very curious what people here think of the article.

   
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2008,19:58   

Personally, I wasn't very impressed with it.

Too many opinions stated as facts, such as:

Quote
Regardless of the timing, we know we are in serious overshoot and that the total human footprint (whatever enormity it is) must get smaller.


Arguably true, but not well supported by the article.

Quote
Humanity has probably been in overshoot of the Earth's carrying capacity since it abandoned hunter gathering in favor of crop cultivation (~ 8,000 BCE) and it has been running up its ecological debt since that time.


Really? The human population at 8000 BCE was already beyond carrying capacity? That's pretty hard for me to believe, and definitely not supported by anything in the article.

I also think it's exceedingly unrealistic in its prescription:

Quote
The best suggestion so far to produce Rapid Population Decline (RPD) is for the collective global human family to adopt a One Child Per Family (OCPF) 'modus operandi/philosophy'. Even with general acceptance of RPD and OCPF, the human population decrease that is necessary to achieve a sustainable solar energy-dependent culture, will take several centuries. Governments, as they become convinced that RPD is necessary, may choose monetary incentives, tax breaks and/or penalties to achieve general acceptance of OCPF or some other RPD program.


Achieving RPD through OCPF would require unprecedented worldwide control over human reproduction, especially if the goal is a world population comparable to 8000 BCE. I don't see that happening any time in the forseeable future, and I think it's foolish to argue for such a 'solution.'

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2008,00:53   

If the article is correct in its projections, any long-term solution will be overtaken by a precipitous drop in population because there just won't be enough food to go around.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Quack



Posts: 1946
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2008,05:40   

The world is in such a bad state even today, that we really should take stock and begin rebuilding today. But we know that nothing will happen, wars, international competition for resources, shaky economical systems will be with us for the foreseeable future.

That's the way it is. But maybe, before worldwide famine sets in, maybe some sense eventually will find it's way into the minds of the world's leaders and a reconstruction may begin.

Worldwide famine? Heck, several billions even today are even lacking reasonable access to fresh water, acceptable sewage and waste handling, and I don't know the numbers of people suffering malnutrition.

IMHO, the single most effective measure would be to create a new monetary system. Prof. Dr. Margrit Kennedy wrote an interesting book about this, but it doesn't seem that anyone is interested.

Let's face it; man was and is an animal; his natural habitat is "the jungle", living in flocks of some 200 people, in constant struggle with neighboring flocks for territory and resources.

We are not made for civilization, and man-made systems and institutions cannot solve the problem because our instincts and behavior is that of a "jungle animal".

Just an opinion, I won't mention it again.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2709
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2008,05:59   

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 21 2008,19:02)
Agriculture: Unsustainable Resource Depletion Began 10,000 Years Ago

Very curious what people here think of the article.

It was the invention of stone tools and the loss of megafauna. Darn those stone tools!

Ecosystems are rarely stable. They go through changes and shocks as various aspects of the system evolve. Humans are obviously putting a huge burden on the Earthto their own detriment. It may result in a precipitous drop in the human population, but the result will not look like hunter-gatherer societies. It will be something else entirely.

It is quite possible for the Earth to sustain billions of people, however, that would require a careful management of resources, something humans have yet to master. First and foremost is population control so that some semblance of balance can be achieved.

But you'll never see a rigid stability. That's perhaps a memory of Paradise. There will always be new problems as the system continues to evolve, stress being typical in complex systems.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2008,09:07   

qetzal

if carrying capacity is defined as the author uses it then I suspect he may have a point. a major platform of his argument is that technological innovations have artificially increased carrying capacity K (or perhaps more precisely, have given the illusion of an increased K). Thus soil fertility, as humans have known it for about 10,000 years, is a product of ecological process and not technological process, then the limiting factors on soil fertility define carrying capacity.

As he points out this is a very old argument. Marx even toyed with these ideas (excellent book, review here). Wendell Berry and Wesley Jackson have emphasized these issues for years. The story of agriculture origins, told in a similar fashion in this article, is the basis of the narratives of Daniel Quinn (who sees the Edenic and Cain-Abel stories of Genesis as metaphor for the transition from hunter-gatherer to exploitative agriculture).

Quack

 
Quote
We are not made for civilization, and man-made systems and institutions cannot solve the problem because our instincts and behavior is that of a "jungle animal".


I would tend to agree. yet I am afraid that many of our more shall we say positivist friends and neighbors might view this sentiment as anti-science or at least anti-social, possibly even Republican. I view it as "paleoconservative", and that by my reckoning is a good thing.


Zachriel
 
Quote
Ecosystems are rarely stable. They go through changes and shocks as various aspects of the system evolve. Humans are obviously putting a huge burden on the Earthto their own detriment. It may result in a precipitous drop in the human population, but the result will not look like hunter-gatherer societies. It will be something else entirely.


Indeed, no ecosystem is stable and Dollo's Law. Another dialectical insight. Yet I wonder why it should not be, if this argument is true (and imagine for the moment that these solutions are put into practice, another issue entirely), that the result is not something that more closely resembles traditional hunter-gatherer societies than anything else. Clearly there are sustainable solutions that have been derived from the industrial model (water ground corn, for instance, alternatively note the immense amount of existing construction material for micro-hydropower systems and solar energies). These will not disappear. But if we focus solely on the argument from soil depletion, then it seems clear to me that the limiting factor is the way we treat our dirt. The expansion of euros into N America, and particularly the plantation style agricultures and post-industrial mechanized exploitation, have been an exposition of the willful destruction of soil fertility. If fossil fuel decline is real, then this poses an extremely serious problem for the future of big ag.


 
Quote
It is quite possible for the Earth to sustain billions of people, however, that would require a careful management of resources, something humans have yet to master. First and foremost is population control so that some semblance of balance can be achieved.


It is only possible if we are to continue the soil depleting method of intense agriculture, and there are reasons to consider that perhaps this method will implode. For instance, as already noted, this method is extremely dependent on fossil fuel production (not only for fertilizer manufacture but perhaps more importantly transportation to markets, vital for stabilizing market forces and enabling the continued production of these items).  What will be the result of phosphorous depletion and/or fossil fuel depletion?  Drastic decrease of the perceived carrying capacity we currently enjoy due to technological innovation and unsustainable resource use.

The scary question is "How would population control realistically be achieved, without massive bloodshed and political upheaval?" I suspect that it will not be achieved without disastrous effect, but as others have pointed out perceived consequences do not alter biological reality.

nice catch stevestory. enjoyable read.

ETA snafus

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2709
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2008,10:32   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 22 2008,09:07)
 
Quote
It is quite possible for the Earth to sustain billions of people, however, that would require a careful management of resources, something humans have yet to master. First and foremost is population control so that some semblance of balance can be achieved.


It is only possible if we are to continue the soil depleting method of intense agriculture, ...

I'm not sure if supporting the present human population requires soil depleting methods of agriculture. That is obviously a technological question, and may be amenable to new methods.

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 22 2008,09:07)
... and there are reasons to consider that perhaps this method will implode.

It's an open question whether humankind is capable of making changes far enough in advance to avoid impending disasters. From my (albeit limited) knowledge of humanity, I would guess that they will suffer and persevere.

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 22 2008,09:07)
The scary question is "How would population control realistically be achieved, without massive bloodshed and political upheaval?" I suspect that it will not be achieved without disastrous effect, but as others have pointed out perceived consequences do not alter biological reality.

The global population growth rate is already declining, primarily through social and family planning. But the drastic changes in population you envision are probably unnecessary and unwise.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2008,12:24   

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 22 2008,11:40)
The world is in such a bad state even today, that we really should take stock and begin rebuilding today. But we know that nothing will happen, wars, international competition for resources, shaky economical systems will be with us for the foreseeable future.

That's the way it is. But maybe, before worldwide famine sets in, maybe some sense eventually will find it's way into the minds of the world's leaders and a reconstruction may begin.

Worldwide famine? Heck, several billions even today are even lacking reasonable access to fresh water, acceptable sewage and waste handling, and I don't know the numbers of people suffering malnutrition.

IMHO, the single most effective measure would be to create a new monetary system. Prof. Dr. Margrit Kennedy wrote an interesting book about this, but it doesn't seem that anyone is interested.

Let's face it; man was and is an animal; his natural habitat is "the jungle", living in flocks of some 200 people, in constant struggle with neighboring flocks for territory and resources.

We are not made for civilization, and man-made systems and institutions cannot solve the problem because our instincts and behavior is that of a "jungle animal".

Just an opinion, I won't mention it again.

I'd tend to agree, but I don't see this as an excuse for fatalism and I don't see this as an excuse to make no effort to change things. The one thing does not follow from the other. It's the classic political non sequitur of the lazy and inept.

I'd disagree that the problem is insoluble by man-made effort, simply because we've solved many problems that way and have a demonstrable track record of success (and failure). It's still early days!

I'd very strongly agree that the currently existing, popular  man-made systems are inadequate for the task.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2008,12:43   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 22 2008,09:07)
qetzal

if carrying capacity is defined as the author uses it then I suspect he may have a point. a major platform of his argument is that technological innovations have artificially increased carrying capacity K (or perhaps more precisely, have given the illusion of an increased K). Thus soil fertility, as humans have known it for about 10,000 years, is a product of ecological process and not technological process, then the limiting factors on soil fertility define carrying capacity.


I agree that agriculture enabled much higher populations. But the statement suggested that we began exceeding carrying capacity pretty much as soon as we developed agriculture.

I doubt that's true. Moreover, we should hope it's not. Otherwise, the rapid population decline the authors propose is going to have to take us all the way down to pre-agricultural levels. I think that's impossible to achieve governmentally. Among other things, you won't be able to maintain the necessary world-wide government. Long before you reached such low population levels, the government would become fragmented and regional. Inevitably, some regions would then return to positive population growth, and the authors' implied sustainability point would never be reached.

I don't know what the capacity of Earth really is, given our current and near-future technology. If it's within a factor of ~10 of our current population, then perhaps we can self-regulate world-wide birth rates to achieve and maintain that level. If it's substantially lower, as the authors seem to imply, then IMO, we're headed for a major crash.

  
George



Posts: 314
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2008,13:03   

I've only had time to read the beginning couple of sections, but based on those and the comments above, I think I can guess where he's going.

I don't think any of us [sensible] people here disagree with one of the main contentions of the article that overpopulation is a serious potential or actual problem. Whether you consider the planet currently overpopulated or not, depends on certain assumptions you make, most importantly how you derive an estimation of global human carrying capacity (K) relative to standard of living. If everyone on earth had a very underdeveloped nation's standard of living, then we would have enough resources for probably billions more people. However, if everyone on earth enjoyed a western standard of living, then we would already be above K.

One of the author's earlier points is that more intensive agriculture permitted a steeper increase in population over time relative to hunter-gatherer societies. Assuming the same lag-time between crossing the K threshold and a downward population correction, more people would be lost from an agricultural population than a hunter-gatherer population. This makes sense I think. This is what he's talking about wrt "overshoot".

What really annoys me about the article is the nature documentary rubbish about "living in harmony" with the "delicate balance of nature." Three main reasons why:
1) As Zach has pointed out, ecosystems are rarely if ever in equilibrium and only then for a relatively short time. Climate changes, species invade, species go extinct, soil/geological conditions change. Hell, even ecological theory changes, and we've long since dumped the "balance of nature" paradigm.
2) Over-romanticizing hunter-gatherer interactions with non-human nature. How is burning large swathes of forest or tundra in harmony with ecosystems? How about species introductions? Large-scale slaughtering of prey? Lest you think I'm down on our palaeo-brothers, see #1 above for the reality of natural harmony.
3) It's smarmy, cheesy, fluffy crap.

Overall, the idea of depleting soil reserves limiting human population is interesting from an academic point of view. However, applying Liebeg's Law of the Minimum, other factors will limit food production before soil nutrients: water and politics. Clean, fresh water will run out long before soil phosphorus. And can anyone remember the last famine not partly caused by politics?

Finally, is he really advocating a return to hunter-gatherer lifestyles? Can't happen. I don't think we'd be willing to give up modern medical care and other things that make life less literally painful and short.

(End rant. Go back to silent mode.)

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2008,13:11   

well at least I +/- predicted Louis' response.  

if carrying capacity is defined as nutritional valuable derived from sustainable exploitation of natural soil fertility then i still think that it is possible that his argument is correct.  as he quickly points out, however, that measure is obscured by the (in his view, and from the finite resource view it must be true) unsustainable inputs of petroleum.  if we were to subtract mechanized industrial scale agriculture from the equation, what do you suppose K would be?  in other words, every person mostly procuring their own food, or food for small familial groups?  

probably much smaller.

so if oil goes down then fertilizer may go down.  it appears that phosphate mining may go down as well.  what technological advances might save the day here?  i can't think of any, save genetically modifying food plants to grown on coal sludge or in cracks of pavement.

i share your fears on how such a world might look.  i do wonder if it is inevitable...  and if this notion of limiting factors involved in agriculture might not be at the root of the end-times philosophies in the Bibble.  If, as Daniel Quinn suggests, genesis is a story of the Great Forgetting (shift to agricultural society) then Daniel and Revelations might be a narrative explication of the logical consequence of increasing K by several orders of magnitude.  Of course, it's more likely that it is apocalyptic hallucinations of goat-herders.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2008,16:08   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 22 2008,19:11)
well at least I +/- predicted Louis' response.

[SNIP]

Meaning you got it 100% opposite to what I said. ;-)

Acknowledging the uncivilised animal nature of humankind is hardly anti-science, especially since it is precisely shown by science. The claim that man-made systems cannot solve the problems of human society is explicitly a faith claim, and one that is anti-science, or at least anti-the available evidence. The experiment is not yet finished. The rational case is not one of unbridled optimism, i.e. that of course these man-made systems can solve the problems of human society, but that they might be able to, because we sure as shit don't know of any other systems that could do the job. Nothing/no one else is going to take responsibility so the least we can do is try.*

Louis

* Technically not true. The least we can do is nothing, which merely guarantees the continuation of the worst.

--------------
Bye.

  
Quack



Posts: 1946
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2008,16:27   

Quote
I'd tend to agree, but I don't see this as an excuse for fatalism and I don't see this as an excuse to make no effort to change things. The one thing does not follow from the other. It's the classic political non sequitur of the lazy and inept.

I'd disagree that the problem is insoluble by man-made effort, simply because we've solved many problems that way and have a demonstrable track record of success (and failure). It's still early days!

I'd very strongly agree that the currently existing, popular  man-made systems are inadequate for the task.

Louis


Agreed. I am not a fanatic about anything and yes, we may eventually come to grips with what i have termed "man's predicament." But we cannot know for sure; maybe our jungle legacy always will be our nemesis. But let's not despair; future generations may find  new ways. But I really believe the planet cannot sustain a 6+ billion population in the long run.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
Quack



Posts: 1946
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2008,16:29   

Quote
I'd tend to agree, but I don't see this as an excuse for fatalism and I don't see this as an excuse to make no effort to change things. The one thing does not follow from the other. It's the classic political non sequitur of the lazy and inept.

I'd disagree that the problem is insoluble by man-made effort, simply because we've solved many problems that way and have a demonstrable track record of success (and failure). It's still early days!

I'd very strongly agree that the currently existing, popular man-made systems are inadequate for the task.

Louis


Agreed. I am not a fanatic about anything and yes, we may eventually come to grips with what i have termed "man's predicament." But we cannot know for sure; maybe our jungle legacy always will be our nemesis. But let's not despair; future generations may find new ways. But I really believe the planet cannot sustain a 6+ billion population in the long run.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2008,16:42   

Louis I imagine we would both agree that science cannot define those problems, no matter how powerful the method is at answering well-defined problems.  This is where the waters are muddy... "How shall we live?" is in no possible context a scientific question, but I think it is meaningful nonetheless.

To take issue with the other point, it is impossible to "do nothing".  without a coherent statement about what exactly is the issue, it is meaningless to throw that sort of rhetoric about.  

It is not the 'uncivilized animal nature of humankind' that I am worried may be construed as 'anti-science', but instead the notion that we (as in the collective) might better off hoeing corn and taters than running around studying chemical bonds or thrips population dynamics or the evolutionary relationships between darters and walleye or the irreducible conflabulosity of fracterial blagella.

Although I am passionate about doing science, I sometimes wonder if this might be true.  As I have said many times before, nature abhors martyrs, and running off to the woods stripping off your suit and tie on the way doesn't solve anything.  Trust me, I have tried it, it only changes one's perception of the world and not the world itself (not that you have any woods to run off to, how about for you Yurrpeens y'all go running off into the hedgerow or something).

So wrt to agricultural meltdown, I'm not sure what one could possibly do in opposition to the fatalism you are fond of ascribing to social critics.  Grow more food?  sure.  feed yer neighbors?  OK.  how is that even pretending to address the problem?  flip side, how would any top down solution be preferred by individuals who would justifiably be concerned with the erosion of personal freedoms?  

this is why I go fishing or ginseng hunting.  leaves are all yellow or dead now though.  perhaps i'll go fiddle something til my wife gets tired of it.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2008,16:57   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 22 2008,22:42)
Louis I imagine we would both agree that science cannot define those problems, no matter how powerful the method is at answering well-defined problems. This is where the waters are muddy... "How shall we live?" is in no possible context a scientific question, but I think it is meaningful nonetheless.

To take issue with the other point, it is impossible to "do nothing". without a coherent statement about what exactly is the issue, it is meaningless to throw that sort of rhetoric about.

Agreed on that last bit. Hence the "rhetoric" as opposed to an answer!

I don't agree that "how shall we live" isn't a question open to reasoned enquiry, in some aspects even scientific enquiry. See previous statements on the matter.

Quote

It is not the 'uncivilized animal nature of humankind' that I am worried may be construed as 'anti-science', but instead the notion that we (as in the collective) might better off hoeing corn and taters than running around studying chemical bonds or thrips population dynamics or the evolutionary relationships between darters and walleye or the irreducible conflabulosity of fracterial blagella.

Although I am passionate about doing science, I sometimes wonder if this might be true.  As I have said many times before, nature abhors martyrs, and running off to the woods stripping off your suit and tie on the way doesn't solve anything.  Trust me, I have tried it, it only changes one's perception of the world and not the world itself (not that you have any woods to run off to, how about for you Yurrpeens y'all go running off into the hedgerow or something).

So wrt to agricultural meltdown, I'm not sure what one could possibly do in opposition to the fatalism you are fond of ascribing to social critics.  Grow more food?  sure.  feed yer neighbors?  OK.  how is that even pretending to address the problem?  flip side, how would any top down solution be preferred by individuals who would justifiably be concerned with the erosion of personal freedoms?  

this is why I go fishing or ginseng hunting.  leaves are all yellow or dead now though.  perhaps i'll go fiddle something til my wife gets tired of it.


Indeed it's a complex thing. Can we sustain the current world population? Yes. Can we sustain the current world population without unpleasant consequences? Clearly no. What's the "best" way to sustain the current world population? Ahhhhhhh now that's the question! I don't know.

Is inaction/return to pastoralism/HG societies the answer? Rather depends on the question. My guess would be in most cases "no". The noble savage wasn't that noble. Romanticising a "simpler" life isn't a good idea. Adapting a modern life to a more human-friendly nature might well be. Inaction =/= return to HG societies necessarily.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Quack



Posts: 1946
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2008,03:59   

Guess I am a fatalist too; we have no guarantee that man will be anything but a short intermezzo on the planet. The planet, so to speak, might be better off without him. And ultimately it will all come to an end anyway.

But it would be great if we all would realize that the best thing we can do in the meantime is eat, drink and be merry (doing science included), and do our best to give every soul on the planet a chance to do the same - without ruining "our habitat".

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2008,11:49   

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2008,09:59)
Guess I am a fatalist too; we have no guarantee that man will be anything but a short intermezzo on the planet. The planet, so to speak, might be better off without him. And ultimately it will all come to an end anyway.

But it would be great if we all would realize that the best thing we can do in the meantime is eat, drink and be merry (doing science included), and do our best to give every soul on the planet a chance to do the same - without ruining "our habitat".

I don't disagree with a word of that, and I don't see how it contradicts doing anything. The human species is going to be a brief intermezzo on earth, undeniably so, even if only because (if successful) it'll stop being the human species and start being some other species (despite what some prominent geneticists might think).

This fact in no way alters the fact that we can, whilst here, do stuff to improve our own lot and the lot of others (other species included). Accepting reality isn't fatalism, using reality as an irrational, logically fallacious excuse for (inappropriate) inaction is.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2008,17:33   

Mr. Malthus - Please sit down and STFU. We have your damn answer right here, created designed by Louis, one of our boffin Chemists.

Here's your answer... Soilent Green!



Soilent Green Tees!

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2008,02:13   

Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 23 2008,23:33)
Mr. Malthus - Please sit down and STFU. We have your damn answer right here, created designed by Louis, one of our boffin Chemists.

Here's your answer... Soilent Green!



Soilent Green Tees!

Wait! Isn't soylent green people?

;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2008,12:52   

who will eat the eaters?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2008,13:07   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 24 2008,18:52)
who will eat the eaters?

{burp}

Huh?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
  21 replies since Oct. 21 2008,19:02 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]