Quantcast
The state of illinois issued lay off notices to hundreds of employees because the sweetened beverage tax was delayed

Forums - Politics Discussion - The state of illinois issued lay off notices to hundreds of employees because the sweetened beverage tax was delayed

Final-Fan said:
sc94597 said:

Considering I said proportionally I stand by it. More people out of the total population likely fished in their daily lives in 1790 than 2017, because the 1790 population was almost 99% agrarian and rural. 

If I was talking about absolute numbers, that would be a different matter. 

That doesn't address nor explain the fact that you clearly used the wrong number, but I'll move on. 

In that case, since the only realistic comparion in terms of environmental impact (the context in which these figures were used) compares the number of people to the area of land on which they lived in each time period, and not percentage of total population engaged in that activity then and now, how do you explain your misinterpretation? 

I supported one part of my statement with regards to hunting, and didn't feel like supporting the other part because it was off-topic from the original discussion. Since you inquired, I supported the other part of my statement. The effects of hunting and fishing are different. I didn't use any wrong number. I just supported one portion of my statement. 

The number of people who hunt or fish, and the area of a particular region are not the only variables. They just happened to be sufficient variables to justify that the burden of hunting is not necessarily more today than it was in 1790. How often people hunt and fish is also important. This can be gleaned from considering how much people depended on hunting and fishing in a particular period of time. In 1790, a higher percentage of the population required fishing and hunting for subsistence. Today, such activities are more often recreational, and therefore it can be assumed that it happens less often per hunter/fisher and in limited portions. A lot of fishing doesn't even entail taking the fish home. They are thrown back into the lake, river, or ocean. 

To support my point, suppose that the average number of fishermen today take home 10 fish/year. Suppose that in 1790 the average number of fish taken home per year, per person, was 52 fish (once per week.) 

So 44.7million fishermen * 10 fish/year/fisherman * 1 year = 447,000,000 fish. 

Compare that to 4 million * 50 fish/year/person * 1 year = 200,000,000 fish. 

Then we can make the hand-wavey area comparison to discover that the effect of 4 million people fishing 50 fish/year on average in a much smaller area is much larger than 33 million people fishing 10 fish/year on average in a much larger area. 



Around the Network
spurgeonryan said:
VAMatt said:
All governments waste money. That's the only thing they're good at. So, if you want them to stop wasting tax money, you're going to need to abolish government.

But it on next years ballot and lets see what happens.

There won't be a ballot, ballots are paid for by taxes that you guys seem to think are illegitimate



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

sc94597 said:
Final-Fan said:

That doesn't address nor explain the fact that you clearly used the wrong number, but I'll move on. 

In that case, since the only realistic comparion in terms of environmental impact (the context in which these figures were used) compares the number of people to the area of land on which they lived in each time period, and not percentage of total population engaged in that activity then and now, how do you explain your misinterpretation? 

I supported one part of my statement with regards to hunting, and didn't feel like supporting the other part because it was off-topic from the original discussion. Since you inquired, I supported the other part of my statement. The effects of hunting and fishing are different. I didn't use any wrong number. I just supported one portion of my statement. 

The number of people who hunt or fish, and the area of a particular region are not the only variables. They just happened to be sufficient variables to justify that the burden of hunting is not necessarily more today than it was in 1790. How often people hunt and fish is also important. This can be gleaned from considering how much people depended on hunting and fishing in a particular period of time. In 1790, a higher percentage of the population required fishing and hunting for subsistence. Today, such activities are more often recreational, and therefore it can be assumed that it happens less often per hunter/fisher and in limited portions. A lot of fishing doesn't even entail taking the fish home. They are thrown back into the lake, river, or ocean. 

To support my point, suppose that the average number of fishermen today take home 10 fish/year. Suppose that in 1790 the average number of fish taken home per year, per person, was 52 fish (once per week.) 

So 44.7million fishermen * 10 fish/year/fisherman * 1 year = 447,000,000 fish. 

Compare that to 4 million * 50 fish/year/person * 1 year = 200,000,000 fish. 

Then we can make the hand-wavey area comparison to discover that the effect of 4 million people fishing 50 fish/year on average in a much smaller area is much larger than 33 million people fishing 10 fish/year on average in a much larger area. 

I agree that there are more variables in play than merely people and land area.  I would agree that the data you provided is not sufficient to conclusively support one position over the other.  "Hand wavey area comparison" is not good enough considering the nitty gritty of how many miles/acres of fishable lakes and streams there are (more east than west, I think), their availability to the average person in 1790 and today, etc. 

In any case, I don't see where "environmental impact" is only applicable to hunting or how you were limiting the discussion to hunting in some other way in the posts in question.  Please point that out to me.

P.S.  I think there's a pretty good inferential argument to be made, as follows:  Current fishing and hunting is regularly subjected to quotas on account of the populations of game animals being depleted to dangerous levels when these quotas do not exist, which has happened in the past.  These quotas were largely not in place in the 1790s and the game animals did not go extinct or become depleted to the same extent as far as I know.  Thus the inference can be made that modern hunting has more environmental impact.  If I am wrong in regard to the underlying facts, please let me know; if I am somehow right there but wrong in the conclusion, please tell me how that could be so. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Final-Fan said:

I agree that there are more variables in play than merely people and land area.  I would agree that the data you provided is not sufficient to conclusively support one position over the other.  "Hand wavey area comparison" is not good enough considering the nitty gritty of how many miles/acres of fishable lakes and streams there are (more east than west, I think), their availability to the average person in 1790 and today, etc. 

In any case, I don't see where "environmental impact" is only applicable to hunting or how you were limiting the discussion to hunting in some other way in the posts in question.  Please point that out to me.

P.S.  I think there's a pretty good inferential argument to be made, as follows:  Current fishing and hunting is regularly subjected to quotas on account of the populations of game animals being depleted to dangerous levels when these quotas do not exist, which has happened in the past.  These quotas were largely not in place in the 1790s and the game animals did not go extinct or become depleted to the same extent as far as I know.  Thus the inference can be made that modern hunting has more environmental impact.  If I am wrong in regard to the underlying facts, please let me know; if I am somehow right there but wrong in the conclusion, please tell me how that could be so. 

KLAMarine said, in reference to off-the-gridders: "With no regard to how their activities might impact the environment? Not that it mattered then as much as it does now: the US today hosts hundreds of millions of people, many more than what I figure there was before the 1770s."

I responded with "Proportionally the number of people with intentions to hunt and fish are smaller than they were then, and the available land is much greater. "

To which he responded "With that in mind, you state "Proportionally the number of people with intentions to hunt and fish are smaller than they were then" and I must ask for raw numbers. 100% of 1790's US population is a little under four million, obviously. 1% of today's population is very close to 1790's 100% and 2% of today's exceeds 1790's total population."

To which I responded "15.7 million Americans hunted in 2013, in a country that is 4.7 times larger (by area) than in 1790. Furthermore, the number who hunted more than once per year is likely much smaller than the number who would've in 1790, because hunting was for many -- required to survive back then. 


To remain on topic, though, consider that the number of people who would love to live in the woods away from the greater society is very infinitessimal, and so would be their environmental impact. "

Rather than go on the little side-tracked rant about fishing which was irrelevant to the greater discussion (the more relevant text being bolded above), I just ended it with that. 

I never made the following claim "
 "environmental impact" is only applicable to hunting". 

" I think there's a pretty good inferential argument to be made, as follows:  Current fishing and hunting is regularly subjected to quotas on account of the populations of game animals being depleted to dangerous levels when these quotas do not exist, which has happened in the past.  These quotas were largely not in place in the 1790s and the game animals did not go extinct or become depleted to the same extent as far as I know.  Thus the inference can be made that modern hunting has more environmental impact.  If I am wrong in regard to the underlying facts, please let me know; if I am somehow right there but wrong in the conclusion, please tell me how that could be so. "

For this argument to work you must assume a few things at the very least: 1. That these laws are the reason why extinction has been mitigated and not some other reasons. 2. That there is no other cause for the low population numbers of certain species besides hunting/fishing, such as the destruction of their shelters or food sources after industrialization, or the introduction of invasive species from other continents. 3. That game animals are in great danger of extinction. In many places today the problem has been overpopulation rather than underpopulation as hunting and fishing have been reduced due to urbanization. For example, in my county which contains the City of Pittsburgh (so pretty urban) we have a deer problem in the suburbs and many municipalities want to legalize the hunting of deer (via archery) because they pose a traffic problem. 

Nevertheless, hunting and fishing quotas can be enforced without the federal government (or state governments) owning the lands. 



Rab said:
vivster said:
Just another reason why taxes should be handled on the federal level. God I hate state rights.

Nation rights should also be superceeded by a World government for the betterment of out species 

I could one-up you. Planetary rights should be superseded by a galactic government for the betterment of living organisms.

Of course, being one planet among possibly ten thousand with life does mean that our voice will be diluted, but whatever. Progress is progress!



 
I WON A BET AGAINST AZUREN! WOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

:3

Around the Network
sc94597 said:
Final-Fan said:

I agree that there are more variables in play than merely people and land area.  I would agree that the data you provided is not sufficient to conclusively support one position over the other.  "Hand wavey area comparison" is not good enough considering the nitty gritty of how many miles/acres of fishable lakes and streams there are (more east than west, I think), their availability to the average person in 1790 and today, etc. 

In any case, I don't see where "environmental impact" is only applicable to hunting or how you were limiting the discussion to hunting in some other way in the posts in question.  Please point that out to me.

P.S.  I think there's a pretty good inferential argument to be made, as follows:  Current fishing and hunting is regularly subjected to quotas on account of the populations of game animals being depleted to dangerous levels when these quotas do not exist, which has happened in the past.  These quotas were largely not in place in the 1790s and the game animals did not go extinct or become depleted to the same extent as far as I know.  Thus the inference can be made that modern hunting has more environmental impact.  If I am wrong in regard to the underlying facts, please let me know; if I am somehow right there but wrong in the conclusion, please tell me how that could be so. 

KLAMarine said, in reference to off-the-gridders: "With no regard to how their activities might impact the environment? Not that it mattered then as much as it does now: the US today hosts hundreds of millions of people, many more than what I figure there was before the 1770s."

I responded with "Proportionally the number of people with intentions to hunt and fish are smaller than they were then, and the available land is much greater. "

To which he responded "With that in mind, you state "Proportionally the number of people with intentions to hunt and fish are smaller than they were then" and I must ask for raw numbers. 100% of 1790's US population is a little under four million, obviously. 1% of today's population is very close to 1790's 100% and 2% of today's exceeds 1790's total population."

To which I responded "15.7 million Americans hunted in 2013, in a country that is 4.7 times larger (by area) than in 1790. Furthermore, the number who hunted more than once per year is likely much smaller than the number who would've in 1790, because hunting was for many -- required to survive back then. 


To remain on topic, though, consider that the number of people who would love to live in the woods away from the greater society is very infinitessimal, and so would be their environmental impact. "

Rather than go on the little side-tracked rant about fishing which was irrelevant to the greater discussion (the more relevant text being bolded above), I just ended it with that. 

I never made the following claim "
 "environmental impact" is only applicable to hunting". 

" I think there's a pretty good inferential argument to be made, as follows:  Current fishing and hunting is regularly subjected to quotas on account of the populations of game animals being depleted to dangerous levels when these quotas do not exist, which has happened in the past.  These quotas were largely not in place in the 1790s and the game animals did not go extinct or become depleted to the same extent as far as I know.  Thus the inference can be made that modern hunting has more environmental impact.  If I am wrong in regard to the underlying facts, please let me know; if I am somehow right there but wrong in the conclusion, please tell me how that could be so. "

For this argument to work you must assume a few things at the very least: 1. That these laws are the reason why extinction has been mitigated and not some other reasons. 2. That there is no other cause for the low population numbers of certain species besides hunting/fishing, such as the destruction of their shelters or food sources after industrialization, or the introduction of invasive species from other continents. 3. That game animals are in great danger of extinction. In many places today the problem has been overpopulation rather than underpopulation as hunting and fishing have been reduced due to urbanization. For example, in my county which contains the City of Pittsburgh (so pretty urban) we have a deer problem in the suburbs and many municipalities want to legalize the hunting of deer (via archery) because they pose a traffic problem. 

Nevertheless, hunting and fishing quotas can be enforced without the federal government (or state governments) owning the lands. 

I concede that if people who would actually "leave the grid" to live in wilderness are really an "infinitesimal" percentage of the population (x<0.1%, thus x<300,000), then their impact on the environment is probably negligible. 

It is true that current populations of deer are commonly quite high.  However, it is also true that quotas were put in place due to populations of deer and other game falling dangerously low due to hunting, and that quotas allowed the numbers to become sustainable once again.  This answers point 1.  To answer point 3, I would add to the above that although it may be possible that circumstances have changed since the era in which those quotas were set in place so much that they are no longer necessary at all, I think the burden is on you to provide evidence that this is so.  That is a different and greater task than arguing that the quota is too low or should be lifted in certain areas of land. 

To answer point 2, certainly it is the case that expanding human settlements and other activity contribute (loss of habitat etc.), but that just means that there is a smaller (or otherwise more vulnerable) base of "wilderness" for modern people to have an impact on.  This hardly bolsters the argument that hunters and fishers have less impact now compared to then. 

I would have had less of a problem if you had not quoted the hunting numbers at all.  But to quote the hunting numbers, and not the fishing numbers, just seemed pointless and stupid.  People "living in the woods" also fish. 

Lastly, are you really saying you are fine with the government exerting that control over privately held lands? 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Final-Fan said:


To answer point 2, certainly it is the case that expanding human settlements and other activity contribute (loss of habitat etc.), but that just means that there is a smaller (or otherwise more vulnerable) base of "wilderness" for modern people to have an impact on.  This hardly bolsters the argument that hunters and fishers have less impact now compared to then. 

I would have had less of a problem if you had not quoted the hunting numbers at all.  But to quote the hunting numbers, and not the fishing numbers, just seemed pointless and stupid.  People "living in the woods" also fish. 

Lastly, are you really saying you are fine with the government exerting that control over privately held lands? 

For point 2, the primitivist (who wants to live subsistence lifestyle) would argue that because it was not the hunter/gatherer lifestyle which limited animal populations, but rather industrialization, it shouldn't be the hunter-gatherers who concede in order to preserve animals, but rather those who live a lifestyle based on industrialization (note I don't necessarily agree with this) but that is how the primitivist would argue it. They'd say that if it weren't for industrialization, hunting and grazing would be sustainable without a disastrous environmental impact. 

The hunting number was the low-hanging fruit really. I did that to emphasize that it isn't a simple as population size or density. 

Governments already control whether or not you can kill certain species of animal on your private property. For example, you can't kill an owl even if it is on your property. Do I personally think it is the best solution? Nope. But it is certainly possible for the government to set restrictions without outright owning the property. Furthermore, it is possible for it to be permissive of those few people who choose to live a subsistence life style pursuing it on what are suppose to be "public" lands. 



Governement, always looking at new ways to take your money and throw away.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

sc94597 said:
Final-Fan said:


To answer point 2, certainly it is the case that expanding human settlements and other activity contribute (loss of habitat etc.), but that just means that there is a smaller (or otherwise more vulnerable) base of "wilderness" for modern people to have an impact on.  This hardly bolsters the argument that hunters and fishers have less impact now compared to then. 

I would have had less of a problem if you had not quoted the hunting numbers at all.  But to quote the hunting numbers, and not the fishing numbers, just seemed pointless and stupid.  People "living in the woods" also fish. 

Lastly, are you really saying you are fine with the government exerting that control over privately held lands? 

For point 2, the primitivist (who wants to live subsistence lifestyle) would argue that because it was not the hunter/gatherer lifestyle which limited animal populations, but rather industrialization, it shouldn't be the hunter-gatherers who concede in order to preserve animals, but rather those who live a lifestyle based on industrialization (note I don't necessarily agree with this) but that is how the primitivist would argue it. They'd say that if it weren't for industrialization, hunting and grazing would be sustainable without a disastrous environmental impact. 

The hunting number was the low-hanging fruit really. I did that to emphasize that it isn't a simple as population size or density. 

Governments already control whether or not you can kill certain species of animal on your private property. For example, you can't kill an owl even if it is on your property. Do I personally think it is the best solution? Nope. But it is certainly possible for the government to set restrictions without outright owning the property. Furthermore, it is possible for it to be permissive of those few people who choose to live a subsistence life style pursuing it on what are suppose to be "public" lands. 

Fair enough.  (Seven billion hunter-gatherers?  Pfft.)



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Has not caused too many problems, just more soda returns at my store.



    The NINTENDO PACT 2015[2016  Vgchartz Wii U Achievement League! - Sign up now!                      My T.E.C.H'aracter