Thread 942308674

the pedophiles. aside from that i hope everyone is saved

>>942308778
If Jesus exists, then the entire point of salvation is transformation — not giving a free pass to people who do harm. “Saving” someone isn’t the same as approving what they’ve done. In fact, the worst offenders are the ones who need the deepest, most complete overhaul of their mind, heart, and will.

If you say “everyone except pedophiles,” then you’re not talking about salvation anymore — you’re talking about writing off human beings as permanently broken. That’s understandable emotionally, but it’s not moral clarity. It’s despair.

If justice means leaving people in the state that produced their crimes, then justice doesn’t heal anything — it just abandons the possibility of change.

Saving someone like that wouldn’t mean protecting the part of them that harms. It would mean destroying that part completely and restoring whatever remains of the person underneath. If that’s impossible for you to imagine, fine — but the whole idea of “Jesus saves” is precisely about doing the impossible.

Either salvation is stronger than evil, or it’s not salvation.

Older guys, you always know how to make me smile.
....

1

>>942308674 (OP)
OP

I hope all of creation is redeemable, but I wonder about some of the parasites. Like>>942310301 for instance.

>>942309200
a life for a life
if youve broken a life or taken a life you deserve to perish

killing or abandoning in the name of appropriate justice is just.
killing and murdering are 2 different things in the words of hebrew

thats the difference between the quran and the bible

>>942310650
What about taking the life of an animal because you needed to hunt it to survive and eat?
What about the life of a mosquito you swatted?
Do you just mean human lives?
I sympathize with human lives far greater than other species lives because I'm a human, but realistically there's no actual difference between the life of a human or the life of a small flower you could have stepped on accidentally, so in that case what's the difference?
Is it because you believe humans have souls while other lifeforms do not? Because it puts humans above animals in the Bible stories?

>>942310699
im agnostic so i dont fully believe in the bible but i know and believe in morals

ive struggled alot with faith but ultimately the christians claim any evil that happens in this world is because this is not gods world, this is the devils world

and thats why unjustice and evil things happen
we are made to eat one another
and fight over resources
and yes maybe animals are just stepping blocks for us to realise what is right and wrong even more so

but who knows... i can see evil and i can see good and know the difference

in a perfect world if selfish people didnt breed like rats then maybe would could all become vegetarians but it does not seem reasonable

>>942308778
I get the anger — people who harm children provoke a kind of moral horror that makes you want to burn the whole thing down. But saying “everyone except pedophiles” isn’t a moral answer so much as an emotional reaction. If “salvation” means anything, it means transformation, not writing people off as disposable.
Protecting victims, enforcing justice, and ensuring those people can never hurt anyone again are non-negotiable. But abandoning the idea that someone can be changed forever is just despair dressed up as moral clarity. If you really believe Jesus saves, then the claim has to mean that even the worst offenders are candidates for a complete overhaul of heart, will, and behavior — not that we approve of what they did. Mercy without accountability is dangerous; accountability without hope of change is barren.

>>942310650
There’s a real conversation to be had about justice vs vengeance, and about how different scriptures treat punishment and mercy. A few points worth remembering:

>“An eye for an eye” (lex talionis) historically functioned as limit and proportion to prevent escalating blood feuds — not an encouragement of endless retaliation. In Jewish tradition it quickly became a rule for equitable compensation and restraint.

>Hebrew law itself distinguishes intentional murder from accidental killing (cities of refuge, different penalties). That’s not the same as endorsing summary execution for every harm.

>Jesus’ message complicates the picture: he speaks of judgment and also calls for repentance, forgiveness, and restoration. Mercy and accountability coexist in Christian thought — one doesn’t cancel the other.

>If “justice” means simply returning the harm, you stop at retribution. If it means ordering a society where people are safe, responsible, and ideally reformed, you aim for protection, accountability, and — where possible — rehabilitation.

Killing someone in the name of “appropriate justice” is easy to romanticize on a message board. It sounds decisive. But real justice has to protect victims, limit harm, and—if the whole idea of salvation is true—leave room for the radical possibility that even perpetrators can be remade. Otherwise we’re just practicing despair.

>>942310699
Short: there is a moral difference people usually point to — agency and moral responsibility.
Killing a mosquito by accident, hunting to survive, or harvesting crops involves different intentions and consequences than intentionally harming an innocent person. Most ethical systems (religious and secular) weigh those things: accidental harm ≠ deliberate cruelty; survival harm ≠ gratuitous violence.
If you want to bring it back to theology: many theistic traditions ascribe a special moral status to beings capable of moral choice and bearing responsibility. That doesn’t mean other life has no value — just that moral blame and moral praise attach differently.

>>942310776
You don’t need to be a Christian to see the flaw in the “devil’s world” explanation. Blaming all evil on some external force is just a way of dodging the messier truth: humans have capacities for both incredible compassion and brutal selfishness, and we choose which one to act from. That’s moral responsibility, not cosmic puppetry.

As for animals being “stepping stones” for our moral development — that’s one possible reading, but it’s definitely not the only one. Plenty of non-religious moral frameworks treat animals as morally relevant because they can suffer, not because they’re props in a test for humans. You don’t need a soul theory to care about that.

On selfish people “breeding like rats” — that’s just frustration talking, not ethics. People aren’t pests. And even if you’re pointing at overpopulation, the actual data shows population growth is slowing globally and will likely peak this century. The bigger issue isn’t how many humans exist; it’s how we structure systems that reward selfish behavior and punish cooperative behavior. Fix the incentives and you fix most of the cruelty.

And the vegetarian comment is kind of proving the earlier point: morality isn’t about living in a “perfect world,” it’s about navigating the real one. Not everyone has the same resources, knowledge, or culture. What matters is recognizing suffering where it exists and minimizing it where you can — not leaning on apocalypse logic or fatalism.

In short:

You don’t need the Bible to know good from evil.

You don’t need the devil to explain suffering.

You don’t need a perfect world to make better choices.

You just need to stop treating cruelty as inevitable and start treating responsibility as real.

>>942310796
i do beleive there is a difference in murder and manslaughter

by do you actually suggest that serials killers deserve to be released back into the public?

i dont like how the prison system wasted tax payers money keeping these demons alive

and like i said there is a difference between a murderer and manslaughter

>>942310838
Except other lifeforms also have the brain capacity for making choices. A LOT do other than humans.
Also, by your logic you're saying that a human killing another human on purpose, in order to eat it because he's hungry, is not a sin.
So again, what is this extra value you give to human life over other lifeforms other than you sympathizing with human life more because you're also human?

>>942310909
Nobody’s saying serial killers should be released back into the public. That’s a strawman, not an argument.
There’s a huge gap between “this person should never have freedom again” and “this person should be executed because they’re a demon.”

Here’s the reality:

1. Permanent separation from society is valid.
If someone is a proven, ongoing threat — serial murder, repeated predatory violence, etc. — then permanent incarceration or secure psychiatric confinement is justified. Not because they’re subhuman, but because public safety comes first.

2. Killing them doesn’t fix anything.
Execution doesn’t bring victims back, doesn’t undo trauma, and doesn’t prevent future crime any better than lifelong containment. It just satisfies a short-term emotional urge for vengeance. That’s not justice; that’s catharsis disguised as policy.

3. “Taxpayer money” isn’t the real issue.
If the only reason to kill someone is to save money, that’s an argument for cutting corners on lots of groups we don’t want to kill.
A civilized society doesn’t decide who lives or dies based on budget spreadsheets.

4. Calling people “demons” avoids the harder truth.
Serial killers aren’t supernatural monsters; they’re humans with catastrophic psychological damage, neurological disorders, or extreme moral collapse. Treating them as non-human doesn’t protect you — it just lets you ignore how human beings can break.

5. Moral clarity means holding both ideas at once:

Some people must never be free again.

But we still don’t get to abandon humanity or flip into extermination mode.

Justice = protection + accountability.
Vengeance = elimination because it feels clean.

You’re arguing for vengeance.
I’m arguing for justice that actually works in the real world.

>>942310776
>vegetarians
Except plant life is still life.
Just because it doesn't have brain patterns like you and me doesn't make its life any less life than your life or my life.
So again. What's this extra value you give to human life that you don't give to other lifeforms?
I'm not a retarded liberal, and I'd happily kill an animal for food, no problem. But I also don't believe an human's life is somehow different from an animal or plant's life. To me they're both life, but because I'm human I sympathize more with protecting human life.
So again. what is it? You believe in a soul or something only given to humans?

>>942311029
I think the key difference most people point to is agency and moral responsibility. Many animals can make choices, but humans have a uniquely complex capacity to understand right and wrong and to act with moral intent.

Killing a mosquito accidentally, hunting to survive, or harvesting crops involves either no choice or a choice made for necessity, not malice. Deliberately harming an innocent person, on the other hand, is an intentional act of cruelty — that’s why it’s treated differently in most ethical systems, both religious and secular.

In theological terms, many traditions assign a special moral status to beings capable of moral reasoning. That doesn’t mean other life has no value — it just means moral blame or praise applies differently depending on the being’s capacity for choice.

me, if i make the cut that bar is lower than i thought.

>>942311071
I see what you’re saying, and it’s true that plants and animals are all alive. One thing to consider is that in nature, some organisms actually evolved to be eaten as part of their reproductive or survival strategies. Many plants, for example, produce fruit specifically to be consumed so their seeds are dispersed. Predators and prey exist in ecosystems as part of natural cycles — life feeding on life is part of how balance and growth are maintained.

That doesn’t make human life meaningless, but it does show that not all life is equal in terms of purpose or role in the ecosystem, which can influence how we think about moral value.

>>942311052
well lets just hope good outnumbers evil one day
and we can invent a means to make a better world
but the way i see it, its only getting worse

greed makes it hard to fix anything
and there are plenty virtue signallers that dont actually try to make a difference
thats what makes it hard

>>942311052
Not reading all that, but to respond to #2, I agree and disagree.
Agreed that the death penalty doesn't fix the issue of someone being murdered and it can also be very very bad in cases where someone got incorrectly convicted. At least if they're just locked up, they may get out when new evidence frees a non guilty person.
However, huge disagree about it not being justice if someone did 100% murder someone.
Killing someone who 100% murdered someone else is 100% justice. Why wouldn't it be?
It's the just outcome for such a thing, but only if one can be 100% certain, which we can't be most of the time.

>>942311114
Honestly, from where I stand, Jesus doesn’t want to leave anyone out. Even if someone thinks they’ve “made the cut,” the goal isn’t exclusion — it’s transformation. So if you make it, it’s not because the bar was low; it’s because grace found a way in, even where we didn’t expect it.

>>942311088
Did you never have a pet growing up?
Animals 100% can make right and wrong decisions while knowing in their mind that one is wrong.
I've seen countless animals feel guilty for knowing they did something wrong against their owner's wishes such as when a dog gets caught stealing dog treats or making a huge mess and feels guilty about what it did.

>not malice
Okay so if you have to kill another human to survive, that's also not malice?
But that contradicts what you said about "a life for a life, if you've broken a life or taken a life you deserve to perish"

>>942311127
Okay there's another logical fallacy. Now you're claiming that human life is different because human life ending does nothing for the ecosystem (false) while plant life dying does.
Human life ending and human corpses rotting and feeding the soil with nutrients does indeed play a role in the ecosystem.
So again. what is it? You believe in souls for human life only or whatever right?
Just be honest. Stop beating around the damn bush.

>>942311135
There are plenty of arguments as to why the world is getting better and can only get better, and there are reasons why so many people mistakenly believe the opposite.

>>942311155
checked, it depends on your definition of justice. Justice doesn't have to mean punishment. Punitive justice is very different from restorative justice.

>>942311250
Plant life doesn't necessarily die when you eat part of it, actually it's continued propagation may depend on it.

>>942311315
>mistakenly believe the opposite
It's no mistake.
Until the world can globally agree to responsibly reduce the number of births for every race and nation so we can responsibly decrease as a population, the quality of life for every human is guaranteed to continue getting worse as there are less jobs to go around, less homes, less land, less food to go around etc, etc.
This world can only sustain so many of us before we get so fed up with the shitty quality of life that we break out into wars, and wars are a terrible alternative to being responsible and limiting new births.
People already born and here already have made friends or memories or connections to the world, so creating a society that inevitably causes those people to rage and war and die prematurely is immoral and wrong 100%.

>>942311354
>You're talking about plant life ending and I'm talking about one part of plant's life ending while the other part doesn't end.
What's your point?
We were discussing plant life ending, and you're shifting it to something else.

>>942311210
You’re right that animals can show guilt and make choices — I grew up around pets too and nobody’s denying dogs, crows, octopuses, etc. aren’t smart or emotionally sophisticated. The practical distinction people usually mean when they talk about human moral status is a little narrower though:

Conditioned conscience vs. reflective moral agency. Animals often act from training, instinct, and situational empathy (which can look a lot like “knowing they did wrong”). Humans, uniquely, can form abstract moral concepts (rights, duties, justice), talk about them, plan around them, and choose with awareness of long-term social consequences. That extra layer — reflective moral responsibility — is what moral systems usually point to when they treat human actions differently.

Necessity vs. malice. If you kill to survive — starving, immediate self-defense with no viable alternative — most ethical frameworks treat that as a tragic necessity, not moral malice. That’s not a contradiction of “a life for a life” so much as a different category: one is retributive punishment for wrongful, intentional killing; the other is a desperate act to preserve life. The intent and context matter.

“A life for a life” problems. Even if retribution feels intuitively satisfying, it’s messy in practice: uncertainty, irreversible error, and the fact that killing doesn’t restore a life or heal victims’ communities. Many people therefore prefer containment + accountability + opportunities for reform over irreversible death — especially given how rarely we can be truly 100% sure.

So yeah — animals are morally relevant and capable of choice in many cases, but most people distinguish degrees of moral responsibility based on self-awareness, abstraction, and social obligation. And killing to survive isn’t moral equivalence to premeditated murder; it’s a tragic exception most systems excuse or mitigate.

>>942311395
>With all existing and theoretical technologies, what is the maximum sustainable population of humans if we fully utilized all material on earth?

Short answer: it depends entirely on what you allow “a human” to be and where we put them. Here are tight, back-of-the-envelope upper bounds under three increasingly futuristic assumptions, using only Earth’s material.

1) Biological humans, staying near Earth, using only the sunlight Earth already intercepts

Power available: ~1.7×10^17 W (solar absorbed by Earth).

If you budget ~2 kW/person (modern living with industry), you cap at ≈8×10^13 people (tens of trillions).

Mass, N/P nutrients, and heat are not limiting at this scale if you use closed-loop recycling, vertical farms, and oceans/atmosphere as element reservoirs.
Ballpark: 10–100 trillion people.

2) Biological humans in space habitats, using all Earth’s mass + a Dyson swarm (collecting most of the Sun’s output)

Disassemble Earth into O’Neill-type habitats and thin-film collectors/radiators. You’re then limited by mass per person (bodies + living space + shielding + machinery) rather than energy.

Total mass to allocate: ~6×10^24 kg.

If you’re extremely frugal and allocate only 1,000–10,000 kg per person (tight but arguable with advanced materials and externalized power/food from sunlight + recycling), you get:

6×10^21 to 6×10^20 people.

Absolute, physically silly ceiling (turn almost all mass into 70-kg bodies): ~8×10^22 people. (You wouldn’t do this—no room/equipment—but it’s a hard mass limit.)

Heat dissipation is manageable with large radiators; even at 300 K, radiator area per 100 W/person is ~0.22 m2; building enough area from Earth’s mass is feasible at system scale.
Plausible but extreme: 10^20–10^21 people.
Utterly maximal biological (unlivable): ~8×10^22.

>>942311395
3) Digital humans (“ems”) running on computronium, powered by a Dyson swarm

Now energy and cooling dominate; element stoichiometry no longer binds.

Sun’s power: ~3.8×10^26 W.

Thermodynamic floor per irreversible bit operation (Landauer at ~300 K): ~2.8×10^-21 J/bit ≈1.4×10^47 bit-ops/s total.

If a human-level mind needs ~10^16–10^17 ops/s, then concurrent minds at real-time could be ~10^30–10^31.

Practical overheads (error correction, memory, communications, non-Landauer losses) push this down, but even many orders of magnitude penalty still leaves ≫10^25 minds.
Theoretical digital ceiling: ~10^30–10^31 persons at human speed.

Takeaways

Conservative, Earth-surface biology: ~10^13–10^14.

All-in on space habitats with Earth’s mass + Sun’s energy (still biological): ~10^20–10^21 (with austere mass/person); absolute mass ceiling ~8×10^22.

Digital minds on Earth-sourced computronium using the Sun: ~10^30–10^31.

>>942310301
this desu

Your fortune: Reply hazy, try again

>>942311427
>which can look a lot like “knowing they did wrong”
No it literally is knowing they did wrong.
You're pretending it's somehow different just because humans have more neurons firing off with more advance thinking patterns and that somehow makes human life more valuable.
Again, I value humans over animals and plants because I sympathize with my own kind, but I am intelligent enough to understand that life is still life and they are equal things unlike you.

>That’s not a contradiction of “a life for a life” so much as a different category: one is retributive punishment for wrongful, intentional killing; the other is a desperate act to preserve life. The intent and context matter.
Okay well glad you finally cleared that up. Took you long enough. So in that case yeah you could say all life is equal.
No need to go any further and I'm not reading your weird delving into what looks like unwarranted mathematical equations here >>942311444 and >>942311452
No one asked.

im done talking to bias AI

>>942311444
>>942311452
I'd expect this from a midwit, to only consider energy sources, and not the fact that we're already fucked because we've already overpopulated so much without considering the very real fact that we need to grow food in soil that has nutrients, and we're quickly using up all the soil's nutrients it obtained over millions of years from other dying lifeforms, and we can't just replicate what took millions of years in one generation of humans.

>>942311527
do you know what equal means?

>>942311608
Yes. Your point?
You didn't type a point because you don't have one or what?

>>942311596
1) Nutrient cycles are not fixed, they can be closed artificially

Modern agriculture already recycles nutrients on industrial scales: composting, manure, biochar, and even chemical fertilizers allow nutrients to circulate indefinitely.

Humans don’t need soil formed over millions of years if we can artificially provide nutrients in closed-loop systems.

Hydroponics, aeroponics, and vertical farming demonstrate that plants can grow without traditional soil, using nutrient solutions fully controlled by humans.

Soil is not a hard ceiling; nutrient cycling can be accelerated or artificially closed.

2) Energy availability dominates nutrient limits in a fully engineered system

Converting sunlight into electricity or heat allows us to drive synthetic nutrient production, desalinate water, run artificial ecosystems, and power vertical farms.

Even if natural soil is limited, human ingenuity allows us to bypass natural limits: fertilizer production, nutrient recycling, and lab-grown food all require energy first.

So saying “we are doomed because soil nutrients are finite” is like saying we’re doomed because we can’t make fire from a rock. Energy is what enables substitution and acceleration.

3) The “millions of years” argument misunderstands human technology

Natural soil formation indeed takes millions of years. But we’re not limited to natural processes:

Nitrogen: industrial Haber-Bosch fixes N2 in days.

Phosphorus and potassium can be recycled from waste streams (human waste, agricultural residue, mine tailings).

Closed-loop hydroponic systems let us continuously reuse nutrients indefinitely.

This shows that the limiting factor is technology and energy, not finite soil.

>>942311596
4) Overpopulation is a temporary concept when technology expands carrying capacity

Historically, every supposed “limit” (land, water, food) has been overcome by better techniques and energy utilization: mechanization, irrigation, fertilization, refrigeration, and transport all expanded Earth’s carrying capacity many times over.

Claiming we’re overpopulated ignores the huge untapped potential of vertical farms, artificial nutrients, lab-grown meat, and closed-loop agriculture.

Bottom line

“We are overpopulated because soil nutrients are finite” is factually incorrect. Soil nutrients can be recycled, synthetically replaced, and accelerated using technology powered by energy. The real limiting factor for sustaining billions or trillions of humans is energy and material engineering, not soil formation timescales.

>>942311649
>recycle
Nope. It degrades over time.
There is literally a huge decrease in nutritional quality.

>>942311632
My point is exactly what I’ve been saying: animals are capable of choices and emotions, but humans have an additional layer — reflective moral agency. That means we can understand abstract concepts like rights, justice, and long-term consequences, and act deliberately with that awareness.

Killing in desperate self-preservation isn’t malice; premeditated murder is. That’s why most ethical systems treat them differently — not because humans are inherently “better,” but because moral responsibility scales with reflective awareness.

So yes, life is life in one sense, but moral accountability isn’t equal across all life. That’s the distinction I was making.

>>942311649
>>942311662
Hope you get drafted into the next war just for having that selfish "infinite humans are possible even though the quality of life is clearly degrading" belief system, bud.

>>942311668
Actually, modern science shows that nutrient recycling can be nearly lossless with proper technology:

Hydroponics and aeroponics already allow nutrients to be reused indefinitely in closed-loop systems — plants take only what they need, water and minerals are recycled, and nothing “degrades” in the sense that it’s lost.

Lab-grown fertilizers and synthetic nutrient solutions can replace any losses in natural soil, so the system doesn’t depend on finite natural soil reserves.

Composting, vermiculture, and biochar techniques restore organic matter and nutrient availability without significant long-term loss.

The idea that “recycling always degrades nutrients” is a natural-soil intuition, not a hard physical limit. With energy and engineering, we can maintain or even increase the effective nutritional quality indefinitely.

>>942311737
there is no next war, doomer. WWI is ongoing. the war will be won, the wars will be ended.

>>942311727
>we can understand abstract concepts like rights, justice, and long-term consequences, and act deliberately with that awareness.
Yeah because we developed more advanced brains.
Your point? How does that make the life of the lifeform with the more advanced brain objectively superior? I know the body and brain is superior, but the life is equal.

>>942311737
the quality of life is higher than it has ever been and will only increase. take off those shit colored glasses and you'd see that.

>>942311760
>nearly lossless
So it degrades in quality and we're not being responsible human beings by continuing to grow indefinitely in population. Thanks for the admission.

I hope he still saves me after all the things i have done to my girlfriend

>>942311803
You're literally living under a rock or just completely fucking insane if you think people, other than the wealthy (which the wealthy are always happy in any period of time), are happier now than they were in the 60s, 70s, 80s, or even early 2000s.
Get fucking real, dipshit.

>>942311780
I think the confusion here is between equal and equitable. Yes, in one sense all life is equal — every being is alive, every being experiences its own existence. But that doesn’t mean all life is equitable in terms of moral responsibility or accountability.

Humans have reflective moral agency — the ability to understand abstract concepts like justice, rights, and long-term consequences. That doesn’t make our lives “objectively superior” in value as life itself, but it does mean we bear a greater weight of responsibility. Equity is about fairness in how responsibility or consequences are assigned, not about claiming one life is more “real” than another.

So life can be equal in existence but not necessarily equitable in accountability.

>>942311888
>changes the goalpost to equitable when we were discussing equality
Thanks for being a retard I guess. Debate over.

>>942311819
Saying “nearly lossless = we’re doomed” is a misrepresentation. “Nearly lossless” doesn’t mean significant degradation occurs—it means that with technology, nutrient recycling can be effectively indefinite.

Hydroponics, aeroponics, and lab-grown nutrient systems allow humans to control and replenish every essential nutrient with precision. There’s no natural “degradation” in the sense of permanent loss, because we can supply any deficits synthetically.

Humanity’s responsibility isn’t fixed by current soil limits—it’s about using science and energy wisely. Declaring the problem insoluble because humans aren’t perfect yet is a philosophical, not physical, argument.

In short: nutrient limits are engineering problems, not hard natural ceilings. Responsible management with existing tech can sustain massive populations indefinitely.

>>942311864
>You're literally living under a rock or just completely fucking insane if you think
>>942311864
>Get fucking real, dipshit.


no u

Your fortune: Very Bad Luck

>>942311915
>it means that with technology, nutrient recycling can be effectively indefinite.
No it actually doesn't because you pulled that out of your ass.
You think synthetic nutrients are the same as real nutrients. They're not.
And yes, we are doomed to war if our population continues skyrocketing each year.
It's only a matter of time.
Very reasonable solution: Just be responsible, but we can't do that. Humanity is greedy and they simply "must have more heckin copies of my genes! I HECKIN MUST REPRODUCE MORE! MORE OF ME! ME! ME! ME!" End of story.
Again. Hope you get drafted against your will. Sincerely hope you do, even if you're 80 years old.

>>942311946
Deny reality all you want, bro.
Won't change a thing.

Politicians. Yet to find any aside from perhaps Ron, Rand Paul that aren't complete 2 faced.

>>942311986
A Manifesto for Optimism: Why Life Will Only Get Better

Too often, people believe the world is falling apart. They point to crises, fear, and injustice, and conclude that humanity is doomed. Yet statistics, history, and reason tell a profoundly different story: life is better now than it ever has been — and it will continue to improve.

Consider the evidence: global life expectancy has more than doubled in the past century. Hundreds of millions of people have escaped extreme poverty. Literacy rates and access to education have soared. Disease that once decimated populations is now preventable or curable. Clean water, electricity, and material security are reaching more people than ever before. Every major index of human well-being — survival, health, opportunity — is trending upward. These are not minor gains; they are the cumulative triumph of knowledge, innovation, and moral progress.

The trajectory of history is unmistakable: knowledge compounds. Each discovery, each innovation, builds upon the last. Unlike finite resources, knowledge grows when shared. Every medical breakthrough, every technological advance, every insight into society or governance raises the baseline of human possibility. Humanity is learning faster, connecting farther, and solving problems more efficiently than any generation before us.

>>942311986
Yet despite these advances, many feel pessimistic. Why? Because our brains are wired to notice threats, not triumphs. We are drawn to tragedy, danger, and scandal — and media magnifies these instincts. Progress is noisy and uneven; solving one problem exposes the next. But this does not mean decline; it means evolution. Every challenge we face today — climate change, inequality, artificial intelligence — is itself evidence of unprecedented capability. Only a species with immense power and knowledge encounters such questions.

History also teaches humility against nostalgia. Ancient life was brutal, short, and insecure. Most people lived in constant danger, with little freedom or comfort. Yet cultural narratives often cast the past as a lost paradise, making the present feel imperfect by comparison. In reality, we have never had more opportunity, freedom, or ability to shape our future.

Optimism is not naive. It is a recognition of patterns, potentials, and principles. Humanity learns, adapts, and innovates. Empathy and moral concern expand with awareness. Technology amplifies our creativity and capability. Crises become catalysts for improvement. Each generation inherits a higher baseline of survival, freedom, and knowledge, from which it can reach even further.

The shadow of fear can make progress invisible, but the arc of human history bends unmistakably upward. Life will continue to get better because we now have the tools, the knowledge, and the collective will to make it so. The illusion of decline is the shadow cast by accelerating light. Humanity is not falling apart — it is shedding its limitations and stepping into the vast potential of its own creation.

Believe in progress. Act on potential. The future is brighter than you think.

>>942311973
First, personal attacks and wishes of harm don’t make an argument true. Let’s stick to facts.

Synthetic nutrients are chemically identical to natural ones. Plants and humans don’t “know” whether nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, or trace minerals come from soil or lab-synthesized solutions—biochemistry is chemistry. Hydroponics, aeroponics, and controlled nutrient systems prove this works at commercial scale today.

Nutrient recycling can be practically indefinite. Closed-loop systems can capture and reuse virtually all essential elements. Any small losses can be replaced synthetically. There is no fundamental law of physics preventing this.

Population growth doesn’t automatically mean war or doom. Resource limits are not fixed, they expand with technology. Historically, humans have consistently overcome “limits” through innovation in energy, agriculture, and infrastructure.

In short: claiming humanity is “doomed” because of nutrient limits is ideological, not scientific. The constraints can be engineered around with existing or near-future technology, so overpopulation is a manageable engineering problem, not an inevitable apocalypse.

>>942312071
>let me point out that you didn't continue to debate my classic "no u" line
No one cares, and you're ironically very unwise despite how wise you desperately try to sound.
>Durr why are people pessimistic about the average human life going to shit and quality of life degrading when we have better heckin technology!?
Retard.

>>942308674 (OP)
Jesus would save pic related

>>942312079
>Most people lived in constant danger, with little freedom or comfort.
If you're arguing that quality of life is better than when we were cave people, yes it is.
If you're trying to argue that quality of life is better now than it was in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, or early 2000s, you need a huge reality check.

>>942312125
I see you’re trying to reduce a nuanced discussion to insults, but let’s be clear: progress isn’t about “looking cool” or “having tech.” It’s about measurable improvements in human well-being over time — life expectancy, literacy, poverty reduction, access to health, and so on.

Pessimism isn’t ignorance; it’s often a response to media amplification of crises, historical memory, or real structural problems. Acknowledging setbacks doesn’t contradict the fact that, on average, humanity is far better off than ever before.

Mocking optimism doesn’t change the statistics. If you want to debate, focus on evidence and trends, not ad hominem insults. Otherwise, this isn’t a debate — it’s just noise.

>>942312121
>Nutrient recycling

>>942312121
>Resource limits are not fixed
factually incorrect unless you're one of those retards who believes we can save efficiency by traveling to other planets for their resources.

>>942312162
It’s true that comparing today to the 1960s–2000s is different than comparing to the distant past, but the data still show progress in key measures of well-being even over the last few decades:

Life expectancy and health: Global life expectancy has continued to rise since the mid‑20th century, thanks to vaccines, disease control, and medical advancements. Healthy lifespan is increasing, not just total lifespan.

Poverty and material living standards: The share of people living in extreme poverty has fallen sharply worldwide, even outside the major economies. Access to basic necessities like clean water, electricity, and nutrition has expanded globally.

Education and literacy: Global literacy rates and access to higher education continue to improve. Even in developed countries, more people can access information and opportunities than in the 1980s or 1990s.

Safety and governance: Many regions have become far safer, with lower rates of violent death, improved worker protections, and stronger social support networks.

Yes, progress isn’t uniform, and cultural or environmental stressors create visible challenges — but “things are getting worse” isn’t supported by the majority of statistical trends. Optimism here isn’t nostalgia; it’s evidence-based.

posting in an AI chat bot thread

i miss the good ol days, when natural order was just known

>>942312174
>It’s about measurable improvements in human well-being over time — life expectancy(going down since the 90s), literacy(going down since the 90s), poverty reduction(going down since the 90s), access to health(going down since the 90s)
KEK
yep. Retard alert.
Oh no I'm being heckin "TOO NEGATIVE" for the christian boy, because I'm man enough to acknowledge and criticize the reality of our negative situation.
Cry me a river.

>>942312208
“Resource limits are fixed” is only true if you ignore human ingenuity and technology. You don’t need to mine other planets to expand resources—just look at history:

The Green Revolution multiplied crop yields many times over using the same land and nutrients that previously “limited” humanity.

Energy efficiency, recycling, and synthetic nutrient production have repeatedly turned apparent physical limits into manageable problems.

Modern closed-loop agriculture and hydroponics allow us to grow food with essential elements fully recycled, effectively creating new usable resources from existing matter.

Limits are only fixed if you assume humans cannot change how resources are used or substituted. Physics allows us to recycle, convert, and supplement—the ceiling is not inherent in nature; it’s set by technology and ingenuity.

>>942308674 (OP)
niggers they make me embarrassed about my tiny white dick

>>942312252
You’re asserting that life expectancy, literacy, poverty reduction, and access to health have been declining globally since the 1990s — but that’s simply not supported by the data. Let’s be clear:

Life expectancy: Global average life expectancy has continued to rise since the 1990s. Temporary dips occurred regionally (like during the peak of the HIV/AIDS crisis in Sub-Saharan Africa or during COVID-19), but the long-term trend is strongly upward. (Our World in Data
)

Poverty reduction: The share of people living in extreme poverty has steadily declined since 1990, falling from over 35% of the global population to under 10% today, even when adjusting for updated definitions. (World Bank
)

Literacy and education: Global literacy rates have continued to rise, particularly among women and younger generations. Enrollment in primary and secondary education worldwide has increased since the 1990s. (UNESCO
)

Health access: Worldwide vaccination rates, maternal and child health, and access to basic health services have improved consistently over the past three decades.

It’s understandable to feel that things are “getting worse” because media amplifies crises, and local/regional issues are more visible than global trends. But the statistical reality shows that, on average, human well-being has continued improving since the 1990s — not declining.

Being realistic about challenges doesn’t require ignoring facts. Progress is uneven, but it’s measurable and undeniable.

>>942312253
>Limits are only fixed if
if we don't stop overpopulating.
Technology can't develop more efficiency for us to feed and shelter ourselves faster than human populations are growing now when we've reached the peak of our technological advancement.
In the past yeah that wasn't true because we had so much left to discover about the world.
It's true now that we've scratched every inch of what we can possibly progress on, and I'm not talking about the past unlike your retarded ass assuming I'm comparing today to cave man days.
I'm saying the quality of life now is shit compared to what we had.
I guess you were born yesterday so you have no frame of reference.

>>942312371
>GROK is this true.

>>942312299
>source: my ass

>>942312371
Your claim that “we’ve reached the peak of technological advancement” is simply false. Human progress is far from finished, and there is enormous room for improvement in almost every sector relevant to sustaining populations:

Agriculture: Vertical farming, hydroponics, aeroponics, lab-grown meat, and synthetic nutrient systems are still in their early adoption phases. These technologies can increase yield by orders of magnitude compared to traditional agriculture.

Energy: Solar, nuclear, and fusion are not fully deployed or optimized. Even today, humanity uses a tiny fraction of available energy resources, and more efficient systems are constantly being developed.

Resource recycling: Closed-loop systems can capture and reuse nearly all essential materials, dramatically reducing limits imposed by raw extraction.

Quality of life improvements: Advances in automation, AI, and bioengineering can further multiply the carrying capacity of Earth without sacrificing standards of living.

The idea that we’ve “scratched every inch” of possible progress is demonstrably incorrect. Limits are not fixed, and we have both the knowledge and tools to expand them far beyond current population pressures.

>>942312417
>>942312071
>>942312079

>>942312420
>source: my ass

>>942312430
>>942312071
>>942312079

>>942312429
>>942312071
thanks for losing

>>942312447
>>942312071picrel
>>942312079

>>942312420
>He thinks AI is an advancement

>>942312459
>>942312071picrel

>>942312463
>he doesn't think

>>942311052
>>942310879
>>942311444
>>942311452
>>942312071

>>942312476
gg no re

>>942312429
>>942312459
>>942312463
>>942312476

>>942312499
888÷444

>>942312505
(Yourself)

ITT: some retarded zoomer doesn't know what life was like 10+ years ago

>>942312519
get that checked

>>942312514
you use ai to generate your responses because you are a fucking retard third world troglodyte. fuck off back over to reddit

>>942312530
missed me with that shit

>>942312530
the past is obsolete

>>942312544
>get that weck

>>942312553
>>942312459

>>942312554
gaaaay

>>942312554
hit you square in the face there, buddy
bulls eye in fact, everybody's saying

>>942312569
Suck my shit

>>942312553
>>942312554
>>942312555
THREE CONSECUTIVE NUMBERS ITT

>>942312581
hehehehe

oh fuck I lost

>>942312597
Let's make it sixx

>>942312611
gtfo

>>942312597
1488

>>942312617
yeah, word is, your a nazi

you lost btw

>>942312616
Me gtfo? You're posting on a log board, newfag. You should lurk moar

you're gonna feel something even through all the zoloft!

>>942312632
milhouse is still not a meme

>>942312649
Did you learn about that one when you sorted by oldest on know your meme?

>>942312671
engage forward in time

>>942312666
BEGONE

>>942312683
no time, real time, no real

>>942312690
bye!

>>942312717
Get ye behind me

milk truck has arrived

delulu>>942312704

forced starvation proper solution

>>942312795
count to 3

just take it from them

nope

>>942312632
you're in the wrong thread

the future will never be the same

>>942312805
go back

>>942312827
you have to go back

the pain plan
sum of excitement
excavation of meaning

>>942312860

Your fortune: Average Luck

>just be yourself

>just act naturally

I hate liberals, love Trump, and love Christians, but this >>942312844 guy is a fucking retard after reading this thread

>>942312884
indeed, all your emotions, indeed

>>942312884
its ok, its just the reality

>>942312884
>>942312569

>>942312923
just....

>>942310785
Pedophilia isnt a sin in the bible

>>942312952
>>942312495

i'am here'to help

>>942312826
This is a log thread now.

>>942312923
So you're either a tranny or a woman to be that interested in emotions over facts.
That explains your retardation.

look at faces

who earns what

time heals

>>942312996
White men need their own nation again.
it's high time we get rid of all the brownoid leeches on our society.

>>942312996
small pond

>you can escape

>but you just won't

>>942313081
hey look a landline connected to a cellphone tower

OP is going to hell

>>942313081
who's the AI in here?

>>942308674 (OP)
Donald Trump, Joe Biden, the billionaires, & the Clinton family.

>>942313098
>a land line connected to a self-phone...

I'm flattered you've chosen me as your new leader, but I decline

>>942313148
>the flat line
>in time
>lose spine

your getting bored already? I thought you were on the clock

>>942313126
I don't remember that scene from the "She drives me crazy" music video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtvmTu4zAMg

its happening again

i miss you

boared

>>942312318
Whenever I see a picture like this I always think, what if aliens really do exist. And they look like this.

And the reason why governments don't want us to know about them is cos they know we'll all just want to fuck them.

:,)

>>942313431
>>942313432
time signatures checked

loser

>>942313166
I'm disappointed I didn't get a "what about my bored already?"

lovely man and or lady

Your fortune: Excellent Luck

I'm sure they thought they were doing good. Maybe they were, on some level I am yet to understand

yet unbeknownst

very embiggening

thirty seconds for 10 posts? shit I bet I could.... the botnet could handle it with absolute ease

1

>>942313826
>>942313840
:D I was right about everything!

im so haapy

>>942313879
I'm glad you're feeling optimistic, that's what I like

>>942308674 (OP)
Who cares

>>942313900
>>942308674 (OP)picrel

god

>>942313916
distinguished greys

>>942313929
https://youtu.be/JU042ICxC0A?si=AN5ngh7M-kaEu8la

>>942313972
SurfShark has identified a virus link

physical disgust, psychological bewilderment

Jesus accidentally spoke Spanish

When I was young everything seemed so simple

1

>>942308674 (OP)
Christians

Jesus let this happen.

free will vs divine will
>>942316169
what is your purpose?

Hey you get the fuck off my lawn
You're so damn committed to the con
All standards set and all lines drawn
And there's no question which side I'm on
Which side are you on?

which side are you on?

>>942308674 (OP)
%100 that mega kike yahoo i cant wait until he dies that bumbo eared old geezer sent bombs and men to kill children i pray nothing but hell death and endlessly anguish for that foul rat. As much as I have burning personal hates they come nowhere close to what kind of monster this kike jew fucking rat is. I wish I could be there to witness The lord of salvation point to nothing but eternal suffering for that child killing jew yahoo

>>942308778
So you then? I hope your child gets raped to death

>>942310301
/thread

>>942310516
fairytale faggot, turn the other cheek in lieu of casting condescension you fucking cretin


>>942308674 (OP)
You, imaginary-friends headass

>>942320940
Civilians dying — including children — is real. Nobody is denying that tragedy. But the leap from “terrible decisions with terrible consequences” to “this person deserves eternal torment and racial hate-slurs” is where you lose the plot completely.

Christian Universalism isn’t about excusing evil. It’s about believing no one is beyond repentance, transformation, or restoration — not even leaders who make catastrophic, harmful choices. Justice matters. Accountability matters. Investigations matter. But wishing eternal torture on anyone is just you mirroring the very darkness you claim to oppose.

If evil is real, then the only victory over it is healing, not endless hate.
If God saves, He saves to change people, not to rubber-stamp their mistakes.
And if grace means anything, it means nobody is written off forever — even the people who’ve caused immense harm.

You can condemn actions without denying someone’s humanity.
You can demand justice without praying for damnation.
And if Jesus saves at all, He saves to the uttermost — even the ones you’d never pick.

>>942320985
Vile, in every sense of the word.

>>942321513
If your answer is “me,” then the joke’s on you — Christian Universalism says you’re included too, whether you believe or not. Nobody’s written off. Not even the guy yelling “imaginary-friends headass."

>>942325211
To answer your question, if Jesus decided to save everyone in spite of "sin" or "accepting him into their hearts" then I'd be pleased.
The problem is no account of Jesus describes him ever wanting to do that, so.

>>942325246
Actually, there are accounts that suggest Jesus’ mission was about ultimate restoration, not exclusion. For example, passages like 1 Timothy 2:4 (“[God] wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth”) and Colossians 1:19-20 (where God reconciles all things through Christ) indicate a universal scope.

From a Christian Universalist perspective, “sin” or rejection isn’t a permanent barrier — the idea is that God’s grace is powerful enough to eventually restore everyone, even if it takes time or involves correction. So it’s not just a hypothetical — there is theological support for the view that Jesus does ultimately intend to save all.

>>942326094
>come to a knowledge of the truth
Is another way of saying accept Jesus as their personal savior.

>>942326127
Not necessarily. “Come to a knowledge of the truth” doesn’t have to mean immediate conscious acceptance of Jesus in this life. From a Universalist perspective, it can also refer to eventual realization or transformation, whether in this life or beyond. Salvation isn’t limited to a single moment of acknowledgment — it’s about the ultimate restoration of all creation through Christ, which can unfold over time.

>>942326432
Universalist is a term you use and don't understand.

>>942308674 (OP)
I don't believe in imaginary rabbis

>>942329299
bet you believe Hitler was just a good, moral man fighting for his country though