posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 46 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 7 hours, 31 minutes ago
A shrinking population should be embraced, we have the tech for it, we don't have the tech to keep up an ever growing population of humans.
Our problem/solution is economic when it comes to an aging and shrinking population.
Our problem/solution is firmly rooted in science fiction when it comes to sustaining billions of humans without decimating the planet as we know it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The global population isn't shrinking - and I always find it alarming when people cite 'too may people' as the root of our problems. Firstly, because the human race is entirely capable of convincing itself it's necessary to slaughter millions of people for the cause of survival. If you take the current, radicalised mood of human society and add significant food and water security pressures, the idea of genocidal ideologies going mainstream seems very plausible. But secondly, the earth can sustain a finite number of people only if their consumption models are extractive and unsustainable. The majority of carbon emissions are created by a small minority of the human population (and it's rarely that rich, northern-hemisphere population that the discourse has in mind when it suggests there's too many mouths to feed). Regenerative, circular models are possible, whereby people have a close to neutral impact on the environment (carbon negative; materials recycled; organic waste returned to enrich soils; overconsumption reduced by growth of sharing economy). But I hear people far more often saying "the human population is just to high" than arguing for sustainable transformation. I think there's a real danger we perpetrate the biggest crime against humanity in history because it's more convenient than thinking about changing our lifestyles a bit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely disagree. There is no genuine solution to maintaining the population as it is, let alone what it will become.
I do agree that it's a minority causing the majority of the damage to the atmosphere but that's far from, and in fact a more solvable issue than many other effects of having such a high human population. And as lower income nations go through modernisation they will put even more strain on the environment than they already do.
You can take talk of embracing a shrinking population (I was referring to where that's happening not overall obviously) as "convincing itself it's necessary to slaughter millions of people" if you like but that says a lot more about you than anything else. Having less babies and creating a world where our species is more balanced with the rest of nature is what I believe we have the opportunity to embrace.
Btw I respect your views, you come across as smart, well read and reasonable. It's all good that we strongly disagree here. I think one day people will realise that we were absolutely mental prioritising ponzi economies over the one planet we and all other species we know of can survive on...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be clear, I wasn't accusing you of advocating genocidal eco-fascism. But I do fear that as a movement is just around the corner, as the thing we currently call MAGA collides with the realities of ecosystem destruction. I'm fine with the logic of embracing an organic reduction in populations in developed countries, and rationally dealing with the challenges this creates. But I don't think there's a factual basis to say the earth can't sustain its current population. For a start, it does currently sustain the historically high population, and we don't need to increase the amount of arable land to feed everyone. In fact, we could feed far more people than we currently do if it weren't for overconsumption of meat (which requires far more land and energy per calory produced). There are scientifically sound pathways to carbon neutrality based on current populations and projections. There are models of food production that drastically reduce soil depletion. If we took these available steps, we could sustain a larger human population.
One illustration of this that I like is that the total biomass of ants and termites on planet earth is far greater than the total biomass of humans. Which amounts to much greater consumption of biomass and water by those little bugs than we consume. But that isn't an ecological disaster, and no one worries that the ant population is unsustainably high, because ants exist in a regenerative loop, putting back into the environment what they consume. It's technologically possible for humans to do so too.
But organisationally, it's much simpler to cull half of the human population than to make that happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or organisationally it's easier to embrace better female education and the availability of contraception and in a few generations see a natural reduction in population while pursuing many of the measures you mentioned.
The thing is with the biomass of ants is that was already part of a balanced ecosystem. In the last few hundred years (a spectacularly minute moment in history) humans have well, you know.
The reality I see... Continuation of the Ponzi economy, rise of fascism due to inequality, ecosystem collapse, "other" humans escaping persecution being shot by countries like the UK for trying to find safety.
Billionaires becoming trillionaires and finding a solution to aging and living in a separate enclosed paradise while the world burns.
posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 hours, 47 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 45 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 7 hours, 31 minutes ago
A shrinking population should be embraced, we have the tech for it, we don't have the tech to keep up an ever growing population of humans.
Our problem/solution is economic when it comes to an aging and shrinking population.
Our problem/solution is firmly rooted in science fiction when it comes to sustaining billions of humans without decimating the planet as we know it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The global population isn't shrinking - and I always find it alarming when people cite 'too may people' as the root of our problems. Firstly, because the human race is entirely capable of convincing itself it's necessary to slaughter millions of people for the cause of survival. If you take the current, radicalised mood of human society and add significant food and water security pressures, the idea of genocidal ideologies going mainstream seems very plausible. But secondly, the earth can sustain a finite number of people only if their consumption models are extractive and unsustainable. The majority of carbon emissions are created by a small minority of the human population (and it's rarely that rich, northern-hemisphere population that the discourse has in mind when it suggests there's too many mouths to feed). Regenerative, circular models are possible, whereby people have a close to neutral impact on the environment (carbon negative; materials recycled; organic waste returned to enrich soils; overconsumption reduced by growth of sharing economy). But I hear people far more often saying "the human population is just to high" than arguing for sustainable transformation. I think there's a real danger we perpetrate the biggest crime against humanity in history because it's more convenient than thinking about changing our lifestyles a bit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last time I looked they reckoned it had peaked, flattened out?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's never going to happen. Covid was our best bet
posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by CurrentlyInChina (U11181)
posted 2 hours, 55 minutes ago
Ubasute (姥捨て, "abandoning an old woman"; also called obasute and sometimes oyasute 親捨て "abandoning a parent"is a mythical practice of senicide in Japan, whereby an infirm or elderly relative was carried to a mountain, or some other remote, desolate place, and left there to die. Kunio Yanagita concluded that the ubasute folklore comes from India's Buddhist mythology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's OK, we've got Dignitas these days.
posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 3 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 hours, 47 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 45 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 7 hours, 31 minutes ago
A shrinking population should be embraced, we have the tech for it, we don't have the tech to keep up an ever growing population of humans.
Our problem/solution is economic when it comes to an aging and shrinking population.
Our problem/solution is firmly rooted in science fiction when it comes to sustaining billions of humans without decimating the planet as we know it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The global population isn't shrinking - and I always find it alarming when people cite 'too may people' as the root of our problems. Firstly, because the human race is entirely capable of convincing itself it's necessary to slaughter millions of people for the cause of survival. If you take the current, radicalised mood of human society and add significant food and water security pressures, the idea of genocidal ideologies going mainstream seems very plausible. But secondly, the earth can sustain a finite number of people only if their consumption models are extractive and unsustainable. The majority of carbon emissions are created by a small minority of the human population (and it's rarely that rich, northern-hemisphere population that the discourse has in mind when it suggests there's too many mouths to feed). Regenerative, circular models are possible, whereby people have a close to neutral impact on the environment (carbon negative; materials recycled; organic waste returned to enrich soils; overconsumption reduced by growth of sharing economy). But I hear people far more often saying "the human population is just to high" than arguing for sustainable transformation. I think there's a real danger we perpetrate the biggest crime against humanity in history because it's more convenient than thinking about changing our lifestyles a bit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last time I looked they reckoned it had peaked, flattened out?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's never going to happen. Covid was our best bet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Third world famines and War zones are putting in a good bid too...but it's fighting the tide at best.
posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 9 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 12 seconds ago
We need to bridge the divide between all the different opposites the media has created:
Left and Right
Black and White
Etc.
First couple of moves would be to get rid of the media and politicians and make voting way more transparent where people have to show who they voted for.
Put it on a big list so everyone can see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haud oan, I'll get my pitchfork
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m sorry, that won’t help as they don’t make pitchforks like they used to.
posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 9 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 12 seconds ago
We need to bridge the divide between all the different opposites the media has created:
Left and Right
Black and White
Etc.
First couple of moves would be to get rid of the media and politicians and make voting way more transparent where people have to show who they voted for.
Put it on a big list so everyone can see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haud oan, I'll get my pitchfork
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m sorry, that won’t help as they don’t make pitchforks like they used to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cillian Murphy played a great role as judge, jury and executioner in one of the Batman films.
Not saying that’s THE way forward but who wouldn’t like to see CEOs bosses at least explain their rationale without the impunity they currently operate with?
posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago
CEOs’*
Easy:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm
Would have put the whole text is but JA606 has banned three of the words included in the text.
s*x, inter and course (compounded into one word ) & sc*m.
Go figure.
The text perfectly identifies the problem(s) but is a little iffy on the best way to deal with those problem(s).
Until the likes of contemporaries like trump, farage, yaxley-lennon, putin, netanyahu et al are gone for ever - and the kind of reductive thinking they express - then the issues/problems are not going to be resolved to the betterment of our species
Sign in if you want to comment
The brains trust needed.
Page 4 of 4
posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 46 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 7 hours, 31 minutes ago
A shrinking population should be embraced, we have the tech for it, we don't have the tech to keep up an ever growing population of humans.
Our problem/solution is economic when it comes to an aging and shrinking population.
Our problem/solution is firmly rooted in science fiction when it comes to sustaining billions of humans without decimating the planet as we know it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The global population isn't shrinking - and I always find it alarming when people cite 'too may people' as the root of our problems. Firstly, because the human race is entirely capable of convincing itself it's necessary to slaughter millions of people for the cause of survival. If you take the current, radicalised mood of human society and add significant food and water security pressures, the idea of genocidal ideologies going mainstream seems very plausible. But secondly, the earth can sustain a finite number of people only if their consumption models are extractive and unsustainable. The majority of carbon emissions are created by a small minority of the human population (and it's rarely that rich, northern-hemisphere population that the discourse has in mind when it suggests there's too many mouths to feed). Regenerative, circular models are possible, whereby people have a close to neutral impact on the environment (carbon negative; materials recycled; organic waste returned to enrich soils; overconsumption reduced by growth of sharing economy). But I hear people far more often saying "the human population is just to high" than arguing for sustainable transformation. I think there's a real danger we perpetrate the biggest crime against humanity in history because it's more convenient than thinking about changing our lifestyles a bit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely disagree. There is no genuine solution to maintaining the population as it is, let alone what it will become.
I do agree that it's a minority causing the majority of the damage to the atmosphere but that's far from, and in fact a more solvable issue than many other effects of having such a high human population. And as lower income nations go through modernisation they will put even more strain on the environment than they already do.
You can take talk of embracing a shrinking population (I was referring to where that's happening not overall obviously) as "convincing itself it's necessary to slaughter millions of people" if you like but that says a lot more about you than anything else. Having less babies and creating a world where our species is more balanced with the rest of nature is what I believe we have the opportunity to embrace.
Btw I respect your views, you come across as smart, well read and reasonable. It's all good that we strongly disagree here. I think one day people will realise that we were absolutely mental prioritising ponzi economies over the one planet we and all other species we know of can survive on...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be clear, I wasn't accusing you of advocating genocidal eco-fascism. But I do fear that as a movement is just around the corner, as the thing we currently call MAGA collides with the realities of ecosystem destruction. I'm fine with the logic of embracing an organic reduction in populations in developed countries, and rationally dealing with the challenges this creates. But I don't think there's a factual basis to say the earth can't sustain its current population. For a start, it does currently sustain the historically high population, and we don't need to increase the amount of arable land to feed everyone. In fact, we could feed far more people than we currently do if it weren't for overconsumption of meat (which requires far more land and energy per calory produced). There are scientifically sound pathways to carbon neutrality based on current populations and projections. There are models of food production that drastically reduce soil depletion. If we took these available steps, we could sustain a larger human population.
One illustration of this that I like is that the total biomass of ants and termites on planet earth is far greater than the total biomass of humans. Which amounts to much greater consumption of biomass and water by those little bugs than we consume. But that isn't an ecological disaster, and no one worries that the ant population is unsustainably high, because ants exist in a regenerative loop, putting back into the environment what they consume. It's technologically possible for humans to do so too.
But organisationally, it's much simpler to cull half of the human population than to make that happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or organisationally it's easier to embrace better female education and the availability of contraception and in a few generations see a natural reduction in population while pursuing many of the measures you mentioned.
The thing is with the biomass of ants is that was already part of a balanced ecosystem. In the last few hundred years (a spectacularly minute moment in history) humans have well, you know.
The reality I see... Continuation of the Ponzi economy, rise of fascism due to inequality, ecosystem collapse, "other" humans escaping persecution being shot by countries like the UK for trying to find safety.
Billionaires becoming trillionaires and finding a solution to aging and living in a separate enclosed paradise while the world burns.
posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 hours, 47 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 45 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 7 hours, 31 minutes ago
A shrinking population should be embraced, we have the tech for it, we don't have the tech to keep up an ever growing population of humans.
Our problem/solution is economic when it comes to an aging and shrinking population.
Our problem/solution is firmly rooted in science fiction when it comes to sustaining billions of humans without decimating the planet as we know it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The global population isn't shrinking - and I always find it alarming when people cite 'too may people' as the root of our problems. Firstly, because the human race is entirely capable of convincing itself it's necessary to slaughter millions of people for the cause of survival. If you take the current, radicalised mood of human society and add significant food and water security pressures, the idea of genocidal ideologies going mainstream seems very plausible. But secondly, the earth can sustain a finite number of people only if their consumption models are extractive and unsustainable. The majority of carbon emissions are created by a small minority of the human population (and it's rarely that rich, northern-hemisphere population that the discourse has in mind when it suggests there's too many mouths to feed). Regenerative, circular models are possible, whereby people have a close to neutral impact on the environment (carbon negative; materials recycled; organic waste returned to enrich soils; overconsumption reduced by growth of sharing economy). But I hear people far more often saying "the human population is just to high" than arguing for sustainable transformation. I think there's a real danger we perpetrate the biggest crime against humanity in history because it's more convenient than thinking about changing our lifestyles a bit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last time I looked they reckoned it had peaked, flattened out?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's never going to happen. Covid was our best bet
posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by CurrentlyInChina (U11181)
posted 2 hours, 55 minutes ago
Ubasute (姥捨て, "abandoning an old woman"; also called obasute and sometimes oyasute 親捨て "abandoning a parent"is a mythical practice of senicide in Japan, whereby an infirm or elderly relative was carried to a mountain, or some other remote, desolate place, and left there to die. Kunio Yanagita concluded that the ubasute folklore comes from India's Buddhist mythology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's OK, we've got Dignitas these days.
posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 3 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 hours, 47 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 45 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 7 hours, 31 minutes ago
A shrinking population should be embraced, we have the tech for it, we don't have the tech to keep up an ever growing population of humans.
Our problem/solution is economic when it comes to an aging and shrinking population.
Our problem/solution is firmly rooted in science fiction when it comes to sustaining billions of humans without decimating the planet as we know it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The global population isn't shrinking - and I always find it alarming when people cite 'too may people' as the root of our problems. Firstly, because the human race is entirely capable of convincing itself it's necessary to slaughter millions of people for the cause of survival. If you take the current, radicalised mood of human society and add significant food and water security pressures, the idea of genocidal ideologies going mainstream seems very plausible. But secondly, the earth can sustain a finite number of people only if their consumption models are extractive and unsustainable. The majority of carbon emissions are created by a small minority of the human population (and it's rarely that rich, northern-hemisphere population that the discourse has in mind when it suggests there's too many mouths to feed). Regenerative, circular models are possible, whereby people have a close to neutral impact on the environment (carbon negative; materials recycled; organic waste returned to enrich soils; overconsumption reduced by growth of sharing economy). But I hear people far more often saying "the human population is just to high" than arguing for sustainable transformation. I think there's a real danger we perpetrate the biggest crime against humanity in history because it's more convenient than thinking about changing our lifestyles a bit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last time I looked they reckoned it had peaked, flattened out?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's never going to happen. Covid was our best bet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Third world famines and War zones are putting in a good bid too...but it's fighting the tide at best.
posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 9 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 12 seconds ago
We need to bridge the divide between all the different opposites the media has created:
Left and Right
Black and White
Etc.
First couple of moves would be to get rid of the media and politicians and make voting way more transparent where people have to show who they voted for.
Put it on a big list so everyone can see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haud oan, I'll get my pitchfork
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m sorry, that won’t help as they don’t make pitchforks like they used to.
posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 9 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 12 seconds ago
We need to bridge the divide between all the different opposites the media has created:
Left and Right
Black and White
Etc.
First couple of moves would be to get rid of the media and politicians and make voting way more transparent where people have to show who they voted for.
Put it on a big list so everyone can see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haud oan, I'll get my pitchfork
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m sorry, that won’t help as they don’t make pitchforks like they used to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cillian Murphy played a great role as judge, jury and executioner in one of the Batman films.
Not saying that’s THE way forward but who wouldn’t like to see CEOs bosses at least explain their rationale without the impunity they currently operate with?
posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago
CEOs’*
posted 4 weeks ago
Easy:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm
Would have put the whole text is but JA606 has banned three of the words included in the text.
s*x, inter and course (compounded into one word ) & sc*m.
Go figure.
The text perfectly identifies the problem(s) but is a little iffy on the best way to deal with those problem(s).
Until the likes of contemporaries like trump, farage, yaxley-lennon, putin, netanyahu et al are gone for ever - and the kind of reductive thinking they express - then the issues/problems are not going to be resolved to the betterment of our species
Page 4 of 4