population is to much of a difficult issue to deal with, even with education. Because some people are still going to want children. It would turn into an debate on the level of global warming.
yes global warming exists, but really, how much are humans affecting the planet really. How big is our impact. Is it big or is it smaller than we think?
It will start by limiting the amount of kids you are allowed to have, which requires an even stronger centralized institution which enforces this.
Even if people still used birth control, all it would do is slow the population. It wonât stop it, especially at the rate science is progressing. People just live to long, and not dying fast enough.
There will be a point where the question becomes, who can and not have kids. That isnât going to be a nice day.
Iâm quoting myself from earlier in the thread, like a few posts back. There are solutions, although the only thing stopping us from feeding everyone, and being able to sustain everyoneâs needs (food, water, energy, social, etc.) is the financial cost.
âYou are incorrect. The W.H.O. has said that there is enough food right now to feed the entire population, the only reason that we cannot do so is because of the financial cost it would require. Also we have the means to continue to produce enough food, we now know how to grow food hydroponically, which will grow food year round without the need for arable land or direct sunlight. Hydroponically producing food is more space efficient, and more time efficient, and produces more food. And if we could begin a process like this on large scale yes, we could support an even larger population. The question about creating waste is valid too, but there are ways to produce energy, while creating less waste. It is called âcleanâ energy, and we have the knowledge required to do so, it only needs to be developed further (which is being impeded due to the interests of the oil and energy industries).â
So yeah, if you keep an open mind, we can find creative and morally/scientifically/responsibly superior solutions to our problems than how we are presently dealing with them.
No⌠just no. Go chop your balls off if you want, but there are alternatives to that solution. If we can educate the people in poorer countries (good quality education, including sexual education and birth control), and provide for them the resources they need, then they wouldnât have so many children. The reason why they produce is to have better chances of survival, and to have more labor for their farms/ranches etc. I know this because my dad grew up on a farm and is one of 10 kids.
That sounds much more humane, than introducing chemicals and hormones to decrease their sterility without their consent. It would take a psychotic society to do that.
The people having more kids than they can take care of are just as ignorant as those who believe the solution to this problem would be eugenics.
The correct term is global climate change.
And yes we are causing it, with our deforestation, with our carbon emissions from our vehicles, and energy plants. Pollution of the water supply. etc. etc.
The solutions would require a shift in values of western society, away from over consumption. But just go and try and tell someone that they canât buy their bigass SUV, Hummer, Pickup and see what they say lol.
But seriously we need to be responsible with our planet.
wasnât that name change just a PR move? eh, semantics
Yes what I do, you, everyone, has an impact on the planet. Pumping toxins into the water affects the ecology, chopping forests down impacts the overall global ecology. but really, we all know planetary warming is a common thing for Earth. The question is how much of an impact do we really have with carbon emissions and or behaviors?
Is it a principal, medium, trace amount?
What I donât like is that these people shit on humanity and say its all our fault, when evidence also says that this a cyclical thing and we have been entering a warm phase for a while.
Yes the solutions are there but at the same time you canât force people to not buy what they want. BTW, have you looked up allowable emission levels for new cars and trucks? Ultra low emmisions of CO2, catalytic converters which release virtrually no NO2 or CO. Plus effecient EGR valves which burn 99% of the fuel. With todayâs technology people can have their V8âs. I know I want mine.
All I know is that I wouldnât buy or drive an electric car. they looks really really really really stupid, and I wouldnât be able to service it because of its complexity. I donât blame people for not liking them, they are ugly, expensive to fix, etc.
Except that RPDâs point was pretty damn contrasting to what you believe. Educating people to not procreate wonât help futureproof such a plan. Population would have to be mandated in order not to breach a population that surpasses the amount where our resources cannot meet the demand and cause a system collapse. Trying an honor system in population control is delusional at best. âTee hee, we wonât have another one⌠oops! Hereâs child number 5! Sorry!â That shit wonât fly in this system, sorry. Other reasons besides survival exist for procreation, be it sheer stupidity, religious beliefs, or plain arrogance that their seed must spread like a virus.
I for one think that Chinaâs method is actually not that bad of a start. They definitely have big issues that need to be handled, but a simple tax break for people with less than 3 child dependents would be a better idea. All in all, though, population would have to be mandated first before such a system could even begin to be put in place, else its future is VERY finite. Employ a means to assure the population wonât continue to skyrocket for a generation or two, then consider this system.
Mr. Sapolsky was the main contributer to the film especially the point you wanted me to see. That is why I disected him personally, I am aware that there were other experts in other fields but I responded simply to your request and nothing more.
Didnât say he was but the narrator uses leftist talking point more twoards a liberal bias in so much as he uses speaking devices to slant
the audience. I dont need to be an expert to enseminate my point of view into a topic I simply need to weave my points into the current debate to make it sound reasonable when it is anything but. That is what the narrator did in the movie. He is partisan. The list of experts have thier own agenda.
I am not saying you are I understand you wanted to share, that being said Iâve heard these points before I was doing my part ot keep the conversation level by looking at your information. I would say the film is partisan do to the editing and film techiniques, as well as the rethoric and talking points used by the narrator, It is easy to take things out of context through editing but the read between the lines of what the experts v. narrator says are quite different, on one hand we see findings and conjecture from the proffessors throughout, on another we here the narrator tying each segment together to gain cohesivness in the argument, weaved in is personal opinion which has no base but is simply there to cleverly weave throughout the film a bias agenda. It is so subtle you may not notice it but that means he is quite clever in his execution.
Again there is some misunderstanding and I apologize for not being clear, so I will rephrase it everything I posted previously and you reposted is what has been posted by Mr. R (abbreviated) to some degree as well and that is that some things humans require or rather animals require to keep functioning, land, food, mates ect. animals will struggle for these things so that they can have them or will come into conflict with one another in order to survive. What I means by this is animals will fight over a mate or food or territory for there packs or troops. This is thier ânatureâ in order to proliferate.
It is nothing personal it is to ensure that they keep on going or so that the âstrongestâ genes survive for highest probability of survival. There are outside factors that influence this. I did not say we will always be violent, I did say that like all animals we will do what needs to be done in order to make sure our traits survive to the next generation. Other animals, reptiles, amphibians, maybe fish not to sure on that enact the same thing. Darwin noticed this so this is nothing new.
In regards to your part on environment and the film and the articles then you also know that environment while a large factor is not total. Unless you count a womb as a harsh environment that birthed a retarded person (not being sarcastic) which in turn put out a faulty body which maybe didnât have the correct receptors or ones and zeroes with which to interact with itâs environment properly to cause triggers that could be helpful for an animal to exist.
I did say this and agree with it especially the AND part not ONLY environment.
Somethings are determined I can be a bit fatalistic and believe in causality, however I am a very large believer in choice Soren Kierkegaard thankyou for that.
I am assuming what you mean by mental illness is retardation or autism in some form? These are genetics in nature what is strange though is you would have to account for envrionment using your train of thought to go back a generation to maybe see an impact which enabled a retardation 1 or 0 to trigger enough in another individual in order for it to miraculously come about in birth in a secondary nature. Otherwise why would two healthy parents have a unhealthy child. As far as Cancer goes that is a crap shoot, We all have perclivities to cancer every animal can get it to trigger but why does it trigger in the young? Or trigger in a direct spot?
Example: men get cancer that kills tied to their bowl/colon/prostate after a certain age quite regularily, now does that mean that we (men) have a receptor that fires at a certain point in time? Perhaps. Can environment effect this? science would say so. But it is strange that men and women around similar points in there life cycle tend to exhibit similar traits.
Saganizing is what the science community tries to avoid as it is the overanalyzing and consuming drive that ruins, In Mr. Râs own words he is guilty of this I am not a scientist so that is impossibe for me to do. He has projected a human trait or characteristic onto another animal ( his apes and his research surrounding them)
No humans are animals it is part of our genus tree. You start broad and then widdle it down until you get homo sapien thats just classification.
Correct to an extent but here is another example.
Example: your dog loves you, you believe, and when he sings he sings I LOVE YOU, Your dog singing is projection of a human trait onto another animal, thinking it loves you is another trait how can you prove it? (Rationaly) You may say he licks your hand and follows you and yet this is simply pack mentality a dog will exhibit similar behavior in the wild with other pack mates that is their ânature.â
Also you forget that these experiments are used to learn about other animals to see if our worth is indeed higher or if we are intrinsically unique as an animal. (also nazis got away with human experimentation and now we arenât allowed to but oh well.)
It would seem that we will keep going back and forth on this particular issue. So letâs address it.
Darwin had a great theory of evolution, but that is not to say that his theory is 100% complete and not subject to further inquiry or even amendments to it or disproval. It is science, therefore it must be subject to scrutiny and further study. So to say âsurvival of the fittestâ is the sole reason for human evolution or survival, would be like saying that on the subjects of calculus and physics we should only study up to where Isaac Newton left us (a good understanding, but not yet complete). There are many other factors that influence human psychology and behavior other than just instinct or âhuman natureâ. The notion of human nature (with genetic emphasis) is a primitive understanding of a greater concept.
If anything this should spur us to try and change our environment, and our perspective so we can reduce the social dysfunction. And yet when people are satisfied, they have no desire to do so, even when they are shown the reality of the world around them.
And I have a decent understanding of biology and taxonomy. I do understand. But you said the same exact thing that he is saying with some studies that have been done on a community of primates. You both shared the same idea in comparing humans and their ânatureâ or behavior to those of an animal (you in your argument for âhuman natureâ, and him with his study). The only difference was that you said they were innate, and he is saying that there is a genetic capacity but they are learned behaviors (and can be unlearned through conditioning).
What you are trying to do is blame human nature is to justify your own point of view, and justify a world where violence, and social dysfunction are acceptable. A âno way to change itâ perspective, which to me sounds like a learned helplessness. Itâs not only you, as I have seen there are many people who hold this belief that it is in our ânatureâ, solely because of what we have witnessed and because of the primitive concepts of evolution that we are taught(with little or no emphasis on other issues that affect human nature).
Iâll agree with you that I might sound âleftistâ, but I have no intention of doing so. I have certain values that I cannot conceal, but I am in it for pursuit of truth and to create a better world.
That idea of a tax deduction for small families makes sense to me, only because it would give people a reason to have smaller families. But that would mean that it would further distance the middle class from the upper class. It doesnât solve any problems long-term. I still think education is a much better solution, along with many other changes to the system fundamentally (but that is a whole 'nother subject).
Please take a look at my reply to RPD, which was right before yours. I refuted his point about population size, but I agreed with most everything else he posted.
Yes I am aware of what constitutes a scientific law and am aware that it is more or less an amendable fact. I didnât say however that survival of the fitest was the sole reason I gave an example of what you have also said was a basic building block that all animals share and I also said that on a basic level this is how we operate. In fact you have agreed with me so what is the problem?
Humanity is more or less content the demonstrations that are happening are a drop in the bucket and what is currently happening with this rising up is historically nothing new, does something need to change? Yes there are problems, but the main point is there needs to be a viable trade off for the current system and sadly there is nothing practical.
That is also my point is that conditioning is going against what is like with the soldier example the soldiers becoming tools,(no offense) they become a piece of a whole and as a whole they function but in order to get to that point they have to be conditioned, I agree again what is the problem?
There is no justification here. and there is no blame on ânatureâ I am merely stating what is accepted. I did not put in a couldâve, shouldâve, wouldâve, anywhere unless I explicitly stated so.
There is no justification again I merely stated what is accepted, or the world we live in in contrast to what you wish it to be (ideals)
Everything I have stated is how evolution works basically, I never got into any theories outside of what we have discussed because we have not went there or you havenât offered up a counter point and when you have gotten an answer from me you get defensive or inflammatory (at least to others not so much to myself.) I gave you answers as logically as possible. I know Logos is the most acurate or sound form of debate but I also know it isnât the most inspiring and that if you appeal to people emotions you get further, however Im not going for that. Im sorry if you feel like your back is against the wall but Im giving you another side to your thoughts.
Thats fine look at my tag, if your not asking then your not doing your job you can be passionate just be rational.
Agree with this though it is abit extreme certain parts are realistic, as this thread is about US primarily
Except that China and a few other asian countries that value a male over female are now finding that this plan is not all its cracked up to be as they are beginning to see their populations dwindle. In Chinas case it will take abit longer but Japan does have a serious problem and both countries are launching campaigns to get there citizens procreating which really takes the passion out of romance. That just terrifys me and smacks of 1984 to me and was it Judge Dread or Demolition man? I think it was Demolition man that had state run sex more or less.
In many cases it isnât that there is no land or food its that there is âno convenient landâ or âconvenient food.â In the US there is plenty of both and if you go to most countries you have possibility for both however it isnât around a major city it is simply land with high potential. There is enough room and food to accomodate humanity there is just no âneedâ or willingness to impliment it yet.
I think my response earlier wasnât probing to the depths you intended. I can see now what youâre getting at and I more or less agree.
People, and I think all creatures, are just probabilistic state machines (or non-deterministic state machines) with a ton of external input based on error prone sensors.
Also, cancer is a complicated device not well understood, but there is good evidence to support the parts of DNA in our body that donât get copied correctly, eg we get two pieces of a particular strand from Dad instead of one from each parent and if this occurs in the wrong place, this can cause cancer of a very particular type.
From previous presentations on the subject of DNA sequencing, DNA replication is error prone. It has a checksum, but this can fail for one of many reasons, whether it is the environment or just a failure to copy correctly, the reasons behind mutation are not clear and are probably a combination of many things we donât fully understand. DNA wonât be replicated correctly in a person from time to time and then sometimes it can cause serious problems.
You have my respect for your rationality and patience with me lol.
Since you are rational, why would you support such an irrational system? The only reason I can see is because it is the current system, and the one that is the most comfortable for you.
The capitalist system is based on private property, which if you think about it becomes irrational in the fact that the money that is exchanged for outlasts the property. The whole premise (as stated in my slanted propaganda video), is completely nullified with the institution of money and the purchasing of labor. And it was also created and instituted during a time when slavery existed and racism was accepted. The slaves are actually referred to in Adam Smithâs âWealth of Nationsâ as the ârace of laborersâ.
Alternatively, a Resource Based Economy, is a system that is based upon science (the most rational subject). Do you oppose the idea of a resource based economy (all slanted propaganda aside)?
I apologize if Iâve been inflammatory, I donât mean to be that way. Itâs just I canât take a neutral stance when it comes to certain things, regardless of what popular opinion might be, or whether or not it is accepted. I have no fear of punishment, or what other people might think of me. I have fear of what might happen if we allow murder and exploitation to be taken lightly.
Oh believe me, I agree, itâs way too extreme. The problem with any actual mandate is people will begin to do bad shit to get around it, which has a great deal to do with the gender balance China has. Poor gender balance in favor of males tend to snowball the population drop considerably (though, tbh, if youâre trying for a sustainable form of the RBE, we could stand to see a couple billion less people generations down the road, just to futureproof). Itâs kinda why Iâm seeing RBE as a pipe dream. Society would never be able to accept the idea near-unanimously in terms of population control, so it would have to be mandated, and there in lies a slippery slope that no one wants to go down.
Off topic: Demolition Man had abolished physical sex, actually. The entertainment aspect was handled through VR, and procreation was done in a lab. Same for 1984, IIRC, 'cept without the VR sex (sex was thought to bring about creativity - The Party didnât want that). Dunno about Judge Dredd, though.
the movement has gotten lucky in the fact that the powers that be are too stupid to realize that using force only strengthens these kind of protests. only a small handful of people knew about OWS before the NYPD went after them, and likewise the movement in oakland was not as large until they started shooting protesters with rubber bullets, bean bags and tear gas.