|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Norway28743 Posts
On May 30 2016 04:21 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 04:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2016 04:05 opisska wrote:
Global warming is potentially a major inconvenience, but saying that it threatens humans as species is really a big stretch. There is so much room in the world that will be largely unaffected and some places would actually benefit from the changes in weather. Surely it can lead to a large decrease of population, but that's not really a bad thing for the species as a whole at this point. Unfortunately the people who would die wouldn't be the people causing the problems. Well, that's debatable. China is now the largest CO2 producer by a large margin and India comes third. The main reason for this is that they have a shitload of people and who else is to blame for that than moreorless everyone. Surely, many of the specific individuals who will be the most affected would be too young to be directly responsible, but in principle, in those countries, people are now actively pissing into their children's milk. China is responsible for a bloody third of the worldwide CO2 production now. The main reason for dying in most places will be that the warming will turn already existing overpopulation into a deadly famine. On one hand, trying to take care of the planet by limiting greenhouse gas emissions seems like a good idea. On the other, the same result could be achieved if people just fucked less (or used contraception).
The demographic change has already happened. Increased population from this point is because people keep living, not because so many more people are born. Yes, we could stop having children and it would also mean that global population would reduce, but having the population graph look like an inverse pyramid rather than a regular pyramid/ a cylinder shape is bad for many other reasons.
Either way, if every single family on earth from this point on started having only two children, so that we would be enough people to reproduce but not enough to grow, the world population would still increase from 7.5 to 11 billion over the next couple generations. Basically, from a political point of view, 'population is too high' is an answer to climate change with two possible solutions, a) start killing people or b) forbid most people from having children. Enacting a chinese one-child policy would not cut it, and even that would probably be less politically feasible than 'stop using fossil fuels', which already seems pretty damn difficult.
|
Norway28743 Posts
On May 30 2016 04:49 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 04:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 30 2016 04:05 opisska wrote:
Global warming is potentially a major inconvenience, but saying that it threatens humans as species is really a big stretch. There is so much room in the world that will be largely unaffected and some places would actually benefit from the changes in weather. Surely it can lead to a large decrease of population, but that's not really a bad thing for the species as a whole at this point. I don't think the end of the human race is likely at all, but a large decrease in population is not going to come about peacefully.. you won't have 3 billion people or whatever just ceasing to exist, you'll rather have some or all of the following; decades of increased migration, related strife and tension, walls being built, acts of terror, unprecedented recounts of human suffering.. The numbing of minds in the west because the problems will be so big that individual contributions feel worthless, increased political division and instability because we're used to discussing 'should kindergartens be free' or 'should men get forced into parental leave' rather than 'do we ration consumption of red meat to once per month' and 'should people be allowed to own cars'.. The way the west has responded to ~6 million refugees has made me entirely pessimistic about what happens if that number becomes 200 million - and I think 200 million is still a fairly low guesstimate as far as potential climate refugees go. I really don't picture Russia being like 'okay, Siberia is warmer now, this can be New Bangladesh' and then that solves that problem. It's like, I don't know, and nobody knows, nobody can even semi-accurately project what the societal changes brought to us by a global increase of 1.5-2 degrees will be. (Which seem to be what the Paris climate agreement is aiming for - meaning that IF we get our shit together, and with Trump's latest statements, this literally seems to hinge on him not being elected, we get a global increase of 1.5-2 degrees over the past 100 years). But I'm a fairly imaginative guy, and I see so many possibly absolutely fucking disastrous consequences. The more I look, or think, the more it seems like the least bad possible scenarios are pretty terrible, and that the worst ones entail suffering at greater magnitude than that of all wars of the past couple centuries combined. Since all the views are that the amount of people we can support is going to decrease, how about implementing some variant of a 1 child policy? (So the average born per adult female is 1, not per family. Will still have people with 0 to consider.) That way we solve it a bit after it becomes a huge problem. We no longer have a large population increase outside of Africa where people are getting older, thus more. So decreasing it seems possible. Problem is that the areas that would implement it are likely to be the areas currently most affluent and thus least effected by the changes even if they are extreme there. A different point of view is that even with decreased total we can support the number is still big enough to support everybody, so we don't have a problem once the massive relocation wars are done.
Like, on a 100+ year scale, perhaps a 1 child policy is how to go. I could picture myself supporting it - I don't feel it's remotely feasible in the west nowadays so I haven't spent that much time thinking about it.. The thing is, even if every single country in the world enacted a 1 child policy tomorrow, I'm fairly certain we'd still experience a period of time with population increase, and it would take a very long time before the population started decreasing. (I'm guessing ~50 years) People just don't die in the numbers they used to.
Still, good luck implementing that.. I think people would be more willing to give up their cars, planes or meat consumption over their reproductive rights, and those three also seem like a major, major stretch.
|
On May 30 2016 04:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 04:49 Yurie wrote:On May 30 2016 04:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 30 2016 04:05 opisska wrote:
Global warming is potentially a major inconvenience, but saying that it threatens humans as species is really a big stretch. There is so much room in the world that will be largely unaffected and some places would actually benefit from the changes in weather. Surely it can lead to a large decrease of population, but that's not really a bad thing for the species as a whole at this point. I don't think the end of the human race is likely at all, but a large decrease in population is not going to come about peacefully.. you won't have 3 billion people or whatever just ceasing to exist, you'll rather have some or all of the following; decades of increased migration, related strife and tension, walls being built, acts of terror, unprecedented recounts of human suffering.. The numbing of minds in the west because the problems will be so big that individual contributions feel worthless, increased political division and instability because we're used to discussing 'should kindergartens be free' or 'should men get forced into parental leave' rather than 'do we ration consumption of red meat to once per month' and 'should people be allowed to own cars'.. The way the west has responded to ~6 million refugees has made me entirely pessimistic about what happens if that number becomes 200 million - and I think 200 million is still a fairly low guesstimate as far as potential climate refugees go. I really don't picture Russia being like 'okay, Siberia is warmer now, this can be New Bangladesh' and then that solves that problem. It's like, I don't know, and nobody knows, nobody can even semi-accurately project what the societal changes brought to us by a global increase of 1.5-2 degrees will be. (Which seem to be what the Paris climate agreement is aiming for - meaning that IF we get our shit together, and with Trump's latest statements, this literally seems to hinge on him not being elected, we get a global increase of 1.5-2 degrees over the past 100 years). But I'm a fairly imaginative guy, and I see so many possibly absolutely fucking disastrous consequences. The more I look, or think, the more it seems like the least bad possible scenarios are pretty terrible, and that the worst ones entail suffering at greater magnitude than that of all wars of the past couple centuries combined. Since all the views are that the amount of people we can support is going to decrease, how about implementing some variant of a 1 child policy? (So the average born per adult female is 1, not per family. Will still have people with 0 to consider.) That way we solve it a bit after it becomes a huge problem. We no longer have a large population increase outside of Africa where people are getting older, thus more. So decreasing it seems possible. Problem is that the areas that would implement it are likely to be the areas currently most affluent and thus least effected by the changes even if they are extreme there. A different point of view is that even with decreased total we can support the number is still big enough to support everybody, so we don't have a problem once the massive relocation wars are done. Like, on a 100+ year scale, perhaps a 1 child policy is how to go. I could picture myself supporting it - I don't feel it's remotely feasible in the west nowadays so I haven't spent that much time thinking about it.. The thing is, even if every single country in the world enacted a 1 child policy tomorrow, I'm fairly certain we'd still experience a period of time with population increase, and it would take a very long time before the population started decreasing. (I'm guessing ~50 years) People just don't die in the numbers they used to. Still, good luck implementing that.. I think people would be more willing to give up their cars, planes or meat consumption over their reproductive rights, and those three also seem like a major, major stretch.
I am an outlier that would be willing to give up all 4 since I don't really care about any of them. I could even at a stretch cut down on power usage for my computer, which is a much bigger sacrifice for me.
http://www.beagleybrown.com/planes-trains-or-automobiles-carbon-emissions-compared-for-different-forms-of-transport/ (just a quick google search, no clue about accuracy)
Seems to say that flying isn't that much worse than boats as things are though. Planes are also a lot faster at getting people to places. Advantage of making planes much worse is that online meetings would replace a large portion of international meetings. Well that or proxy meetings as used to be the case with diplomats and so on.
|
The information about the growth to 11 billion just by people not dying enough is really intruiging, I never thought about that. Anyway, I feel I have done my part in saving the Earth by not having any kids, so I can splurge in other aspects, such as the 70 tons of CO2 I already made by flying alone 
|
1-2 child would be helpful, for the places that aren't already on it de facto.
|
On May 30 2016 04:49 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 04:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 30 2016 04:05 opisska wrote:
Global warming is potentially a major inconvenience, but saying that it threatens humans as species is really a big stretch. There is so much room in the world that will be largely unaffected and some places would actually benefit from the changes in weather. Surely it can lead to a large decrease of population, but that's not really a bad thing for the species as a whole at this point. I don't think the end of the human race is likely at all, but a large decrease in population is not going to come about peacefully.. you won't have 3 billion people or whatever just ceasing to exist, you'll rather have some or all of the following; decades of increased migration, related strife and tension, walls being built, acts of terror, unprecedented recounts of human suffering.. The numbing of minds in the west because the problems will be so big that individual contributions feel worthless, increased political division and instability because we're used to discussing 'should kindergartens be free' or 'should men get forced into parental leave' rather than 'do we ration consumption of red meat to once per month' and 'should people be allowed to own cars'.. The way the west has responded to ~6 million refugees has made me entirely pessimistic about what happens if that number becomes 200 million - and I think 200 million is still a fairly low guesstimate as far as potential climate refugees go. I really don't picture Russia being like 'okay, Siberia is warmer now, this can be New Bangladesh' and then that solves that problem. It's like, I don't know, and nobody knows, nobody can even semi-accurately project what the societal changes brought to us by a global increase of 1.5-2 degrees will be. (Which seem to be what the Paris climate agreement is aiming for - meaning that IF we get our shit together, and with Trump's latest statements, this literally seems to hinge on him not being elected, we get a global increase of 1.5-2 degrees over the past 100 years). But I'm a fairly imaginative guy, and I see so many possibly absolutely fucking disastrous consequences. The more I look, or think, the more it seems like the least bad possible scenarios are pretty terrible, and that the worst ones entail suffering at greater magnitude than that of all wars of the past couple centuries combined. Since all the views are that the amount of people we can support is going to decrease, how about implementing some variant of a 1 child policy? (So the average born per adult female is 1, not per family. Will still have people with 0 to consider.) That way we solve it a bit after it becomes a huge problem. We no longer have a large population increase outside of Africa where people are getting older, thus more. So decreasing it seems possible. Problem is that the areas that would implement it are likely to be the areas currently most affluent and thus least effected by the changes even if they are extreme there. A different point of view is that even with decreased total we can support the number is still big enough to support everybody, so we don't have a problem once the massive relocation wars are done.
The problem with a one child policy is that it means the death of any welfare programs as the nation becomes completely top heavy in age and there is no one to pay for them after their working years are over.
Also C02 emissions is small potatoes to pay attention to. Cross continental shipping producing insane emissions from unregulatable fuel oil.
|
Yeah people who want a one child policy, take a look at Japan and how their economy is in the tank due too wayyy too many old people and not nearly enough young people to work.
|
On May 30 2016 05:55 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Yeah people who want a one child policy, take a look at Japan and how their economy is in the tank due too wayyy too many old people and not nearly enough young people to work.
it also completely ignores the fact that many first world countries are already having much lower if not negative growth.
|
I thought projections were that the world is approaching peak population. A more pressing concern seems to be negative population growth and increasing economic pressures that places on the next generation. Disregarding the other issues inherent in putting in place a 1-2 child policy it doesn't seem like a very good idea in the first place.
|
It has ups and downs; obviously there's some stress on the old due to the shortage of young workers; but there's a lot of long term benefits in terms of reduced costs and improved quality of life.
It is approaching peak population (assuming the regions that are overproducing calm down as anticipated).
|
I'm pretty sure the only way you can advocate for a one child policy is by having absolutely no idea what the actual effects are.
|
On May 30 2016 06:34 Belisarius wrote:
I'm pretty sure the only way you can advocate for a one child policy is by having absolutely no idea what the actual effects are.
your confidence was incorrect in this case. I'm quite well aware of it.
|
Norway28743 Posts
|
On May 30 2016 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 04:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 30 2016 03:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 30 2016 03:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 30 2016 03:00 Jaaaaasper wrote:On May 30 2016 00:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2016 21:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 29 2016 20:24 LemOn wrote:On May 29 2016 18:22 pmh wrote:On May 28 2016 05:38 CorsairHero wrote:[quote] Source Good one for trump. It was to good to be true for the Clinton supporters  Aww maaan  Trump played this really well though, The Internet, social media and live coverage bonanza turned the election into reality TV, and this man knows how to play that game. And Bernie got played like a toy. I mean, seriously, what does he thinks? You think so? Obviously, social media is biased towards younger audiences, but there's been quite a bit of "Trump is scared of Bernie" and "Bernie called Trump's bluff" and "#ChickenTrump" in the news and online too. Now we know that Hillary isn't the only candidate who worries about debating Bernie... Trump lacks confidence too (as he should, because he knows how to play the game as long as he doesn't have to ever say anything of any real substance). Why would the two presidential nominees waste their time wtih him? Thats not being afraid of Bernie, thats not wasting your time on a also ran when theres a presidential election to deal with. In Hillary's case, she had been dodging Bernie long before she had sealed the deal on the Democratic primary. In Trump's case, he gladly agreed to the debate and then went back on his deal. If it would have been a waste of his time, then he wouldn't have boasted about getting to debate Bernie in the first place. Neither situation shows that debating Bernie is irrelevant, and furthermore, it's not like Hillary and Trump have been debating politics against each other (or anyone else for that matter). Trump didn't have to really debate politics during the Republican debates, and Hillary got away with playing nice for the very few Democratic debates that occurred. How I see the whole thing: First, Hillary had no reason anymore to debate with Sanders, considering that the arithmetic suggest the race is over. Also, there has been nothing positive coming out from those debates, since Sanders has gone full personal attacks in the last months. Really understandable she was not interested. Now Trump sees a way to hurt Clinton by emphasizing the fact she dodged the debate and making Sanders look legitimate. Sanders is in complete denial about the fact he's lost and gladly takes the bait. After all, he comes in a debate looking like he legitimately represents the Democrats even though he doesn't. And then Trump cancels saying Sanders is not legit after all and not "big enough" for him. Sanders just got schooled. Trump capitalized on his denial and made him believe he took him seriously. He doesn't, he knows very well that it's between him and Clinton. Sandernistas call him a chicken on twitter, he of course doesn't give a damn and he's done what he wanted to do. The guy is certainly clever. Sanders, not so much it looks like. I see two problems that make this narrative unlikely: 1) Trump reaps a massive advantage from maintaining tacit approval from Sanders supporters and keeping as many of them in "Bernie or Bust" mode as possible. The lack of consolidated support from Democrats is the primary reason he's in political striking distance of Clinton among national polls. 2) He could have just tweeted about how cowardly Clinton is while bragging about how he put away his own competitors far quicker. Exact same benefits, no Bernie antagonism or possible alienation of "Bernie or Bust", still makes national news. Those two things make me think this was not some grand calculated move and more a panic button withdrawal after realizing that debating Sanders risked alienating "Bernie or Bust" folks if Sanders went full attack mode. After all, not a single one of his reasons for withdrawing were any more or less true before he agreed to the debate (unless he actually didn't know Sanders was a definitive second place). Of course, the beauty of Trump's campaign is that a huge chunk of people will believe all his panic buttons were grand calculated moves, just like all his ignorance and nonsense policies are also grand calculated moves. The problem with #1 is that it's not true. It's a convenient narrative pushed by HillCorp, but it flies in the face of their other narrative that PUMA's were worse than Bernie or Bust, which flies in the face of another narrative about Bernie or bust folks being unusual. If it was true Bernie wouldn't be doing so much better than Hillary against a unified RNC and Trump. The truth is Hillary is just a bad candidate, ironic that people like Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd would pick up on this before folks here.
If Clinton polled as well with liberals that don't identify as Democrats as she did among Democrats, she would be beating Trump by an additional ~2%. I don't understand how you can say 1) is untrue given that-those are Sanders supporters, especially given the primary results breakdowns, and the fact that the general election gap has closed as the number of Sanders supporters willing to support Clinton has shrunk further bears this out.
She's far better off than Trump amongst independents who don't lean towards either party so that's not her issue in the slightest, and her numbers aren't worse than Obama's were right of center as far as I know.
This has nothing to do with Bernie or Bust being unusual, but saying that Trump doesn't benefit from people saying "I will vote for Sanders or sit out the election" is bizarre. He is going to keep it that way as long as he possibly can-that's the point of 1).
(Also, that Sanders does better than Clinton against a unified Trump is evidence FOR this narrative, as he does fine amongst her supporters-the "Clinton or Bust" folks are not common in the slightest, they are hugely outnumbered by "Bernie or Bust" folks)
|
On May 30 2016 03:19 Surth wrote:
global warming is bad for all us all, mkay. its also like the most important thing in the world, literally literally.
Agreed. Arguing over which countries will be "directly" vs. "indirectly" affected is pretty much just semantics.
|
On May 30 2016 04:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 03:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 30 2016 03:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 30 2016 03:00 Jaaaaasper wrote:On May 30 2016 00:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2016 21:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 29 2016 20:24 LemOn wrote:On May 29 2016 18:22 pmh wrote:On May 28 2016 05:38 CorsairHero wrote:
Donald Trump backs out of debate with Bernie Sanders
Donald Trump will not participate in a debate with Sen. Bernie Sanders, the GOP nominee said in a statement on Friday.
"Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher," Trump said. "Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women’s health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.
Source Good one for trump. It was to good to be true for the Clinton supporters Aww maaan Trump played this really well though, The Internet, social media and live coverage bonanza turned the election into reality TV, and this man knows how to play that game. And Bernie got played like a toy. I mean, seriously, what does he thinks? You think so? Obviously, social media is biased towards younger audiences, but there's been quite a bit of "Trump is scared of Bernie" and "Bernie called Trump's bluff" and "#ChickenTrump" in the news and online too. Now we know that Hillary isn't the only candidate who worries about debating Bernie... Trump lacks confidence too (as he should, because he knows how to play the game as long as he doesn't have to ever say anything of any real substance). Why would the two presidential nominees waste their time wtih him? Thats not being afraid of Bernie, thats not wasting your time on a also ran when theres a presidential election to deal with. In Hillary's case, she had been dodging Bernie long before she had sealed the deal on the Democratic primary. In Trump's case, he gladly agreed to the debate and then went back on his deal. If it would have been a waste of his time, then he wouldn't have boasted about getting to debate Bernie in the first place. Neither situation shows that debating Bernie is irrelevant, and furthermore, it's not like Hillary and Trump have been debating politics against each other (or anyone else for that matter). Trump didn't have to really debate politics during the Republican debates, and Hillary got away with playing nice for the very few Democratic debates that occurred. How I see the whole thing: First, Hillary had no reason anymore to debate with Sanders, considering that the arithmetic suggest the race is over. Also, there has been nothing positive coming out from those debates, since Sanders has gone full personal attacks in the last months. Really understandable she was not interested. Now Trump sees a way to hurt Clinton by emphasizing the fact she dodged the debate and making Sanders look legitimate. Sanders is in complete denial about the fact he's lost and gladly takes the bait. After all, he comes in a debate looking like he legitimately represents the Democrats even though he doesn't. And then Trump cancels saying Sanders is not legit after all and not "big enough" for him. Sanders just got schooled. Trump capitalized on his denial and made him believe he took him seriously. He doesn't, he knows very well that it's between him and Clinton. Sandernistas call him a chicken on twitter, he of course doesn't give a damn and he's done what he wanted to do. The guy is certainly clever. Sanders, not so much it looks like. I see two problems that make this narrative unlikely: 1) Trump reaps a massive advantage from maintaining tacit approval from Sanders supporters and keeping as many of them in "Bernie or Bust" mode as possible. The lack of consolidated support from Democrats is the primary reason he's in political striking distance of Clinton among national polls. 2) He could have just tweeted about how cowardly Clinton is while bragging about how he put away his own competitors far quicker. Exact same benefits, no Bernie antagonism or possible alienation of "Bernie or Bust", still makes national news. Those two things make me think this was not some grand calculated move and more a panic button withdrawal after realizing that debating Sanders risked alienating "Bernie or Bust" folks if Sanders went full attack mode. After all, not a single one of his reasons for withdrawing were any more or less true before he agreed to the debate (unless he actually didn't know Sanders was a definitive second place). Of course, the beauty of Trump's campaign is that a huge chunk of people will believe all his panic buttons were grand calculated moves, just like all his ignorance and nonsense policies are also grand calculated moves.
That will forever blow my mind- the fact that his supporters think he's god damn Magnuson Carlsen when it comes to politics. I haven't seen someone get so much undeserved credit since Pythagoras and "his" theorem.
|
United States43595 Posts
On May 30 2016 05:21 opisska wrote:The information about the growth to 11 billion just by people not dying enough is really intruiging, I never thought about that. Anyway, I feel I have done my part in saving the Earth by not having any kids, so I can splurge in other aspects, such as the 70 tons of CO2 I already made by flying alone
I read recently that if people today were to stop dying completely and new births were to continue the population growth caused by this would still be far lower than the population growth the earth experienced in the postwar years. Those were some pretty crazy years. Birth rates are not constant, you'd get some weird demographics going on.
|
That doens't sound right; as a lot of the growth has happened in the 70s onwards, and still is in quite a few places. Though I'd need to check the stats to verify.
|
On May 30 2016 07:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 03:19 Surth wrote:
global warming is bad for all us all, mkay. its also like the most important thing in the world, literally literally. Agreed. Arguing over which countries will be "directly" vs. "indirectly" affected is pretty much just semantics.
You never have the economy or the environment, it's always a balance between the two.
Here in Alberta, our government is so stupid, they are trying to shut down the coal plants that have life cycles of 40-50 years, and they are all 35-40~ years in. Instead of screwing with the projects, why not let them finish their business as expected instead of making them lose lots of money by changing the plan. It's 10 years at max, like them finish, geez. It's clear we aren't goal to be building new coal power plants.
Second of all, I think educating people about climate change is important... However, I don't think that all of it should be in the hands of the government. All too often, there is some small group of environmentalists that speak up to get some insanely costly environmental policy through, which most people don't agree with, but it's kind of like feminism here, sometimes it takes pretty extreme forms, but people don't speak out as it's seen as politically incorrect.
Thirdly, as I was discussing climate change education... Not everything needs environmental policy. Educate the people, and if people value the environment, they will make choices that benefit the environment. I recycle not because its a law, but I want the world to be reasonably sustainable, and while it doesn't achieve the same effect of policy, it can often come close.
I'm just sick of having a gigantic government because everything is dangerous, everyone is out to kill you, and we need a rule book on how to live our lives which would take longer to read than the amount of time one has in their life (having gone through some legal books), its absurd. Back in the 18th to 20th century we didn't need government intervention in every aspect of our lives, and life worked. You don't need to have a government telling you when you can have sex, or what hours of day you can go to a public park, a comprehensive OHS policy, etc. It's like people lost their desire to think about how to solve problems, and instead all we can come up with policy logical only on the superficial level, but then has a million exceptions and sub sections, and nobody even understands it. And that is why the legal system as a percentage of gdp is 2% and rising, and it still like it does a shit job (unquestionably, difficult to improve).
That is my view on my we need to tread lightly in allowing the government power over environmental policy, and I might be a bit of a different opinion as most here, as our government at home took a militant approach with it, and I don't like it.
edit: And as I've been saying for a long time, the way we deal with pollution is through population control. It requires an international effort (just as any of our current international environmental targets). Achieve this through one or two kids being "free" to have, and any others you have you wont receive government aid for, etc.
|
On May 30 2016 06:34 Belisarius wrote:
I'm pretty sure the only way you can advocate for a one child policy is by having absolutely no idea what the actual effects are.
The whole thing about the economy shrinking due to the population shrinking at an increasing rate is a problem no one has been able to solve. That little tiny problem that the GDP of the nation shits the bed.
It should also be noted that a lot of the EU and US populations either not growing or shrinking and only increase due to immigration, legal and otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
