|
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. |
On November 21 2016 09:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 09:46 TheYango wrote:On November 21 2016 09:05 xDaunt wrote:
Birth controlling the first world into oblivion while the third world continues to expand does not strike me as a sane plan to stop climate change. My understanding was that Fiwifaki's idea was more aggressive population control policy in the developing world, with less aggressive incentives-based population control in developed countries. But, well, good luck implementing that. If the climate alarmists were really serious, they'd be whipping up the developed world into a military frenzy and launch a global climate crusade to force their green environmental standards upon the world.
That would have the benefit of uniting a divided electorate. Let's get a real life Captain Planet.
|
Canada11607 Posts
I don't think he means WWIII is the goal unto itself, so much as if things are really so urgent (irreversible change), then strong arming any nation that doesn't comply could be a logical path to effect the urgent change... if you subscribe to an ends justify the means view. Authoritarian/ forced compliance is the key part of his post, not that a world war in and of itself would solve anything.
|
When it comes to population control, I think Elon Musk has the most viable plan.
The problem with population control ideas is that they ignore that we couldn't sustain the current population if they all lived like Americans. Our way of life is fundamentally unsustainable.
Anything trying to address climate, resources, or population that doesn't first address our current instability, is just a band-aid on a bullet wound, besides all the other shortcomings mentioned.
|
Yes, dude. Multiplanetary species. It's the only future for capitalism and (therefore) the only future for us.
|
gh -> I looked at the start of that vid and it seemed to be about interplanetary colonization, which has nothing to do with population control. so what was the point of it?
|
On November 21 2016 11:01 Falling wrote:
I don't think he means WWIII is the goal unto itself, so much as if things are really so urgent (irreversible change), then strong arming any nation that doesn't comply could be a logical path to effect the urgent change... if you subscribe to an ends justify the means view. Authoritarian/ forced compliance is the key part of his post, not that a world war in and of itself would solve anything.
Even subscribing to an "ends justify the means" view does not make his suggestion even remotely viable, considering its utter inapplicability at the international level and even, as ChristianS, at the domestic level in the U.S.
I'd like to highlight the fallacy in his post as well: he's saying that "climate alarmists" (notice this is the kind of vocabulary used by climate change deniers) can't be seriously worried about climate change since they're not engaging in the kind of crusade he's referring to -- which is a completely nonsensical argument. It's perfectly possible -- and in fact that is the reality of the situation -- to take climate change very seriously without believing that militarily coercing states around the world to take decisive action is a viable solution.
|
On November 21 2016 11:13 IgnE wrote:
Yes, dude. Multiplanetary species. It's the only future for capitalism and (therefore) the only future for us.
After watching Interstellar I understood that I was too down on earth to dream about what's up there - heaven, or Mars. So I guess I'll die in there with my wife and my cat, while Elon Musk spend government dollars to be rich and pursue "impossible" objectives, in accordance with what is the new paradigm of neoliberalism (making money out of the state).
|
Musk's entire "plan" is basically to hype up unfeasible ideas and live off of government cheese for as long as it takes people to realize that these ideas aren't going anywhere.
|
Tesla is quite successful and SpaceX is as well. He has some pretty "out there" ideas but I wouldn't paint him as a snake oil salesman.
|
To be fiar there has to be Water in those asteroids and iron ore. Mix that with insanely efficient solar panels (ozone is solar efficiency killer) and you've got a recipe for interstellar success to lower our earth population.
The human race will be saved if we can make a good battery.
|
On November 21 2016 08:00 Piledriver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 06:57 FiWiFaKi wrote:On November 21 2016 06:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 21 2016 04:08 FiWiFaKi wrote:On November 21 2016 03:42 radscorpion9 wrote:There was a very interesting interview with Noam Chomsky written on www.truth-out.org, its actually fairly shocking how much global warming has been ignored in this election and even after it (with certain exceptions). Thought I would add a quote:
On November 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government -- executive, Congress, the Supreme Court -- in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history.
Apart from the last phrase, all of this is uncontroversial. The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it? The facts suggest otherwise. The Party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand...
During the Republican primaries, every candidate denied that what is happening is happening -- with the exception of the sensible moderates, like Jeb Bush, who said it's all uncertain, but we don't have to do anything because we're producing more natural gas, thanks to fracking. Or John Kasich, who agreed that global warming is taking place, but added that "we are going to burn [coal] in Ohio and we are not going to apologize for it."
The winning candidate, now the president-elect, calls for rapid increase in use of fossil fuels, including coal; dismantling of regulations; rejection of help to developing countries that are seeking to move to sustainable energy; and in general, racing to the cliff as fast as possible...
It is hard to find words to capture the fact that humans are facing the most important question in their history -- whether organized human life will survive in anything like the form we know -- and are answering it by accelerating the race to disaster.
It is no less difficult to find words to capture the utterly astonishing fact that in all of the massive coverage of the electoral extravaganza, none of this receives more than passing mention. At least I am at a loss to find appropriate words.
You guys already doubled your oil production under Obama. 45 years ago, your emissions were at 4.5 billion metric tonnes, they peaked at 6.0 billion metric tonnes right before the recession. There's no way that under Trump that emissions will go up, states have plenty of power there, and economically, with the current technology it's just not worth it. Btw, Trump has admitted global warming exists, so yeah, it's a bit of a blow, but quite small in the grand scheme of things. Might be the difference of 0.5 billion metric tonnes by the end of his presidency... Compared to the 10 billion that China will be producing in not too long, it's just a drop in the ocean. Some significant change in our institutions is necessary for anything to happen, and population control is essential. These policies maybe lower emissions by 30-50% compared to them not existing, and that's the best case scenario. That's really nothing, that's like are we going to be fucked in 75 years or 125 years... Until we start talking about population control, were not taking the issue seriously, and it's all a half assed attempt at a bandaid solution. what population control measures do you support? I think while pretty harsh on the surface we need one child China type policies, particularly in developing countries. Developed countries can maintain their current populations just by adjusting economic benefits a little bit here and there. We're so set on growing, that we force our populations to keep increasing, to pay off pensions, etc. So I think one child free, and additional children require additional taxes as a percentage of income, say raising your effective tax rate from 20% to 30%, expanding free abortion programs, and so forth. I think in the same way we have emission targets, we should have birth rate targets, and countries who don't meet the standards will receive some form of sanctions. I know it's not pretty, but it needs to enter the conversation somehow, especially from the people thinking about the environment. A fully industrialized China and India is an immense source of pollution, and many other countries in worse shape than China will be soon to follow. But yeah, wealthy countries just by playing with child tax breaks is sufficient, in developing countries similar to what China did, and developed countries to put pressure on developing ones. I also think that we should aim for emission targets per land area in the long term, as it's completely unfair (imo) for a really dense country to pollute way more... currently we complete remove population by expressing targets per capita. China's one child policy is already showing its effects which are about to get worse over the next couple of decades with an increasingly aging population that directly affects its economy and productivity. Currently there are 5 working people for about every retiree. In 2040 this would have collapsed to 1.5 working people for every retiree. The current median age in China is about 30. It will go upto 46 in 2040, and with advances in medical technology and increasing lifespan, this is going to become an increasingly bigger problem. Remember that this not only affects the economy - This is also going to affect the military, with fewer able bodied men available to enter armed services, and is also going to affect geopolitical dynamics indirectly. Also China/India supplies most of the cheap labor of the world currently. Once we have successfully decimated their working population, where will we get the cheap labor needed to sustain our consumption habits? Show nested quote +I also think that we should aim for emission targets per land area in the long term, as it's completely unfair (imo) for a really dense country to pollute way more The current way population is distributed has a lot to do with how white men went and took over vast continents and then redrew the boundaries to suit their needs. Most of Asian countries by contrast, were brutally subjugated by the British, and therefore could not indulge in the same degree of empire building. Essentially your solution would once again benefit white people further due to the aggressive militaristic tendencies of your ancestors, in addition to all the benefits that you have already reaped due to your nation building (such as increased access to natural resources). Also, it really smacks of elitism - what you're essentially saying is that a person in a developed country has the right to do whatever the fuck he pleases, whereas a person in a less developed country can't do the same, just because of the country he was born in - a factor he has no control over?
Increasing average age of the population is inevitable though in the long run,unless you keep growing forever. But that's a strait up pyramid sceme lol. Its one of the problems of the current capitalist system,the whole system depends on eternal growth and there are only 2 ways to grow. Increase the population and increase the productivity. But the growth in productivity has reached it limits. Diversification of labour is virtually completed and no big gains are to be expected there. Technological breakthroughs come with shocks and are unpredictable,not something you can count on. So raising the population is the only thing that is left. Europe does it artificially with immigrants and former east block countries joining the one market,japan is more limited in its options while the usa seems to have plenty.
Now that china is slowly transforming to a consumption economy,we are going to develop india with coal to take china,s place as cheap labour source. Global warming is not a hoax off course,but as soon as there is money on the line the whole problem simply seems to disappear. Everyone seems to be banking on max economic growth in the hope that we will get a technological breakthrough to solve the co2 problem. But that is not all that likely,more likely is that we will continue to mass emit co2 and simply adept to the new world with more extreme weather and rising sea levels.
Capitalism will not ever stop,its a perfect system in a growth environment,but maybe it is not the perfect system in a non growth environment.
.
|
On November 21 2016 11:41 Sermokala wrote:
To be fiar there has to be Water in those asteroids and iron ore. Mix that with insanely efficient solar panels (ozone is solar efficiency killer) and you've got a recipe for interstellar success to lower our earth population.
The human race will be saved if we can make a good battery.
I fail to see how thta changes the point at all. you can't ship people off-planet in the necessary numbers to affect earth pop.
pmh -> i'm pretty sure capitalism can be adapted to a non-growth scenario.
also, we're still growing due to tech improvements, and that shows no sign of stopping any time soon.
There's also an increase in potential capital storage systems with tech. creating useful things for later use or to accumulate effects can be done. and that will have some value once we stop teching soooo darn fast.
|
On November 21 2016 11:40 Nyxisto wrote:
Tesla is quite successful and SpaceX is as well. He has some pretty "out there" ideas but I wouldn't paint him as a snake oil salesman.
Tesla can't be called successful until it shows some sign of stability rather than perpetual hemorrhaging of cash.
SpaceX looks successful... from the outside. We don't know what the numbers look like on the inside since it's a private company. That basically means that we just don't know but my suspicion is that it's cut from the same cloth as his other government-funded projects. I have heard some rather troubling things about how well things go on the inside.
When you dig deeper into his ventures it's hard to see him as anything but a snake oil salesman. Behind the hype he mostly just rehashed old technology that was never economically feasible and made people think that it's hot shit.
|
On November 21 2016 11:55 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 11:40 Nyxisto wrote:
Tesla is quite successful and SpaceX is as well. He has some pretty "out there" ideas but I wouldn't paint him as a snake oil salesman. Tesla can't be called successful until it shows some sign of stability rather than perpetual hemorrhaging of cash. SpaceX looks successful... from the outside. We don't know what the numbers look like on the inside since it's a private company. That basically means that we just don't know but my suspicion is that it's cut from the same cloth as his other government-funded projects. I have heard some rather troubling things about how well things go on the inside. When you dig deeper into his ventures it's hard to see him as anything but a snake oil salesman. Behind the hype he mostly just rehashed old technology that was never economically feasible and made people think that it's hot shit.
I think that's way too harsh of a statement at this point. That he's substantially backed by government funds isn't really surprising given that he's trying to push hugely speculative technologies. The question is whether the companies can reach sustainability and whether the products can reach the mass market. If that's the case there's nothing wrong with his model. Countless of companies receive subsidies for worse reasons.
|
On November 21 2016 11:47 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 11:41 Sermokala wrote:
To be fiar there has to be Water in those asteroids and iron ore. Mix that with insanely efficient solar panels (ozone is solar efficiency killer) and you've got a recipe for interstellar success to lower our earth population.
The human race will be saved if we can make a good battery. I fail to see how thta changes the point at all. you can't ship people off-planet in the necessary numbers to affect earth pop. pmh -> i'm pretty sure capitalism can be adapted to a non-growth scenario. also, we're still growing due to tech improvements, and that shows no sign of stopping any time soon. There's also an increase in potential capital storage systems with tech. creating useful things for later use or to accumulate effects can be done. and that will have some value once we stop teching soooo darn fast.
well once we're off the earth we're not going to have to really worry that much about the species living on. The earth is going to die one day and its in pretty bad shape as it is let alone when we finaly get our act togeather.
|
That he's receiving subsidies is not really the reason why I claim him to be a scam artist. It is symptomatic, yes, but the reasons run far deeper than that. If you look at his entire business model, very little of it stands up to scrutiny. It survives mostly on hype, to which even government officials are quite susceptible.
The first of his three interlocking and highly interdependent business ventures already folded into one of the others. One would not be wrong to think that that happened due to cash shortages. We will see whether all the economic indicators point to reality, or if pie-in-the-sky fantasy speak and cash infusions can bend reality.
Some thoughts from a different thread.
|
On November 21 2016 11:14 zlefin wrote:
gh -> I looked at the start of that vid and it seemed to be about interplanetary colonization, which has nothing to do with population control. so what was the point of it?
I think most everyone missed my point (to be fair it was a bit cryptic). Point being, Earth/nature has it's own ways of dealing with overpopulation.
But we don't and won't have a population problem, we have an efficiency/lifestyle problem.
Looking at climate issues from a population perspective, is like looking at not having all the money in the world as a population problem. There's more than enough earth for all of us and then some. That we even entertain the idea of limiting population, or inhabiting other planets to address it, shows how unwilling we are to grapple with the actual issues.
People would rather have a new Iphone next year than stop funding slavery. You can't do that without people hurling children into the grinder like it's a job.
Part of globalization that people don't like to talk about is the globalizing of class. That's been good news for developing countries in many ways, but rather than raising a global middle class to American standards (not possible without global disaster), it's meant lowering the American middle class to somewhere in the middle (while nudging the top of it into a wealthier class).
The middle class isn't disappearing, it's wealth is being redistributed globally, meanwhile the new wealth generated by this new middle class isn't going back into it, it's being vacuumed up by a global elite class of wealth hoarders.
So to be more clear, my point was that population is a stupid metric to address for an issue like climate, and that populating other planets and waiting for a plague/meteor is a better plan than convoluted incentives focused on breeding.
Americans (and much of the first world) needs to just come to grips with the reality that we built a society on a foundation of practices that were inevitably unsustainable. It's ironic this would fall on such deaf ears in the US, a nation who partially owes it's existence to the realization hundreds of years ago that humanity had become dependent on spreading, but also that the earth was indeed round, and therefore humanity could only expand so far before it was doubling back onto itself (the snake eating it's own tail).
We knew then, we knew this lifestyle had a time limit, but not only did we blow it off, we slammed the accelerator to the floor and hit the nitro. Now we're heading for the edge thinking we're going to pull off some Sandra Bullock Speed jump to Mars, when it's looking a lot more like Homer jumping Springfield Gorge.
Musk isn't selling us snake oil, he's selling us on the only remotely viable solution we've left ourselves with (conceding we're not giving up our lifestyles).
TLDR; So to be more clear, my point was that population is a stupid metric to address for an issue like climate, and that populating other planets and waiting for a plague/meteor is a better plan than convoluted incentives focused on breeding.
|
"The main advice that I give to the incoming president is the United States really is an indispensable nation in our world order," Obama said in Peru as he wrapped up his final foreign visit.
The United States' ability to uphold "international norms and rules. That's what's made the modern world," Obama said, admitting that Washington had not always fulfilled its own ideals, but remained vital to global security.
...
[H]e argued history served as a warning for those imagining or flirting with a revised global order.
"Take an example like Europe before that order was imposed. We had two world wars in a span of 30 years. In the second one, 60 million people were killed. Not half a million, not a million but 60 million. Entire continents in rubble."
"We're not going to be able to handle every problem, but the American president and the United States of America, if we're not on the side of what's right, if we're not making the argument and fighting for it even if sometimes we're not able to deliver it 100 percent everywhere, then it collapses."
"There's nobody to fill the void. There really isn't," he said.
Yahoo
|
On November 21 2016 11:47 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 11:41 Sermokala wrote:
To be fiar there has to be Water in those asteroids and iron ore. Mix that with insanely efficient solar panels (ozone is solar efficiency killer) and you've got a recipe for interstellar success to lower our earth population.
The human race will be saved if we can make a good battery. I fail to see how thta changes the point at all. you can't ship people off-planet in the necessary numbers to affect earth pop. pmh -> i'm pretty sure capitalism can be adapted to a non-growth scenario. also, we're still growing due to tech improvements, and that shows no sign of stopping any time soon. There's also an increase in potential capital storage systems with tech. creating useful things for later use or to accumulate effects can be done. and that will have some value once we stop teching soooo darn fast.
what do you mean capitalism can be adapted to a non-growth scenario? what is your definition of "capitalism"?
|
This growth / resource dichotomy is really outdated. As long as we manage to replace fossil fuels in a reasonable time we're good to go, growth nowadays basically comes from making things more efficient, we don't need more resources.
If technology comes along that manages to say make services that usually take a decade of training mass producible you'll see a lot of growth and increase in quality of life without spending more resources.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
