EPThttps://www.gapminder.org/answers/will-saving-poor-children-lead-to-overpopulation/
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Neneu
Norway492 Posts
https://www.gapminder.org/answers/will-saving-poor-children-lead-to-overpopulation/ | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23229 Posts
On May 28 2019 20:59 Jockmcplop wrote: I have no idea. Not talking about it because it upsets people probably isn't a good start though. You seem to be discussing this from the perspective that a decline in population would be bad. I disagree. "upsetting people" isn't the reason people don't talk about it. We're telling you people don't talk about it because it's a poor idea that is problematic for the reasons we've explained. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9647 Posts
On May 28 2019 20:57 GreenHorizons wrote: Again your framing is messed up. The choice is easy (from my perspective), we have to stop the people responsible for the situation from perpetuating it and develop a sustainable society. Your framing skates past that (necessary step) to advocate people freely discourage people from becoming parents on their facebook feeds as if that's not a ridiculous way to even approach the situation, let alone actually address it. Yeah if you deliberately make it sound as stupid as you can. I guess advocating for human and civil liberties on facebook is stupid too, right? There's a taboo about this subject that you have elucidated so brilliantly here by implicitly accusing me of blaming poor families in 3rd world countries for climate disaster to try and guilt me into shutting up as usual. I'm not saying Facebook solves the problem. I'm saying old religious taboos about procreation need to be smashed. And i'm going to say this one more fucking time so you get the message. I"M NOT SAYING WE SKATE PAST ANYTHING. Just because someone says something that doesn't mention revolution it doesn't mean they don't want one. This is more of an addendum to the conversation you were previously having. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9647 Posts
On May 28 2019 21:01 Neneu wrote: Funnily enough, that is the most effective way of lowering birth rate which is maybe is what Jockmcplop wants. https://www.gapminder.org/answers/will-saving-poor-children-lead-to-overpopulation/ This is interesting, I like it. I would recommend maybe loking at one or two other websites though, just for context. I wish I could watch the videos but I'm at work. | ||
|
Neneu
Norway492 Posts
On May 28 2019 20:59 Jockmcplop wrote: I have no idea. Not talking about it because it upsets people probably isn't a good start though. You seem to be discussing this from the perspective that a decline in population would be bad. I disagree. But the population will decline if we continue as we do now. I'm just saying it does not makes sense to discuss population growth as a problem which we can fix, because it has been fixed. The only increase we are getting now in population growth is from increase in life-expectancy in countries with low life-expectancy. Lowering birth rates further (which is not needed, since they are low enough for decline), would just create problems similar to what china and japan is experiencing/will experience. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23229 Posts
On May 28 2019 21:04 Jockmcplop wrote: Yeah if you deliberately make it sound as stupid as you can. I guess advocating for human and civil liberties on facebook is stupid too, right? There's a taboo about this subject that you have elucidated so brilliantly here by implicitly accusing me of blaming poor families in 3rd world countries for climate disaster to try and guilt me into shutting up as usual. I'm not saying Facebook solves the problem. I'm saying old religious taboos about procreation need to be smashed. And i'm going to say this one more fucking time so you get the message. I"M NOT SAYING WE SKATE PAST ANYTHING. Just because someone says something that doesn't mention revolution it doesn't mean they don't want one. This is more of an addendum to the conversation you were previously having. Your posting seems out of the ordinary so I'm inclined to think you're intoxicated (or maybe just more angry than I realized). (Edit: you're at work so I'm going with more angry than I realized). It's not the "facebook" part I'm calling ridiculous, it's your argument. I'm not trying to "guilt you to shut up as usual"? That's a new one on me entirely. The argument you presented had nothing to do with "old religious taboos" you were lamenting that you couldn't openly advocate people having less children because it made parents feel bad and we we're pointing out various problems with your argument as presented. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9647 Posts
On May 28 2019 21:08 Neneu wrote: But the population will decline if we continue as we do now. I'm just saying it does not makes sense to discuss population growth as a problem which we can fix, because it has been fixed. The only increase we are getting now in population growth is from increase in life-expectancy in countries with low life-expectancy. Lowering birth rates further (which is not needed, since they are low enough for decline), would just create problems similar to what china and japan is experiencing/will experience. Fair enough. I'll check out some other sources later and get back to you. | ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
On May 28 2019 19:53 Neneu wrote: Is it something worth asking? The number of new children borned in the world has been stabilized (established first in 2011) and the population growth comes from increase of life-expectancy. Lowering the number of children borned is not needed, since the amount it is now (which is stable) will cause a slow decline of world population (if life-expectancy increase were not present). https://www.gapminder.org/answers/the-rapid-growth-of-the-world-population-when-will-it-slow-down/ https://www.gapminder.org/answers/what-makes-the-world-population-continue-to-grow/ https://www.gapminder.org/data/ What are you going to do, lower life-expectancy or kill a bunch of people? A funny thing with sustainability is that population numbers will always converge over time. By definition, population cannot remain above the limit for a long period of time. If sustainability limit is currently 4 billions and current population progression will stabilize around 11 billions, then either life-expectancy or birth rateis garantied to fall. Killing a bunch of people is just a way to achieve it manually, like legal euthanasia at 65 in "Soylent Green". There is not much we can do today to prevent population getting to 11 billions, but asking if it is above the threshold is still legit, as is asking what our global target should be: at the limit, we have the highest possible stable population and the minimum resources per living human (trivial is that a 11 billion population must be vegetarian with current agriculture). What are the resources that we deem sufficient, what lifestyle do we want for mankind and what is the population limit to allow for that lifestyle ? Another subject is that we have the capacity to sustain a population over the threshold or a lifestyle that overconsumes resources for a small period of time (say a century or two) like we do today. This comes at a cost, trading stability against a decrease in the long term sustainability. Population may be kept at 11 billions once we get there, but that may mean that once the fall starts it will get a lot lower before stabilizing (and hopefully climb back over time while the environment regenerates). Nightmare scenario is if we keep overreaching until the threshold falls bellow the limit needed to sustain our civilization/know how. That would mean a remaining population in a wasteland without the technology to survive it. Dream scenario is if we find the tech needed to pull the limit back to 10 billion before the fall. What has that to do with mass shooting again ? | ||
|
Neneu
Norway492 Posts
On May 28 2019 21:07 Jockmcplop wrote: This is interesting, I like it. I would recommend maybe loking at one or two other websites though, just for context. I wish I could watch the videos but I'm at work. It is a pretty legit website, created by the foundation Gapminder which was founded by Hans Rosling when he lived. It was founded because people tend to have ideas (formed by media, friends, etc) about the world that does not fit with what we actually know of global statistical trends. All data used can easily be researched and fact-checked through their references. You can read more about it here: https://www.gapminder.org/ignorance/ | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9647 Posts
On May 28 2019 21:15 Oshuy wrote: A funny thing with sustainability is that population numbers will always converge over time. By definition, population cannot remain above the limit for a long period of time. If sustainability limit is currently 4 billions and current population progression will stabilize around 11 billions, then either life-expectancy or birth rateis garantied to fall. Killing a bunch of people is just a way to achieve it manually, like legal euthanasia at 65 in "Soylent Green". There is not much we can do today to prevent population getting to 11 billions, but asking if it is above the threshold is still legit, as is asking what our global target should be: at the limit, we have the highest possible stable population and the minimum resources per living human (trivial is that a 11 billion population must be vegetarian with current agriculture). What are the resources that we deem sufficient, what lifestyle do we want for mankind and what is the population limit to allow for that lifestyle ? Another subject is that we have the capacity to sustain a population over the threshold or a lifestyle that overconsumes resources for a small period of time (say a century or two) like we do today. This comes at a cost, trading stability against a decrease in the long term sustainability. Population may be kept at 11 billions once we get there, but that may mean that once the fall starts it will get a lot lower before stabilizing (and hopefully climb back over time while the environment regenerates). Nightmare scenario is if we keep overreaching until the threshold falls bellow the limit needed to sustain our civilization/know how. That would mean a remaining population in a wasteland without the technology to survive it. Dream scenario is if we find the tech needed to pull the limit back to 10 billion before the fall. What has that to do with mass shooting again ? You put this better than I did and probably how I should have. On May 28 2019 21:04 Jockmcplop wrote: Yeah if you deliberately make it sound as stupid as you can. I guess advocating for human and civil liberties on facebook is stupid too, right? There's a taboo about this subject that you have elucidated so brilliantly here by implicitly accusing me of blaming poor families in 3rd world countries for climate disaster to try and guilt me into shutting up as usual. I'm not saying Facebook solves the problem. I'm saying old religious taboos about procreation need to be smashed. And i'm going to say this one more fucking time so you get the message. I"M NOT SAYING WE SKATE PAST ANYTHING. Just because someone says something that doesn't mention revolution it doesn't mean they don't want one. This is more of an addendum to the conversation you were previously having. I am grumpy and stressed, yeah. Sorry To be fair you have in turn called me ridiculous and repeatedly accused me of skating past the real solutions to climate issues when I did no such thing and actually agree with you on them... and then asked if I was drunk so I'm reserving the right to continue being grumpy. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23229 Posts
On May 28 2019 21:15 Oshuy wrote: A funny thing with sustainability is that population numbers will always converge over time. By definition, population cannot remain above the limit for a long period of time. If sustainability limit is currently 4 billions and current population progression will stabilize around 11 billions, then either life-expectancy or birth rateis garantied to fall. Killing a bunch of people is just a way to achieve it manually, like legal euthanasia at 65 in "Soylent Green". There is not much we can do today to prevent population getting to 11 billions, but asking if it is above the threshold is still legit, as is asking what our global target should be: at the limit, we have the highest possible stable population and the minimum resources per living human (trivial is that a 11 billion population must be vegetarian with current agriculture). What are the resources that we deem sufficient, what lifestyle do we want for mankind and what is the population limit to allow for that lifestyle ? Another subject is that we have the capacity to sustain a population over the threshold or a lifestyle that overconsumes resources for a small period of time (say a century or two) like we do today. This comes at a cost, trading stability against a decrease in the long term sustainability. Population may be kept at 11 billions once we get there, but that may mean that once the fall starts it will get a lot lower before stabilizing (and hopefully climb back over time while the environment regenerates). Nightmare scenario is if we keep overreaching until the threshold falls bellow the limit needed to sustain our civilization/know how. That would mean a remaining population in a wasteland without the technology to survive it. Dream scenario is if we find the tech needed to pull the limit back to 10 billion before the fall. What has that to do with mass shooting again ? I do think this is what Jock was trying to get at but framed in a better/more neutral way (I argue there is no neutrality in the face of oppression and so on but that's not especially important to the quality of the position put forth in context). Essentially it's tie into mass shootings was that I put forth the assertion that expending political capital on a gun buyback program (a program I support), is probably counterproductive in the long run based on my perspective that in order to address the issues you put forth in a way that doesn't perpetuate exploitation of the most marginalized to the mass financial benefit of a few and the QoL comforts that make it acceptable for their conspirators, we would need a revolution and using political capital on a buyback program doesn't help that, and may hinder it. GORS: I am grumpy and stressed, yeah. Sorry To be fair you have in turn called me ridiculous and repeatedly accused me of skating past the real solutions to climate issues when I did no such thing and actually agree with you on them... and then asked if I was drunk so I'm reserving the right to continue being grumpy. I apologize. I try to make it explicitly clear that I'm characterizing your argument (or post format/voice with the intoxicated thing) as presented and not you as an individual. Being at work/reasonably upset based on your interpretation of my argument makes perfect sense as an explanation and if I were to comment on you personally makes more sense than it being drunk posting. So sorry again for any offense I caused. I think we do at some base level agree on a lot, but I was trying to stress that it was your framing and rhetoric which was problematic to me, not the underlying issues I recognized you were trying to get at. EDIT: While I'm at it I'll mention that drawing attention to these contradictions between how we talk about things and what we mean/do is an important part of revolutionary education (where we're all teachers and students so this isn't a superiority thing). Theory suggests that the discrepancies aren't merely happenstance or cosmic alignment but manifestations of identifiable and mutable systems. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10705 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
It might implicate 2nd amendment rights by using them for possible revolution, but you all are debating the feasibility and need of revolution, not the second amendment. Arguments on overpopulation, environmental impact of revolution, and the worldwide climate emergency might merit their own thread if people are really interested in discussing it. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On May 29 2019 10:31 Danglars wrote: I petition to change thread title to "Debate GH on 2nd amendment revolution as citizens' answer to climate change inaction." It's gone a far ways from "If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting happened and people disagree on what to do" It might implicate 2nd amendment rights by using them for possible revolution, but you all are debating the feasibility and need of revolution, not the second amendment. Arguments on overpopulation, environmental impact of revolution, and the worldwide climate emergency might merit their own thread if people are really interested in discussing it. For the record, the title of the thread doesn't need to have anything to do with 2nd amendment rights. A solution to this problem doesn't require infringement on people's right to own a gun, but that is often where you and others take it. I just want a solution that makes any impact on the problem. One single fucking thing that congress agrees to do and implements. Feel free to own a gun, but while your at it, also make sure that those guns you love don't get in the hands of people that will use them to shoot up a crowd of people. I come back to, as a gun owner, the onus to fix the problem should be on you. I would also say that "overpopulation" "climate change" "etc..." are also the reasons people claim, "we need the guns to protect ourselves". MS13, the illegal Mexicans crossing the border, climate change forcing migration, and associating all these things with a rise in crime. These are reasons people cite as things they are afraid of and need guns to protect against. So I don't see them as completely unrelated. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On May 29 2019 12:09 ShambhalaWar wrote: For the record, the title of the thread doesn't need to have anything to do with 2nd amendment rights. A solution to this problem doesn't require infringement on people's right to own a gun, but that is often where you and others take it. You may already know this, but you're arguing to take away my rights to own guns with magazines you don't like and kinds of guns you don't like. You've spewed the most idiotic and meme-driven hate against the last funded organization fighting for those rights, for all its cringey acts. Furthermore, you stated your sincere belief that I was a Russian troll and had to translate your arguments through Google under the snowflake language for me to understand them. I hope that informs you of just why I think it's infringement on my rights, and why I wouldn't trust you to stop at just the guns and magazines you're on about at this moment. People that can't control their tempers or language when it comes to other citizens in disagreement on the issue are absolutely the ones that should not be trusted politically. After all, any future actions you take will meet the approval of your own conscience They only injured Russian trolls and moral ingrates not properly outraged by mass shootings. I just want a solution that makes any impact on the problem. One single fucking thing that congress agrees to do and implements. Feel free to own a gun, but while your at it, also make sure that those guns you love don't get in the hands of people that will use them to shoot up a crowd of people. I come back to, as a gun owner, the onus to fix the problem should be on you. I would also say that "overpopulation" "climate change" "etc..." are also the reasons people claim, "we need the guns to protect ourselves". MS13, the illegal Mexicans crossing the border, climate change forcing migration, and associating all these things with a rise in crime. These are reasons people cite as things they are afraid of and need guns to protect against. So I don't see them as completely unrelated. Any further discussion on these lines furthers the tangents that have occupied the last three pages, and I'm rather familiar with passionate posters that will pursue multiple tangents with only me far beyond the point where the thread goes to shit. Refer to my original post to why I do think they're subjects of their own, and users very concerned with revolution and climate change might find a better-aimed thread suitable for that purpose. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6592 Posts
11 dead, 5 hospitalized. I think it's pretty clear something has to be done as these stories become more and more commonplace in the US. I don't have any solution outside of maybe try to teach kids about mental health / make help essentially free and accessible and weather the storm for the next couple of decades but that's not really going to help any time soon. Honestly I think it's a bigger problem than just guns as you guys have been debating on and off for years now, just having access to guns doesn't make people go on murderous rampages although it certainly helps, but there is a deeper rooted problem for sure. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23229 Posts
On June 01 2019 08:18 OmniEulogy wrote: https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/31/us/virginia-beach-shooting/index.html 11 dead, 5 hospitalized. I think it's pretty clear something has to be done as these stories become more and more commonplace in the US. I don't have any solution outside of maybe try to teach kids about mental health / make help essentially free and accessible and weather the storm for the next couple of decades but that's not really going to help any time soon. Honestly I think it's a bigger problem than just guns as you guys have been debating on and off for years now, just having access to guns doesn't make people go on murderous rampages although it certainly helps, but there is a deeper rooted problem for sure. I'm reasonably confident 1, 5, 10 years from now we'll have made about as much progress as we have in the last 1,5,10 years on this, which is to say none. People want to fix problems without changing why the problem exists and it's never going to work. | ||
| ||
