If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 ?

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.