Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
8
LastLast
  1. #121
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I mean all of human history shows that societies only thrive when growing and not when they shrink...
    Citation neeeeeeded. Many of history's "golden ages" have been chiefly defined by a cessation of expansion.

    However this point I just made doesn't matter at all because you should never ever used repeated historical observations to reason about anything, especially the future.
    We've already established why this crap continues to be crap. We're not talking about predictions of the future here, we are talking about a comparison of historical systems to our current one with an eye on refinement.

    For example capitalism could be system in which the most progress has happened for the last 300 years, or the last 3 million years, it makes zero difference since historical numbers mean nothing whatsoever and have no bearing on what causes things to fail or succeed.
    They do tell us when to stop repeating the same mistakes, like exploiting resources indefinitely. Rapa Nui says hi.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by gaymer77 View Post
    I'm 100% in favor of this and would take it one step further and have forced sterilization on people upon puberty unless/until they can prove they can support their ONE child on their own without the aid of the government or anyone outside of the two parents (or one parent if a woman so elects to be a single mom).
    I do find the irony of a gay man arguing for eugenics quite comical.

  3. #123
    The Unstoppable Force PC2's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Citation neeeeeeded. Many of history's "golden ages" have been chiefly defined by a cessation of expansion.
    That's nonsense. My citation is all of the examples that have ever existed, the West in the last few centuries and China in the last few decades are two examples of how growth happens in parallel with societal success and shrinkage with a lack of progress.

    Just pick any example, the idea that any society started a "golden age" after the economy and population size shrink or stagnate is nothing short of absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    We've already established why this crap continues to be crap. We're not talking about predictions of the future, we are talking about a comparison of historical systems to our current one with an eye on refinement.
    Okay well we have liberal democracy so if you're pro-refinement then you're just pro-capitalism since you really can't ever refine the foundation of a system out of that system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    They do tell us when to stop repeating the same mistakes,
    Yes history is good at telling us about mistakes! Which isn't to be confused with the functionality of a crystal ball.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    like exploiting resources indefinitely. Rapa Nui says hi.
    I'm okay with exploiting all non-conscious things. If something isn't conscious then who cares if it is exploited.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Josuke View Post
    I get it. We are doomed.
    lol? There's no reason to think we're doomed nor that prosperity is inevitable. Just depends on the quality of effort that people put in. One thing that guarantees doom is if everybody thinks the future is dictated by all of our constant prophecies and not the quality of daily effort.
    Last edited by PC2; 2020-02-18 at 06:33 AM.

  4. #124
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    That's nonsense. My citation is all of the examples that have ever existed, the West in the last few centuries and China in the last few decades are two examples of how growth happens in parallel with societal success and shrinkage with a lack of progress.
    So, your examples are just basically limited to capitalist European societies.

    Just pick any example, the idea that any society started a "golden age" after the economy and population size shrink or stagnate is nothing short of absurd.


    Again, the view of exponential growth as a necessary feature of economic systems doesn't predate 1800 at the earliest.

    Okay well we have liberal democracy so if you're pro-refinement then you're just pro-capitalism since you really can't ever refine the foundation of a system out of that system.
    The US does not have liberal democracy, for starters.

    And "refine" can also mean "replace" in this circumstance. You're assuming a particular attachment to capitalism as an ideology that isn't there; I only care about it insofar as it produces results, and it isn't producing results.

    Yes history is good at telling us about mistakes! Which isn't to be confused with the functionality of a crystal ball.
    Cool, and one such mistake is feckless exploitation of natural resources at a clearly unsustainable rate. See: Rapa Nui. Or the Maya.

    I'm okay with exploiting all non-conscious things. If something isn't conscious then who cares if it is exploited.
    Because exploiting it means it isn't there for other people to use after it? Duh?
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  5. #125
    Overpopulation is a myth pushed by climate nutcases.

    You could literally mass-suicide everyone in the west tomorrow and climate change would continue as planned.

    There is not a single action you can do as a western voter that will make China, India and Africa stop polluting the oceans and the atmosphere.

    Any place you do find 'overpopulation', it isn't overpopulation that is the problem, its mass immigration, often illegal, or a lack of human rights combined with a shitty culture.

    California for instance, would be doing a lot better if they stopped fucking with the idea of 'sanctuary cities' and just followed the law. China would do a lot better, as would India if they stopped settling for extremely low standards of living that allow things like 1 toilet per 10 people to occur (if they even have a toilet at all.)

    Africa is just a wasteland, no saving that. There is a reason people walked north and got the fuck out of there thousands and thousands of years ago - can't grow food in dead soil, especially when insects ravage the crop and when you instead swap to cattle, fucking lions come out and kill those too.

  6. #126
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Sliske View Post
    Overpopulation is a myth pushed by climate nutcases.

    You could literally mass-suicide everyone in the west tomorrow and climate change would continue as planned.

    There is not a single action you can do as a western voter that will make China, India and Africa stop polluting the oceans and the atmosphere.

    Any place you do find 'overpopulation', it isn't overpopulation that is the problem, its mass immigration, often illegal, or a lack of human rights combined with a shitty culture.

    California for instance, would be doing a lot better if they stopped fucking with the idea of 'sanctuary cities' and just followed the law. China would do a lot better, as would India if they stopped settling for extremely low standards of living that allow things like 1 toilet per 10 people to occur (if they even have a toilet at all.)

    Africa is just a wasteland, no saving that. There is a reason people walked north and got the fuck out of there thousands and thousands of years ago - can't grow food in dead soil, especially when insects ravage the crop and when you instead swap to cattle, fucking lions come out and kill those too.
    Wow. Amazing. Almost none of what you said was correct.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  7. #127
    The Unstoppable Force PC2's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    So, your examples are just basically limited to capitalist European societies.
    No, all of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    [IMG]https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/11/Annual-World-Population-since-10-thousand-BCE-for-OWID.png[IMG]

    Again, the view of exponential growth as a necessary feature of economic systems doesn't predate 1800 at the earliest.
    The view is wrong though, because the amount of growth isn't really that important. More is better of course but the better way to look at it is in terms of a sports metaphor, "is the ball currently going in the right direction or the wrong direction". As long as the answer is "right direction" then that fact is more important than whether growth is on some big exponential trend or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    The US does not have liberal democracy, for starters.
    The US is, if it's not then you should at least say specifically what other system the US is that way we can compare and contrast which is more accurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    And "refine" can also mean "replace" in this circumstance. You're assuming a particular attachment to capitalism as an ideology that isn't there; I only care about it insofar as it produces results, and it isn't producing results.
    I was saying liberal democracy is attached to capitalism because it is. Like say, if you take out democracy, or the role of the private sector/ownership, or the limited role of government in a liberal democracy then fundamentally you don't have liberal democracy anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Cool, and one such mistake is feckless exploitation of natural resources at a clearly unsustainable rate. See: Rapa Nui. Or the Maya.
    The problem is that the "rate" that is sustainable or optimal isn't known. Since the word "sustainable" inherently refers to what will be reliable in the future, and the future can't be predicted in principle, it means that you really can't ever know what will be truly sustainable, and there will always be unpredictable problems that prevent us from ever arriving at a sustainable utopia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Because exploiting it means it isn't there for other people to use after it? Duh?
    No you can keep exploiting things but in new and better forms. For example some people mistakenly believe that fossil fuel is the absolute ultimate form of storing and transferring energy. Implying that we are robbing future generations by exploiting a non-renewable resource. This is total nonsense though because there's no reason to think fossil fuel is even remotely close to being the best energy system and future generations won't thank us for handing it to them but instead by using it until non-fossil fuel energy is superior in cost and density.
    Last edited by PC2; 2020-02-18 at 07:38 AM.

  8. #128
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    No, all of them.
    Which is why you seem to have trouble presenting an example that isn't from the last two hundred years.

    The view is wrong though, because the amount of growth isn't really that important. More is better of course but the better way to look at it is in terms of a sports metaphor, "is the ball currently going in the right direction or the wrong direction". As long as the answer is "right direction" then that fact is more important than whether growth is on some big exponential trend or not.
    So you're saying that there's such a thing as sustainable levels of growth?

    That exact thing people are saying we need to be moving towards because capitalism does not promote that? That sort of growth? Lol.

    The US is, if it's not then you should at least say specifically what other system the US is that way we can compare and contrast which is more accurate.
    It's an oligarchic constitutional republic. Said 'oligarchy' being a wealth based aristocracy of the sort you'd see in the Italian 'republics' during the Renaissance.

    I was saying liberal democracy is attached to capitalism because it is. Like say, if you take out democracy, or the role of the private sector/ownership, or the limited role of government in a liberal democracy then fundamentally you don't have liberal democracy anymore.
    That's nice, and you're wrong. Nothing about democracy inherently entails a capitalist economic system; the very existence of democratic socialism demonstrates as such.

    The problem is that the "rate" that is sustainable or optimal isn't known.
    We do know what rates are unsustainable, however.

    Since the word "sustainable" inherently refers to what will be reliable in the future, and the future can't be predicted in principle, it means that you really can't ever know what will be truly sustainable, and there will always be unpredictable problems that prevent us from every arriving at utopia.
    We can, you just repeatedly stick your fingers in your ears every time someone demonstrates to you the methodology for said quantification.

    No you can just keep exploiting things but in new and better forms. For example some people mistakenly believe that fossil fuel is the absolute ultimate form of storing and transferring energy. Implying that we are robbing future generations by exploiting a non-renewable resource.
    This is not an argument anyone opposed to the use of fossil fuels has made. Stop lying.

    The concern has always been about the lasting impacts of the use of fossil fuels. Its scarcity is something that jackasses in the oil lobby worry about.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  9. #129
    The Unstoppable Force PC2's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    So you're saying that there's such a thing as sustainable levels of growth?
    Yeah of course, let's just say the minimum growth is '1 unit'. That is more sustainable than if the change rate is 0 or -1.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    It's an oligarchic constitutional republic. Said 'oligarchy' being a wealth based aristocracy of the sort you'd see in the Italian 'republics' during the Renaissance.
    As long as people can vote to change leadership every cycle, without violence, that is all that matters for a democracy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    That's nice, and you're wrong. Nothing about democracy inherently entails a capitalist economic system;
    No but the distributed nature of capitalism and democracy go well together. Where as in a centralized democratic system the average voter would only serve to disrupt the long-term plans of the government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    the very existence of democratic socialism demonstrates as such.
    Does most all of the tax revenue in a democratic socialist government come from private entities? If so then it hasn't solved the issue of how a non-communist socialist system can truly "replace" capitalism.


    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    We do know what rates are unsustainable, however.
    Sort of, for any complex issue we can use extreme cases and thought experiments to recognize what values are way way too high or low. But as you move away from the extreme scenarios there's no scientific or rigorous way to determine what is sustainable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    We can, you just repeatedly stick your fingers in your ears every time someone demonstrates to you the methodology for said quantification.
    I mean there is no methodology, quantitative or otherwise that can predict the future. All you can do is try out hundreds of predictive variations and then cherry pick the 10 that happened to be the closest to accurate. (Kurzweil's "method")

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    This is not an argument anyone opposed to the use of fossil fuels has made. Stop lying.
    I never said it was, and it wouldn't matter anyway because I never judge anything based on the people who support or oppose the argument. Only the merit of the argument itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    The concern has always been about the lasting impacts of the use of fossil fuels.
    At most we're talking a few centuries where it takes time for us to manage the atmosphere and figure out the optimal level of things like CO2. Heck we may not even want to lower it to pre-industrial levels since plant growth is often better with over 280 PPM, which includes a lot of agriculture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Its scarcity is something that jackasses in the oil lobby worry about.
    Never worry about the source of a argument or point, only the argument itself.
    Last edited by PC2; 2020-02-18 at 08:34 AM.

  10. #130
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    Yeah of course, let's just say the minimum growth is '1 unit'. That is more sustainable than if the change rate is 0 or -1.
    And if, as you claim, we cannot assess levels of sustainability you thus have no basis for claiming that the current rate of growth is a sustainable one.

    QED.

    As long as people can vote to change leadership every cycle, without violence, that is all that matters for a democracy.
    Cool. They don't do that in the US; the electoral college does.

    No but the distributed nature of capitalism and democracy go well together. Where as in a centralized democratic system the average voter would only serve to disrupt the long-term plans of the government.
    Capitalism is not a "distributed" economic system.

    The aristocrats come from a different place, but they're still there. The idea that capitalism furnishes equality is one of the greatest cons of the modern era.

    Does most all of the tax revenue in a democratic socialist government come from private entities? If so then it hasn't solved the issue of how a non-communist socialist system can truly "replace" capitalism.
    Good thing economic systems aren't a function of tax structure, they're a function of resources and production.

    What a ridiculous non sequitur.

    Sort of, for any complex issue we can use extreme cases and thought experiments to recognize what values are way way too high or low. But as you move away from the extreme scenarios there's no scientific or rigorous way to determine what is sustainable.
    Again, there is. You just keep ignoring said scientific methods because they're inconvenient. See: every climate change thread.

    I never said it was, and it wouldn't matter anyway because I never judge anything based on the people who support or oppose the argument. Only the merit of the argument itself.
    Then why even mention it?

    I know the answer is "gish gallop", just in advance.

    At most we're talking a few centuries where it takes time for us to manage the atmosphere and figure out the optimal level of things like CO2. Heck we may not even want to lower it to pre-industrial levels since plant growth is often better with over 280 PPM, which includes a lot of agriculture.
    According to you, some internet rando, versus the entirety of the climatological community. Unorthodox display of hubris but very well.

    Never worry about the source of a argument or point, only the argument itself.
    It is when said source is pushing an a priori agenda, like maximizing profit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  11. #131
    The Unstoppable Force PC2's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    And if, as you claim, we cannot assess levels of sustainability you thus have no basis for claiming that the current rate of growth is a sustainable one.
    I can't guarantee that anything is sustainable because there's no basis for predicting that people can or can't sustain anything. As always, people just have to do they're best, there will never be any guarantee of sustainability no matter the strategy. If you're ever looking for re-assurance from anyone then you're going to be disappointed, there are no assurances in life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Capitalism is not a "distributed" economic system.

    The aristocrats come from a different place, but they're still there. The idea that capitalism furnishes equality is one of the greatest cons of the modern era.
    Capitalism is a distributed system, communism and fascism are the opposite because they're based on centralized state authority.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Again, there is. You just keep ignoring said scientific methods because they're inconvenient. See: every climate change thread.
    No there's no scientific method for predicting the future. The scientific method is about *deductively* testing out the results of a scientific explanation in an experiment that you have some reasonable control over, it's not about predicting what will happen next month or who will win the 2020 election. Anybody who says they're prediction of the future comes from the scientific method has literally no clue what the scientific method is and that it has nothing to do with gaining future knowledge in the present.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    According to you, some internet rando, versus the entirety of the climatological community. Unorthodox display of hubris but very well.
    Again it's fallacious to believe things based on popularity or appeal to authority figures. Use your own reasoning capacity and stop thinking that the merit of argument is in any way related to the source or the amount of sources of an argument. All the smartest people in the world could claim that catastrophe is near, it doesn't mean it's true nor is such a claim scientific at all seeing as (conveniently) no one can verify or falsify those claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    It is when said source is pushing an a priori agenda, like maximizing profit.
    Okay so that's where you would argue about 'how' and 'why' you think they're agenda is bad. Simply saying "X people have bad motives" is ad hominem and doesn't do anything to strengthen your argument.
    Last edited by PC2; 2020-02-18 at 01:17 PM.

  12. #132
    Officers Academy Prof. Byleth's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Fódlan
    Posts
    2,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Yunru View Post
    Looks at china. It didnt end well. A limit on 5 should be a thing.
    The thing is, the kind of people who are having more than 5 babies are just flat out going to ignore that rule. Plus how would you enforce it? Forced abortions???

    Personally, I'm not having kids by choice. So someone can just have my share.
    Here is something to believe in!

  13. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by The Dark One View Post
    The thing is, the kind of people who are having more than 5 babies are just flat out going to ignore that rule. Plus how would you enforce it? Forced abortions???

    Personally, I'm not having kids by choice. So someone can just have my share.
    The kind of country that has shit like 'one child policy' is the kind country that has no problem just straight up pulling you out of your house and making your disappear, or for that matter, your kids.

    The Chinese government right now is essentially no different than USSR or Nazi Germany governments. All 3 are totalitarian hellholes. All 3 disappear their own citizens. All 3 have no problem gunning down their citizens in the streets. All 3 routinely put on performances that pretend that they aren't some dystopian wasteland. All 3 harvest their own citizen's organs.

    etc etc etc.

    But lets get into specifics. How would they enforce it? Simple. Fine you. Thats the authoritarian government's favourite. The UK does it right now. Make a spicy joke on twitter? You'll be fined. Don't pay the fine? They'll seize it from your bank account. Don't have it in your bank account? They'll seize property. Don't have that? Go to jail.

    Its how they sell these kinds of ideas to the simple-minded. "No, no - of course you can't go to jail for making a joke. All it is is a fine." Most people don't realise the consequences of not paying a fine. The government will hunt you down like a dog and take everything you have and/or jail you.

    The chinese government would likely fine the shit out of you and if you couldn't pay it, they'd seize all your property and let nature kill you and your children instead.

  14. #134
    Herald of the Titans Vorkreist's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Twitch chat
    Posts
    2,988
    I would go many steps further. The right to have a child or even vote should be earned. You should prove you can raise and educate your children and that you are intelligent enough to have an informed opinion when it comes to votes that decide the well-being of an entire nation. Society as a whole has no benefit from letting it's dumbest individuals decide it's path.

  15. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by Vorkreist View Post
    I would go many steps further. The right to have a child or even vote should be earned. You should prove you can raise and educate your children and that you are intelligent enough to have an informed opinion when it comes to votes that decide the well-being of an entire nation.
    So basically you don't want to allow people with different opinion than yours to vote and have children?

    Society as a whole has no benefit from letting it's dumbest individuals decide it's path.
    That backfires on you, doesn't it?

  16. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by Thereturn View Post
    With overpopulation and everything that comes with it, one of the solutions that comes to mind is a 1 child policy, globally, for the next somewhat years. Would you be in favour of this or not? Why?

    Personally id say this is a pretty big infringement on our autonomy, on the other hand, its needed. So if not for life, id say its cool.
    A) why do people still believe in the population bomb?

    B) there is no way to implement it

    C) it is per se justification to overthrow any institution attempting it.

  17. #137
    Herald of the Titans Vorkreist's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Twitch chat
    Posts
    2,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Einsz View Post
    So basically you don't want to allow people with different opinion than yours to vote and have children?
    Not at all and I bet you understood what I meant. The age of retarded politics of right vs left and my derp puppet is more popular then your derp puppet will end because its pure cancer. People will vote straight over policies skipping the current system of lay all your chips on a shit head who may or may not follow up on his campaign promises.
    In that world it won't be hard to run basic tests to discern you are adequate to impart your opinion that decides the future.
    You shouldn't breed if you are a piece of shit who won't take care of your children at a decent level to provide future able voting and productive citizens to that society. Health and living cost would be covered all along for everyone but those rights that actually decide the future will be limited.

  18. #138
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Vorkreist View Post
    Not at all and I bet you understood what I meant. The age of retarded politics of right vs left and my derp puppet is more popular then your derp puppet will end because its pure cancer. People will vote straight over policies skipping the current system of lay all your chips on a shit head who may or may not follow up on his campaign promises.
    In that world it won't be hard to run basic tests to discern you are adequate to impart your opinion that decides the future.
    You shouldn't breed if you are a piece of shit who won't take care of your children at a decent level to provide future able voting and productive citizens to that society. Health and living cost would be covered all along for everyone but those rights that actually decide the future will be limited.
    Social Darwinism is and continues to be loathsome bullshit based on pseudoscience.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  19. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    No I wouldn't support that policy because overpopulation is entirely mythical. I've never once heard someone give a criteria for what exactly it means for a planet to be overpopulated, largely because it's not a coherent concept
    It mean because the quantity of energy, food and especially clean water needed for someone to live healthy and well has a limit. Sure, in term of superficy, we can all live in this planet, but the superficy needed to eat and the water consumed would make global war for food and water a daily occurence

    Also, for a ecologist point of view, natural environments cant regenerate enough for what we consume. Look at the fish and the ocean for instance.

    We actually don't have the technological mean to support too much population, and certainly not the energy required to pwer these means if they exists.

  20. #140
    Herald of the Titans Vorkreist's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Twitch chat
    Posts
    2,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Social Darwinism is and continues to be loathsome bullshit based on pseudoscience.
    W/e that is.
    Had to look it up. So a veiled pseudo-nazi call out without addressing what I posted. mmo-champ 101.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •