so the earth is F***ed aparently..

Soods

New member
Jan 6, 2010
608
0
0
Humans and (most other) animals? Fucked.
Earth? Will probably survive humanity.

As much as I'd love to go backwards in technology to times when we didn't threaten hundreds of species with our existence, I think it would mean the death of billions of humans. Imo the only way is forward, in order to survive we have to get off this rock sooner or later.
 

quiet_samurai

New member
Apr 24, 2009
3,897
0
0
Anarchy, or anarchists philosophies..... does not equal primitivism. (Not sure if that's a word but it sounds like it should be.) WE can be very technologically advanced and still live in a world without being under the thumbs of big government and corporations. Pipe dream, yes.....absolutely impossible, no.
 

Blind Sight

New member
May 16, 2010
1,658
0
0
quiet_samurai said:
Anarchy, or anarchists philosophies..... does not equal primitivism. (Not sure if that's a word but it sounds like it should be.) WE can be very technologically advanced and still live in a world without being under the thumbs of big government and corporations. Pipe dream, yes.....absolutely impossible, no.
Just wanted to say primitivism's totally a word. Anarchy is definitely a lot more 'politically' (for lack of a better word) complicated then most people make it out to be, it's like saying that any society with a government is 'statist' with no distinction of how that government is structured.
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
Hakazaba said:
Limiting population through limiting birth rate. I think this is extremely unlikely to happen due to how unpopular it is.
Western birth rates are dropping, people seem to be making lifestyle choices that are limiting the amount of pregnancy and births. There is also a growing amount of evidence showing a large decrease in fertility rates too, 23% of French men for infertile for example. We are doing something with our lifestyles that are making us infertile and less inclined to have more than 1-2 children, in the past families where larger.

Population growth is occurring in other regions, the question is as these areas begin to adopt western lifestyles will the same trend of decreased fertility and birth rates happen there too.
 

Blind Sight

New member
May 16, 2010
1,658
0
0
J Tyran said:
Hakazaba said:
Limiting population through limiting birth rate. I think this is extremely unlikely to happen due to how unpopular it is.
Western birth rates are dropping, people seem to be making lifestyle choices that are limiting the amount of pregnancy and births. There is also a growing amount of evidence showing a large decrease in fertility rates too, 23% of French men for infertile for example. We are doing something with our lifestyles that are making us infertile and less inclined to have more than 1-2 children, in the past families where larger.
I'd like to see the source for that figure (due to interest, not distrust). I've also read studies correlating increases in female infertility with early birth control methods in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. There's also apparently a connection between males using laptops and infertility (by placing it on your lap for long periods of time you end up heating the testicles excessively to the point where the sperm count actually lowers. Bear in mind this is something I haven't looked into that deeply yet).

Also I recommend Hans Rosling's "Religions and babies" TEDtalk, it's a very interesting breakdown on population growth.
 

Giftfromme

New member
Nov 3, 2011
555
0
0
Xiado said:
TopazFusion said:
TizzytheTormentor said:
Its just that these kind of news headlines are almost always bogus! I don't think the earth is f-ed and that while he may have some good points, the damage isn't going to be so bad as to F up the planet.
The eye-opening thing for me was that he apparently gave a speech in front of "a huge American Geophyiscal Union conference going on in San Francisco".
They must have thought he was knowledgeable enough, to be invited to speak at something like that...

I dunno, seems weird.
Vault101 said:
it actually makes me angry

some F***er wants to take away my PC and stuff he can do so while I work a shotgun on his abdomen...fucking anarchist wankers have no clue *grumble* I need to calm down
Yeah, I agree.
I REALLY don't like the idea of abandoning our technology and going back to the dark ages.
He didn't say to revert all technology back, he said that the cultural mindset of capitalism is what needs to be removed. It's not necessarily a removal of all of our technological benefits and advances in learning, it's about changing how we use and produce them.
uh I don't think it's quite as easy as saying "oh we need a new model" and then just implementing it. Modern capitalism is born of our evolution and the culmination of institutions that manage to mask most of the tendencies we still have with us from the savannah. While some of the tendencies we had back then have actually disappeared, most have not. And won't do so in a few hundred more years either, it will need a lot longer. The capitalism model just works best toward our selfish side and to our other tendencies too
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
Blind Sight said:
J Tyran said:
Hakazaba said:
Limiting population through limiting birth rate. I think this is extremely unlikely to happen due to how unpopular it is.
Western birth rates are dropping, people seem to be making lifestyle choices that are limiting the amount of pregnancy and births. There is also a growing amount of evidence showing a large decrease in fertility rates too, 23% of French men for infertile for example. We are doing something with our lifestyles that are making us infertile and less inclined to have more than 1-2 children, in the past families where larger.
I'd like to see the source for that figure (due to interest, not distrust). I've also read studies correlating increases in female infertility with early birth control methods in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. There's also apparently a connection between males using laptops and infertility (by placing it on your lap for long periods of time you end up heating the testicles excessively to the point where the sperm count actually lowers. Bear in mind this is something I haven't looked into that deeply yet).

Also I recommend Hans Rosling's "Religions and babies" TEDtalk, it's a very interesting breakdown on population growth.
Here is the link, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20593467 I confess that I got that story mixed up with another statistic. The study shows a 32% decrease in sperm counts, my memory is bad but it think that study caused another scientist to claim that would cause a 24% decrease in fertility, I cannot find the source for that unfortunately.

There is definitely something going on with western birth rates though, some are social causes but others could be down the technology we use and the chemicals we are using and the pollution we spew out. Plastic for example produce harmful chemicals like Bisphenol A, Bisphenol A has been shown to have hormonal properties. We immerse ourselves in this stuff, its also entering the food chain because of plastic pollution in oceans and poorly constructed landfill where it enters ground water and the water table. Bisphenol A is just one chemical and one type of pollution from a single source.

Your laptop example is a good one, the heat is obviously a problem but the laptop is emitting a large amount of EM radiation. They keep telling us its safe yet in other cases and studies they show EM radiation in other circumstances over long period is harmful, in phones, tablets and laptops its apparently safe.
 

Blind Sight

New member
May 16, 2010
1,658
0
0
J Tyran said:
Here is the link, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20593467 I confess that I got that story mixed up with another statistic. The study shows a 32% decrease in sperm counts, my memory is bad but it think that study caused another scientist to claim that would cause a 24% decrease in fertility, I cannot find the source for that unfortunately.

There is definitely something going on with western birth rates though, some are social causes but others could be down the technology we use and the chemicals we are using and the pollution we spew out. Plastic for example produces harmful chemicals like Bisphenol A, Bisphenol A has been shown to have hormonal properties. We immerse ourselves in this stuff, Bisphenol A is just one chemical and one type of pollution from a single source.
Thanks. I've also seen studies discussing the problems of birth control hormones being deposited into the watershed via human waste (and how this could possibly be lowering fertility rates early on in children). I partially agree with environmental factors definitely having a role in low birthrates, but there's also the obvious social and cultural shifts as well. Regardless I think the overpopulation point is one that currently seems unlikely, the WHO has published several studies in the past couple of years that shows current trends (barring any unforeseen problems) leveling out the population to somewhere around 10.6 billion by the turn of the century. Not the best figure, but the days of the Baby Boom are definitely over.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
xDarc said:
Oh and by the way there are nuclear bombs now. Do you think if kings of the middle ages had nuclear bombs they wouldn't have used them to kill the starving peasants revolting to take them from their throne? Have you learned anything?
no, because if the mediveal king knew what the fuck he was doing when launching the nuke...he wouldn't because he's be Royally fucked....no viable land and no people to work it

anyway another constant is that EVERYONE thinks the end is coming in their lifetime, not to say it can;t happen but I can't take people seriously who go on about it like its som new Idea
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
Blind Sight said:
J Tyran said:
Here is the link, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20593467 I confess that I got that story mixed up with another statistic. The study shows a 32% decrease in sperm counts, my memory is bad but it think that study caused another scientist to claim that would cause a 24% decrease in fertility, I cannot find the source for that unfortunately.

There is definitely something going on with western birth rates though, some are social causes but others could be down the technology we use and the chemicals we are using and the pollution we spew out. Plastic for example produces harmful chemicals like Bisphenol A, Bisphenol A has been shown to have hormonal properties. We immerse ourselves in this stuff, Bisphenol A is just one chemical and one type of pollution from a single source.
Thanks. I've also seen studies discussing the problems of birth control hormones being deposited into the watershed via human waste (and how this could possibly be lowering fertility rates early on in children). I partially agree with environmental factors definitely having a role in low birthrates, but there's also the obvious social and cultural shifts as well. Regardless I think the overpopulation point is one that currently seems unlikely, the WHO has published several studies in the past couple of years that shows current trends (barring any unforeseen problems) leveling out the population to somewhere around 10.6 billion by the turn of the century. Not the best figure, but the days of the Baby Boom are definitely over.
The cause is definitely a mix of social and and environmental factors. People are making lifestyle choices that reduce the amount of children or even having no children at all. Theoretically with the current agricultural methodology and technology the world could support 10 billion. We could feed 10b right now with the amount of food produced in fact, to comfortably support that population with our current levels of waste and excessive consumption we would need to increase food production.

This is where I get angry, the backlash against GM corps for example. We need technology like that if we hope to produce enough food to feed a growing population.
 

Blind Sight

New member
May 16, 2010
1,658
0
0
J Tyran said:
The cause is definitely a mix of social and and environmental factors. People are making lifestyle choices that reduce the amount of children or even having no children at all. Theoretically with the current agricultural methodology and technology the world could support 10 billion. We could feed 10b right now with the amount of food produced in fact, to comfortably support that population with our current levels of waste and excessive consumption we would need to increase food production.

This is where I get angry, the backlash against GM corps for example. We need technology like that if we hope to produce enough food to feed a growing population.
GM crops are definitely a tough subject, there's been a lot of spin directed at them that wasn't particularly honest. There was plenty of asinine emotional manipulation and 'gross out' images of 'spider tomatoes'. Not to say there aren't concerns that can be raised on the subject, but that's the nature of ideas. There's no perfect solutions, only tradeoffs. It really says a lot about GM crops when one of their main supporters was Norman Borlaug, the man responsible for the Green Revolution. I'm personally getting behind the idea of vat-grown meat as well, if they can make it consumer viable we can clear up tons of land used in traditional meat production.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
HA HA HA HA! I'm having so much fun with this thread. Thanks everyone for the laughs, seriously.
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
Blind Sight said:
GM crops are definitely a tough subject, there's been a lot of spin directed at them that wasn't particularly honest. There was plenty of asinine emotional manipulation and 'gross out' images of 'spider tomatoes'. Not to say there aren't concerns that can be raised on the subject, but that's the nature of ideas. There's no perfect solutions, only tradeoffs. It really says a lot about GM crops when one of their main supporters was Norman Borlaug, the man responsible for the Green Revolution. I'm personally getting behind the idea of vat-grown meat as well, if they can make it consumer viable we can clear up tons of land used in traditional meat production.
There are alternatives to meat protein as well, there are beans and legumes that can prove the same proteins and enough enzymes to keep us healthy. There are also crops naturally have good yields and resistant to pests and droughts, they would make a good alternative to wheat and rice. For those to work attitudes would have to change, which is damn difficult. Maybe if the celebrity chefs started using them they would become popular.

The drive to be healthier and lose weight has gained a lot of traction because of the media, to change our eating habits the same kind of drive would be needed.
 

Grottnikk

New member
Mar 19, 2008
338
0
0
People have been predicting the end of the world ever since the beginning of the world. So far they're all batting zero.
 

xDarc

New member
Feb 19, 2009
1,333
0
0
Vault101 said:
no, because if the mediveal king knew what the fuck he was doing when launching the nuke...he wouldn't because he's be Royally fucked....no viable land and no people to work it
But he would still be "king." There is a ruling class to whom control is all that matters. The only reason society works is because there is a carrot on a string. When there are no more carrots, then suddenly you don't see the incentive to go to work every day, do as your told, be a happy, productive little worker bee.

Then it's about survival; and maybe not just yours and the ruling class- what if the break down was so bad that the threat of losing all of our advancements followed by a 1000 years of darkness was looming? What if society broke down so hard that it couldn't pick itself up again?

So if you are in control, and you know that if you do not restore order humanity will plunge into darkness for centuries, but you can stop it by killing billions- would you do it?

I know you'll say no, but the people in control don't think like you. That's why they're in control.

Now I'm not saying the world is going to end, but it should be pretty apparent at this point that billions of people need to die in the next 30 years; or prepare for fucking poverty the likes of which you have never seen. That will break society down, the rest plays out however.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
xDarc said:
But he would still be "king." There is a ruling class to whom control is all that matters.
of what? burning ashes and slowly dying of radiation poisoning, beside the point but it was a bad analogy
 

Bertylicious

New member
Apr 10, 2012
1,400
0
0
Do you know what is so terrifying to people? The fact that poor people in foreign countries won't be as poor and easily exploited in the future.

Things are going to keep getting better, remorselessly.

Also everything in the past was shit. They didn't even have toilets that flushed and if you were born with a cleft pallette then that was something you had to live with all your life.
 

BrassButtons

New member
Nov 17, 2009
564
0
0
xDarc said:
Now I'm not saying the world is going to end, but it should be pretty apparent at this point that billions of people need to die in the next 30 years; or prepare for fucking poverty the likes of which you have never seen.
That isn't apparent at all. What data are you basing this off of? How did you arrive at those numbers? Why is the only option to have billions die and not, for example, to improve crop yields?

Bertylicious said:
Do you know what is so terrifying to people? The fact that poor people in foreign countries won't be as poor and easily exploited in the future.

Things are going to keep getting better, remorselessly.
Indeed. Life is getting better, and I can't wait :)