Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

I did not mean to sound belittling or rude, and ignorance is not something to be ashamed of.

If I had meant to be offensive, I would have used much harsher language, like "stupid".  I apologise if it came off that way, just it bothers me when I read rhetoric about how "we dont need fear that again", when we most certainly do, especially where economic forces are contributing to the issue, and a downward trend against the protections in place is in effect.

Also, industrial scale farming in ks and ok is not ecologically sustainable in the face of climate change. The soil will lie barren (and wont even grow weeds) without the liberal application of nitrogen fertilizers, which are highly carbon positive to produce and deploy. The trend in this geographical area, as regards to climate change, is increased arridness. See for instance, the now long standing drought in texas, and the recent 100 years drought that OK and KS had.  If climate change continues unabated, this area of the US will not be viable as farmland, even with nitrogen fertilizers.

Ground water levels are already at critical levels from over exploitation.

That isn't even considering the issues with nitrogen contamination of ground water from heavy fertilizer use.  (Anectdote is not data, but in my local area alone, the nitrate content of the municipal water supply has gone from 10% above EPA tolerances to 200% above EPA tolerances in under 6 years.)

Treating current agricultural methods as though they are sustainable is disingenous.

[smjjames]

This line of thought, by the way, is how Hitler got the support that got him into power. An ineffective parliament and a upper class that decided they wanted to just burn away the old by putting someone in charge who was so obviously ruinous that it would result in them regaining control. I would not say that turned out well for anyone.

While you do have a point, it's not a complete comparison, it's not the upper class (ie. the establishment) that wanted to burn away the old, it's the lower+middle class that wants to. So, in that way, it's actually closer to Lenin and the Bolsheviks, which didn't turn out particularily well for everyone either.

There really isn't anything that neatly matches what is going on.

[Wolfhunter107]

While I have no doubt that we've dug ourselves into a bit of a hole regarding population growth, the "If we don't immediately start sterilization en-masse the human race is going to die" crap sounds very much like alarmism with no basis in fact.

I am pretty positive that growth will eventually slow and then eventually fall to acceptable levels. Yes, their is a massive amount of population growth, but most of it is driven by poor second-and-third world countries, and these second and third world are not going to stay as poor as they currently are forever, and, based on how the birth rate declined in what are now first-world countries, the birth rate in these high-birthrate countries will decline as well.

[Owlbread]

It interests me that Donald Trump has veered so far to the right to win the Republican nomination. If I look at his previously expressed views on wikipedia, it seems like he has the potential to appeal to a lot of people across America; he has previously held views that may be considered left-wing (e.g. his attitudes to health care that he recently backtracked on) and he's a billionaire city-slicker from the East Coast. In a lot of ways, he doesn't seem like he's cut from the same cloth as the All-American, apple pie type candidates we've seen in the last 10 years e.g. the George Bush/Paul Ryan types. He's the kind of guy who doesn't have any baggage and can say whatever he has to say to appeal to the demographics he knows he can win.

I don't know, I sometimes think Trump has the potential to appeal to working class whites all across America if he can play his cards right. I'm not saying I could see him moving to the left on some issues, just maybe his take on issues that affect working class whites would probably be quite well calculated and catch Clinton or Sanders off-guard, forcing them to try to appeal to the non-white working class. He's doing that right now of course re: immigrants but I'm referring more to things like poverty, jobs and so on.

[Helgoland]

Hey Owlie, good to see you back! I had wondered where you'd gone...

[Owlbread]

Hey Owlie, good to see you back! I had wondered where you'd gone...

It is good to hear from you too Helgoland, I am still around. I'm just very, very busy these days I'm afraid. That said over the next while at least you can probably look forward to more of my incoherent rambling.

[Helgoland]

Mostly I'm looking forward to hearing the voice of a non-xenophobic nationalist again :3

[cochramd]

As I said, that would be the ideal, and it's completely fair. What would you do, only let the wealthy and intelligent breed?

Well, yeah. Survival of the fittest. The only downside to eugenics is that it's such an ugly affair to determine who is and who isn't worthy of passing their genes on. I know I'd probably not be one of the ones allowed to breed, but I think there are plenty of people who wouldn't take being told that as well as I would.

[Wolfhunter107]

Telling me that I don't want to hear something that I'm already perfectly aware of isn't going to be a very effective way of convincing me that we need to start sterilizing people against their will.

This. Yes, we have an overpopulation issue, but mass sterilization is not the way to solve it.

[hector13]

As I said, that would be the ideal, and it's completely fair. What would you do, only let the wealthy and intelligent breed?

Well, yeah. Survival of the fittest. The only downside to eugenics is that it's such an ugly affair to determine who is and who isn't worthy of passing their genes on. I know I'd probably not be one of the ones allowed to breed, but I think there are plenty of people who wouldn't take being told that as well as I would.

If we're going to be arbitrary about it (in what way is wealth and/or intelligence more fit than other criteria?) then at least do it in a way that everyone is treated fairly.

Would have to agree with Wolf though: mass sterilization should rather be treated as a last resort to deal with overpopulation.

[cochramd]

If we're going to be arbitrary about it (in what way is wealth and/or intelligence more fit than other criteria?) then at least do it in a way that everyone is treated fairly.

Wealth is supposedly an indicator of several positive traits (traits which we should be looking for directly, mind you) and intelligence is very important for a tool-using species such as ourselves. To be fair to everyone, you'd have to have access to GATTACA-esque technology (which we are working on) so that everyone is only judged by the best possible zygotes they could produce. I know I have some genes that are worth passing on, but also some ones that aren't. I don't think I'm the only guy out there like that.

[origamiscienceguy]

If you look at the population trends in the most developed countries, there is a large population boom when they start to get developed, then the populatiion stagnates and starts to decrease. So if we just wait, the population will fix itself.

[hector13]

If we're going to be arbitrary about it (in what way is wealth and/or intelligence more fit than other criteria?) then at least do it in a way that everyone is treated fairly.

Wealth is supposedly an indicator of several positive traits (traits which we should be looking for directly, mind you) and intelligence is very important for a tool-using species such as ourselves. To be fair to everyone, you'd have to have access to GATTACA-esque technology (which we are working on) so that everyone is only judged by the best possible zygotes they could produce. I know I have some genes that are worth passing on, but also some ones that aren't. I don't think I'm the only guy out there like that.

I was more referring to random lots as being fairer arbitrariness, but wealth isn't necessarily something you have gained yourself.

A (admittedly three year old) report from the left-leaning United For A Fair Economy found that 40% of the Forbes 400 richest Americans inherited at least part of their wealth. I don't think having something handed to you is necessarily an indicator of good genes.

Equally so this study by Robert Hare found that, in a sample of 203, 4 percent of CEOs displayed clinical psychopathy. Depending on your viewpoint, this is not necessarily something you'd want to maintain in any breeding stock. (average CEO salary is pushing $14m)

Intelligence is also a bastard to measure "fairly". How do you measure intelligence existing through genetics, and not from a person's socioeconomic background?

[cochramd]

I was more referring to random lots as being fairer arbitrariness, but wealth isn't necessarily something you have gained yourself.

Which is why, as I said, we should be looking for the positive traits directly.

Intelligence is also a bastard to measure "fairly". How do you measure intelligence existing through genetics, and not from a person's socioeconomic background?

See, this is why it's such an ugly affair. There are so many things which are clearly a product of both nature and nurture and it's so damned hard to disentangle them to figure which one contributes how much that if eugenics were implemented right now we would inevitably eradicate some good genes and deliberately propagate some bad ones. And that is to say nothing of the people who, legitimately or otherwise, thought they had good genes and thought they were snubbed by circumstance!

[MetalSlimeHunt]

While I have no doubt that we've dug ourselves into a bit of a hole regarding population growth, the "If we don't immediately start sterilization en-masse the human race is going to die" crap sounds very much like alarmism with no basis in fact.

I am pretty positive that growth will eventually slow and then eventually fall to acceptable levels. Yes, their is a massive amount of population growth, but most of it is driven by poor second-and-third world countries, and these second and third world are not going to stay as poor as they currently are forever, and, based on how the birth rate declined in what are now first-world countries, the birth rate in these high-birthrate countries will decline as well.

I am pointing out this post, not to call out Wolfhunter specifically, but as amazingly placed proof of what I'm saying about trying to avoid thinking about the real problem. Though all of my arguments were focused around the existing glut of human beings and the extreme consumption rates of all societies on earth with stabilized population rates, the immediate response is to try to reshift the idea of the problem of population to the reproductive habits of all the ignorant poors.

I will say again. We, living now, are the essence of the issue. Already living people are doing the consumption that's destroying the planet and ourselves. We are not looking at some temporary risk of hardship with population growth followed by settling into some peaceful replacement-only 10 billion scenario. The 7.3 billion we have now are already in the red, heavily.

I always get this reaction, without fail, whenever I talk about overpopulation. The first words out of everyone's mouths is trying to escape responsibility by blaming third worlders, but that isn't even what this is about.