PDA

View Full Version : Serious philosophical question



Sad, little man
September 1st, 2015, 06:08 AM
I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the long term stability of humanity. Between the effects of climate change, the possibility of natural resource depletion and subsequent scarcity due to an ever-increasing global population, and the uncertain effects that the exponential advancement of technology will have, I'm truly worried about the long term viability of our world.

Based on the track record of past societies, namely the fact that they tend to have a habit of collapsing at a certain point, it leads me towards a nihilistic view of current life, and I'm compelled to conduct my life accordingly.

On the other side of the coin, I'm cognizant of the fact that many generations in the past have also harbored fears about the future of our society, fears that ultimately proved to be unfounded.

So ultimately, what does everyone think? Are we truly at a tipping point of civilization, or is all of this just the way our generation manifests it's natural fear of annihilation, and ultimately the worst case scenarios will not come to fruition?

Yw-slayer
September 1st, 2015, 06:20 AM
As long as it doesn't get in the way of #madgainz

Cam
September 1st, 2015, 06:42 AM
I still have hope that humanity will eventually pull out of the nose-dive that it is currently in and that reason will eventually triumph over ignorance.

Unfortunately, there are still two very large hurdles yet to be jumped that keep screwing us: greed and religious zealotry.

MR2 Fan
September 1st, 2015, 07:18 AM
look on the bright side, if everyone dies, no one will care

Freude am Fahren
September 1st, 2015, 07:44 AM
I think the only way we'll make it to like 2200 is a huge decrease in population. Either it happens sooner and we make it on our terms, or it happens later as a result of disease or famine or whatever, and it's some post-apocalyptic type thing.

Or we find another Earth-like planet we can live on and the means to get there.

GB
September 1st, 2015, 08:09 AM
We have become so dependent on our technological infrastructure that most of the West has forgotten how to survive. I know I don't truly know how to provide for my family on a basic level. I don't fish, hunt, raise animals, or even have a vegetable garden.

George
September 1st, 2015, 09:01 AM
We have become so dependent on our technological infrastructure that most of the West has forgotten how to survive. I know I don't truly know how to provide for my family on a basic level. I don't fish, hunt, raise animals, or even have a vegetable garden.

The excellent novel "Earth Abides" by George R. Stewart goes into this a bit, and it was published in 1949!


Unfortunately, there are still two very large hurdles yet to be jumped that keep screwing us: greed and religious zealotry.

The entire history of mankind, brought to us by Cam.

:up: <--that's for Cam

:smh: <--that's for humans in general

Crazed_Insanity
September 1st, 2015, 09:09 AM
I love a quote on Braveheart movie poster.

"Everyone dies, but not everyone really lives."

There are always 2 sides to the same coin.

End is inevitable. Whether it's your own demise or an empire or the entire humanity. No need to worry yourself to death regarding such certainty.

The question is how you'd want to live your current life because that's the only thing firmly in your control.

You want to reach that end faster? Or you want to live your current life to the full before you're gone?

Great historical figures are also the ones who helped others lived their lives fuller.

21Kid
September 1st, 2015, 09:27 AM
Agree with Cam.



Cam for president!!!

MR2 Fan
September 1st, 2015, 10:50 AM
I think the only way we'll make it to like 2200 is a huge decrease in population. Either it happens sooner and we make it on our terms, or it happens later as a result of disease or famine or whatever, and it's some post-apocalyptic type thing.

Or we find another Earth-like planet we can live on and the means to get there.

I disagree. Population isn't the problem on its own. It's use of resources. Population is going to peak at 10 billion people most likely, and there's still a lot of people who use very little resources to live. It's the western (and increasingly eastern as well) powers which are taking up most of the oil, clean water, etc.

Remember, the U.S. uses 25% of the world's oil

Dicknose
September 1st, 2015, 11:54 AM
But the percentage of people trying to live at this higher level of consumption is increasing.
India and China have a growing middle class.
Migration is becoming a big issue as more people seek a better life in the west.

I think civilisation will go on for a long while.
But there will be some big upheavals as the "haves" and "have nots" sort things out.
This will be social and political changes as we struggle to work out how to share the planet.

Godson
September 1st, 2015, 03:16 PM
I'd wager to say the bigger picture is that most people refuse to accept complacence of what they have. Always wanting more and never being content with their life. This creates a vacuum of sorts.

G'day Mate
September 1st, 2015, 03:18 PM
I make my own beer - I'll be fine.

Rikadyn
September 1st, 2015, 03:24 PM
I'd wager to say the bigger picture is that most people refuse to accept complacence of what they have. Always wanting more and never being content with their life. This creates a vacuum of sorts.

How much of that is the consumerist culture sold to us to keep the corporations afloat these days. Profit driven enterprises can only exist when people are and must buy new things to replace the "outmodded" stuff they already have

Godson
September 1st, 2015, 03:33 PM
I'd not say consumerist, yet societal pressures. We always want more, but we usually have more than enough ( in developed countries ). We should be thankful of what we have and enjoy our time on this rock and try to make the next go round better.

Cam
September 1st, 2015, 03:57 PM
Cam for president!!!
I was not US born, therefore I am ineligible to be the US president. :(

Rikadyn
September 1st, 2015, 04:02 PM
I was not US born, therefore I am ineligible to be the US president. :(

You can be the next Ted Cruz...

George
September 1st, 2015, 04:16 PM
Or Barack Obama. :p

SkylineObsession
September 1st, 2015, 04:23 PM
In all honesty, aside from a deadly disease, huge climate change, nuclear war, or a meteor/comet storm, i believe this is another way the world could end:

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11121/111213315/4737225-3670021528-38791.jpg

G'day Mate
September 1st, 2015, 04:37 PM
Some are predicting a technological singularity before 2030 ... but then again the initial predictions of AI were WAAAAAAAAAAYYYY off

Sad, little man
September 1st, 2015, 05:03 PM
To be honest, if we assume a fair chance of serious unrest in the next generation or so, it really calls into question the idea of having children. I mean, how goddamn selfish to bring someone into the world for your own joy, knowing full well that you'll be gone before things get ugly and they'll inherent a very unstable and dangerous world, through no fault of their own.

This doesn't even touch on the fact that obviously you're contributing to the over-population thing.

This is going to sound extremely fascist, but sometimes it's really nauseating how we seem to take this right to spread around our DNA through offspring as such an inherent right. Yeah yeah, I know, I won't understand unless I actually have kids, I don't get it, bundle of joy and all that. Sorry folks, I have to maintain the position that your mini-me is no more a unique snowflake than anyone else's. In fact, sadly, they're probably destined to be plowed to the side of the road and mixed in with a bunch of dirty grime from the pavement.

Dear god I'm being pessimistic. I need a drink. Ah, I've already had one, excellent.

Cam
September 1st, 2015, 05:37 PM
Having one child is not contributing to overpopulation. If you and your mate had two children, that would simply maintain the current population.

Sad, little man
September 1st, 2015, 07:07 PM
Still seems irresponsible from an ethical standpoint. You're forcing someone into a world which has a reasonable chance of becoming very difficult and dangerous within their lifetime. You can argue that that risk it's always there, but that comes back to my original question.

thesameguy
September 1st, 2015, 07:10 PM
Can't speak for others, but I was always under the impression a significant point of having kids was to put what you've learned in your life into their life, so that in some small way you might steer the boat. I don't feel I have anything useful to contribute to the next generation, or more accurately put, I don't have the interest in dialing that in and sharing it, so I'm not reproducing. If I thought I would be a good parent, with good things to say, and that I might create something that would do future good I'd be cranking them out. But I don't, so I'm not.

MR2 Fan
September 1st, 2015, 07:20 PM
Having one child is not contributing to overpopulation. If you and your mate had two children, that would simply maintain the current population.

I think I posted this before on another thread but it's worth watching...it's partially about religion and babies but mostly about the peak of babies being born compared to 4 different factors.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezVk1ahRF78

G'day Mate
September 1st, 2015, 07:42 PM
That visualisation is really interesting!!

Dicknose
September 1st, 2015, 07:53 PM
Having one child is not contributing to overpopulation. If you and your mate had two children, that would simply maintain the current population.

Not exactly.
There are several other factors.
Mr2fan video right at the end explains how there is a "fill-up". It's due to previous generations having higher birth rate. So if birth rate now was exactly 2, then over then next 50 year the total population still grows as you rebalance the age distribution.

Other factors can be increased lifespan. Still have 2 kids, but live longer, population growth. That has happened in some places.
Think of it as more generations alive. More great grandparents (and great great grandparents)

Balancing that is that many western countries are now having children later. This decreases the population by having less generations. More people live to 90 but each generation has kids at 30, that's less generations than having them at 20 and only living to 80.

Yw-slayer
September 1st, 2015, 08:27 PM
Maybe some countries will end up with Idiocracy. :eek:

21Kid
September 2nd, 2015, 06:20 AM
Not to mention the fact that people aren't dying fast enough now-a-days... There are way more old people than there was 50 years ago

Dicknose
September 2nd, 2015, 09:49 AM
Not to mention the fact that people aren't dying fast enough now-a-days... There are way more old people than there was 50 years ago
Which is a combo of longer life expectancy AND the "fill up" as the birth rate decreased.

This has a big impact in many western nations as an ageing population puts a bit strain on resources. Higher health costs with a bigger percentage of people not working.
What happens when your retired population becomes 30% of your population? That's a big load to carry.
(Quick google, the U.S. Over 65 is about 13% as of 2010, but it's still increasing and probably won't peak for another 50 years)

Crazed_Insanity
September 3rd, 2015, 11:32 AM
Still seems irresponsible from an ethical standpoint. You're forcing someone into a world which has a reasonable chance of becoming very difficult and dangerous within their lifetime. You can argue that that risk it's always there, but that comes back to my original question.

Hey, nobody asked us to be born into this world and nobody asked us for permission to pre-program us to become horny!

Seriously, we're consuming oxygen and breathing out CO2 and contributing to global warming! I can understand that perhaps we need to slow deforestation and plant more trees, but we can't really see ourselves naturally breathing out CO2 as something unethical, right? Sure we could practice safe sex and abort a baby, but I don't think we are doing those things for the baby's benefit. :p

Anyway, your concerns are definitely valid, but again, remember there are always 2 side of the same coin? Most snow flakes will be useful when it comes to nourish the land later on. Other people's 'unethical' decision to have kids resulted in creations of cars you love the drive, music you love to listen to, etc. It's not all bad! :p

Crazed_Insanity
September 3rd, 2015, 11:40 AM
Can't speak for others, but I was always under the impression a significant point of having kids was to put what you've learned in your life into their life, so that in some small way you might steer the boat. I don't feel I have anything useful to contribute to the next generation, or more accurately put, I don't have the interest in dialing that in and sharing it, so I'm not reproducing. If I thought I would be a good parent, with good things to say, and that I might create something that would do future good I'd be cranking them out. But I don't, so I'm not.

Passing on what we've learned is definitely beneficial. In the old days, I guess farmers just needed cheap laborers to farm the land so having kids is probably the cheapest way other than buying slaves!

But anyway, nowadays, unless it's purely a horny accident, chances are people have kids to love. Likewise, kids usually are not interested in learning old ways and help you farm your land. Besides playing and enjoying themselves, the thing they seek most is probably their parent's love too.

If you want to practice unconditional love, have a kid. Or adopt a kid. Or adopt a pet. Adopting a dog is probably a safest bet because dogs will also unconditionally love you back!

tigeraid
September 3rd, 2015, 12:21 PM
Because religion is nonsense, the idea that we MUST procreate is also nonsense.

From a purely scientific, evolutionary standpoint, obviously procreation is important. We are, however, massively massively overpopulated right now so the need for us to do it to bring the species forward is irrelevant.

Food and climate change are the two big problems with over-population, and there are really only two answers. Unfortunately, both are stymied by the (current) right wing and religious ideals: 1) limit procreation and/or 2) get the fuck out into space.

Limiting procreation does not HAVE to be done with a literal legal policy like China; it can be done, chiefly, by education. Simply changing the world view of "the more kids the better" would have a significant improvement on this problem. Unfortunately, religion spits on that idea any chance it gets. That's not to say there aren't atheists and agnostics having too many kids, but you damn well know a VERY big portion of those with too many goddamn kids are religious families and do it for dogmatic reasons.

(I've also seen several studies suggesting poverty seems to go hand-in-hand with too many kids; that's another problem entirely.)

Not only could the population be reduced through education about procreation, but getting humans the hell off this planet to colonize mars, the moon, and who knows where else, will solve the problem gradually as well. I don't mean next friggin' year, I mean a long-term, well-planned, ABUNDANTLY-financed plan with the goal of putting thousands of people out into the solar system to colonize. It would have the added effect of gaining natural resources from other planets and asteroids as well.

AND, although this is a rather morbid point, colonizing the rest of the solar system would help ensure we as a species survive if shit DOES hit the fan on Earth.

Science can solve all of these problems, and the problems of climate change; unfortunately, since the United States leads the way in scientific endeavours but has a government obsessed with stamping them out, we fight an uphill battle.

Cam
September 3rd, 2015, 12:26 PM
I think I posted this before on another thread but it's worth watching...
Great talk. :up:

Crazed_Insanity
September 3rd, 2015, 12:46 PM
Because religion is nonsense, the idea that we MUST procreate is also nonsense.

From a purely scientific, evolutionary standpoint, obviously procreation is important.

Got it. Procreation is important nonsense! :D

BTW, that TED talk MR2 posted definitely agrees that education is important. However, blaming over-population solely on religion is nonsense.

thesameguy
September 3rd, 2015, 12:56 PM
Indeed... as that video quantifies.

I would have said it before, but too many babies is a product of poverty. Hans confirms my belief, so I highly recommend his video.

tigeraid
September 3rd, 2015, 03:05 PM
I contradicted myself on purpose. My point is that natural, evolutionary progress demands we procreate. So does religion. The difference is we have no problem ignoring all sorts of other natural genetic behaviour, because we're intelligent enough to do so. Unfortunately, that intelligence is squashed into the dirt by religion more often than not.

Crazed_Insanity
September 3rd, 2015, 07:10 PM
You are just so brain washed into believing everything can be blamed on religion. That TED talk shows that religions don't matter. Birth rates will reduce as living conditions improve and as women become more educated.

tigeraid
September 4th, 2015, 06:51 AM
EVERYTHING? No. A lot of things. Not teaching people to "go forth and be fruitful" would put a serious, serious dent in overpopulation. It's a simple fact. So would be universally accepting an standing behind contraception, rather than half the world believing it makes a make-believe deity angry. It's all nonsense and bullshit, and it's stagnating progress. In ADDITION, fixing the problem of poverty and increasing education about contraception and responsible child-bearing would also help. Multiple solutions, with religion being the biggest, most serious, and hardest to combat.

tigeraid
September 4th, 2015, 06:52 AM
Birth rates will reduce as living conditions improve and as women become more educated.

Except that continues to also be stagnated thanks to religion.

thesameguy
September 4th, 2015, 08:55 AM
I don't know where you are getting that from. There is zero evidence that supports that position. Religion has been shown over and over to have nothing to do with global birthrates. There are certainly pockets of religious people who have babies for god, but there are pockets of wealthy people who have babies because they can. It's statistically insignificant. The established causal link to birthrates is money, period, and has been for a hundred years.

Crazed_Insanity
September 4th, 2015, 09:15 AM
Well, based on that TED talk, money isn't the main issue either. To summarize, here are the 4 keys for birthrate reduction:
1)Children has to be able to survive.
2)Children are NOT needed to work.
3)Women getting education and able to join workforce
4)Accessible family planning

Obviously most of these key points can be improved as population gets richer, (is that what you meant by casual link?) but it's just not always true. Presenter made a note of it as he compares rich Qatar and much poorer Bangladesh. Both nations reduced their birthrates since the early 70's down to 2 babies/woman while the income gaps between the 2 nations remained.

Crazed_Insanity
September 4th, 2015, 09:18 AM
Except that continues to also be stagnated thanks to religion.

Dude, you really need to watch that TED talk again. Watch it a few times so maybe it can unbrain wash your brain! :p

You know, when population of all nations someday become more stabilized and making living wages, if religions continue to not make any difference in people's lives, then you just may get your wish that humanity will then abandon their stupid faiths.

thesameguy
September 4th, 2015, 09:27 AM
Obviously most of these key points can be improved as population gets richer, (is that what you meant by casual link?) but it's just not always true. Presenter made a note of it as he compares rich Qatar and much poorer Bangladesh. Both nations reduced their birthrates since the early 70's down to 2 babies/woman while the income gaps between the 2 nations remained.

I don't mean "money" in the individual wealth sense, but money in general. The way children survive is better healthcare, which costs money. The way you get children out of the workforce is pay the parents more, which costs money. The way women (or anyone!) gets educated is money. The way you fund family planning is money. When people are left to their own devices and lack an external support structure they reproduce like animals. Once you build out that infrastructure (which costs money), people tend to gravitate towards higher functioning. You can make the people richer and let them do it themselves, or you can place the infrastructure for them. Either way, it's money. :)

Crazed_Insanity
September 4th, 2015, 09:48 AM
Sigh... it's so sad that it's money that makes the world go around... not the Creator of heaven and earth! :p

thesameguy
September 4th, 2015, 09:49 AM
It could be food or beer or gold. Whatever the currency is probably doesn't matter. People always need to trade.

tigeraid
September 4th, 2015, 10:42 AM
I'm at work so I can't watch the TED talk. I've watched plenty in the past, I'm sure it's fascinating, and I will do so later.

So, your essential argument is that religious dogma does not affect population growth? That's literally the statement you're going with? That a complete invalidation and condemnation of contraception couldn't possibly affect how many babies are born? I'm having trouble with that logic.

And yes, obviously there are plenty of people who "just want big families" and absolutely, poverty is a big one too. Poverty might even be the biggest one. But you don't think that millions of people being told by the guy in the Giant Fuck-You Hat that you should never use a condom and you should have as many babies as possible has any real affect on it?

tigeraid
September 4th, 2015, 10:45 AM
EDIT: read this summary of the TED talk.

http://www.julietbennett.com/2012/05/24/does-religion-affect-population-growth/

She raises the same question I had, which is: SURELY being told by your religion AND society not to control yourself doesn't help population control! Seems pretty logical. And he lumps Catholicism in with every other Christian faith? I was always of the understanding that contraception was SPECIFICALLY an evil to Catholics, while other faiths are less strict about it.

She also raises the excellent point that culture, which is GREATLY influenced by the dominant religion of a given region, also affects opinions on procreation. India being the big example she provided. I see no reason not to consider that the same thing.

tigeraid
September 4th, 2015, 10:49 AM
This echoes my statement. I suppose the only argument is which factor has more weight than the others, but in the end it doesn't matter.


Education, financial independence for women, questioning of religious and cultural traditions and availability of resources for family planning” can be then summed up to "education for critical thinking (including in regards to religions, economic and political institutions) & developing ethical institutions for the management of resources…" I think this would not only help tackle population growth in India, but it would dramatically help create peace with justice in the world.

tigeraid
September 4th, 2015, 11:02 AM
Heh, interesting. In the 70s when the American government first started tackling the issues of population control, The Presbyterian Church actually got on board:

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2014/11/overpopulation-a-threat-caused-by-religion/


Even mainstream religious denominations called for a bold response to the problem. In 1965 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church urged “the government of the United States to be ready to assist countries who request help in the development of programs of voluntary planned parenthood as a practical and humane means of controlling fertility and population growth.” By 1971, it recognized that “the assumption that couples have the freedom to have as many children as they can support should be challenged. We can no longer justify bringing into existence as many children as we desire. Our corporate responsibility to each other prohibits this.” And in 1972, the Presbyterians called on governments “to take such actions as will stabilize population size…. We who are motivated by the urgency of overpopulation…would preserve the species by responding in faith: Do not multiply-the earth is filled!”

But at the very same time, because the Catholic Church was absolutely determined to make sure the word of God was infallable, they opposed anything involving population control or contraception even though their own experts agreed it was a problem.


President Richard Nixon set in motion a broad range of government actions to address the problem of overpopulation. Among these was the creation of the Rockefeller Commission which made over seventy recommendations, including establishing population education programs in the schools, sex education, especially through the schools, and contraception and abortion available for all, including minors, at government expense if necessary.[11]

These bold suggestions were immediately challenged. When Rockefeller was asked later why no concrete program resulted from the Commission’s recommendations, he responded: “The greatest difficulty has been the very active opposition by the Roman Catholic Church through its various agencies in the United States.”

thesameguy
September 4th, 2015, 12:59 PM
That's all cool, but the bottom line the statistics do not show that religion has anything to do with population growth. While it's true "western religion" was lumped into a single category in that TED talk and given that Catholics frown on contraception the only conclusion you can draw is that either there aren't enough Catholics in the world to offset the rest of western religion, or there are condom wearing Catholics just like there are caffeine drinking Mormons and adultering and coveting Christians. Regardless of what the component facts might be, which we cannot know, the overarching truth is that there is absolutely zero link between ANY religion - eastern, western, or otherwise - and population growth. At *most* there are anecdotes. "Religion makes babies" is as anecdotal and irrelevant as "black people commit crimes." It's a statistically invalid comment and a generalization that has no basis in an intelligent conversation. You are welcome to hate religion for all sorts of reasons, but at least hate it for things it's guilty of. Anything else is just the same old fear mongering bullshit that makes getting anything done impossible. Stick to the facts.

TL;DR truthiness

Crazed_Insanity
September 4th, 2015, 01:10 PM
So, your essential argument is that religious dogma does not affect population growth? That's literally the statement you're going with? That a complete invalidation and condemnation of contraception couldn't possibly affect how many babies are born?

Based on facts, the answers to your questions are yes.

Human beings are not Vulcans. We don't live our lives based on logic alone.

Illogical things happen on earth all the time! Heck, even the computers we created can become illogical at times and crash! :p

Seriously, if people are really all that obedient with God or Pope or authorities, we'd have world peace a long time ago.

MR2 Fan
September 4th, 2015, 01:51 PM
Seriously, if people are really all that obedient with God or Pope or authorities, we'd have world peace a long time ago.

:twitch:

The problem with your theory is that there are a lot of gray areas that aren't covered in the Bible, the Pope is a fallible human just like the rest of us, and the definition of "God" varies from every person you talk to.....BUT this isn't the religion thread, so I'll stop now.

sandydandy
September 4th, 2015, 05:55 PM
Been watching this thread all week, but didn't get the chance to properly sit down and express my thoughts until now...


I still have hope that humanity will eventually pull out of the nose-dive that it is currently in and that reason will eventually triumph over ignorance.

Unfortunately, there are still two very large hurdles yet to be jumped that keep screwing us: greed and religious zealotry. Well put, Cam. As always.

Sadly, this isn't anything new. People have always known how to prey on the fear and greed of the masses. As long as that savory, delectable, yet unattainable carrot is dangled in front of their noses, people will eat each other and humanity will continue to deteriorate.

Do I sound like a pessimist? Not really. I'm a realist. I just got over the idea a long time ago that that's how the system works. It is what it is...so what? That's the way of the world. Thousands of years ago we worshipped gods, kings, and Pharaohs...today we worship the Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerbergs, and celebrities of the world by buying their products and watching their games and movies. We did this to ourselves, and we'll never change.

Doesn't mean we can't still live meaningful lives and pursue some semblance of happiness while we're here. Whether it's gaining fulfillment from our daily work and relationships, or striving to achieve goals and/or new and exciting experiences, or having the hope that our kids will be able to do and experience what we couldn't, and living vicariously through them. There's a sense of satisfaction there that's worth hanging on to. That's the human spirit, and it's worth embracing. Otherwise might as well just stop breathing.

Or some of us can sit back and wait for some magical deity to come back to Earth and save us all. You might be waiting a long ass time...but this isn't the Religion thread, so I'll leave it at that.


I mean, how goddamn selfish to bring someone into the world for your own joy, knowing full well that you'll be gone before things get ugly and they'll inherent a very unstable and dangerous world, through no fault of their own. The world we inherited from our parents is not as good as what they had, yet they didn't get to enjoy a lot of the goodies that we have in our time. Our kids will experience more of the same, but they'll adapt.‎


Yeah yeah, I know, I won't understand unless I actually have kids, I don't get it, bundle of joy and all that. Sorry folks, I have to maintain the position that your mini-me is no more a unique snowflake than anyone else's. In fact, sadly, they're probably destined to be plowed to the side of the road and mixed in with a bunch of dirty grime from the pavement. Well if they're born into a poverty environment and mentality, then surely they're destined to be kicked to the curb, and will cry about it for the rest of their lives. If they're nurtured and encouraged along the way, and develop the proper habits, work ethic, and self-esteem during their formative years, then there's no reason to believe that they won't go on to live fulfilling lives. Doesn't mean having millions of dollars in the bank, per se, but I'm sure that always helps. :)


Dear god I'm being pessimistic. I need a drink. Ah, I've already had one, excellent. Yes you are, my friend. Have another. I just did.


Still seems irresponsible from an ethical standpoint. You're forcing someone into a world which has a reasonable chance of becoming very difficult and dangerous within their lifetime. You can argue that that risk it's always there, but that comes back to my original question. Naw man, it's not unethical or irresponsible. As long as you have the means to support them emotionally and financially, then there's nothing wrong with having kids. There's so much to gain that people who don't have them will never know.

Kids will grow up to become adults and will find their way in the world. That's how it is, that's how it always was, and always will be, (barring all-out nuclear war).

Selfish, unethical, and irresponsible would be those people who can't afford them, and yet continue to procreate, and then use their offsprings as tools in society for personal gain, (ie. free money). We need to license people to have kids.

You want unethical and selfish? Look no further than the Octomom. Seriously, what the fuck???

tigeraid
September 5th, 2015, 04:44 AM
I think we can all agree the Octomom should be shot. Using the guns I don't believe in.

Returning to the original topic at hand anyway, I am at heart an optimist and firmly believe the human race can survive and thrive--if shithead climate change denialists, religious fundamentalists, super right-wing neoconservatives AND people who celebrate ignorance and a lack of intelligence get the hell out of the way. Or, if we move them out of the way.

FaultyMario
September 5th, 2015, 07:02 AM
A 'local' dude, has a philosophy and has written extensively (http://www.edtechpost.ca/readings/John%20Holloway%20-%20Change%20the%20World%20Without%20Taking%20Power .pdf) on the subject (http://www.commoner.org.uk/04holloway2.pdf) of transitioning to an anti-power society.
If you agree that both financial and symbolic capital (http://www.soc.duke.edu/~jmoody77/TheoryNotes/bourdieu.htm) are representations of power (https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=vNK6Tisyl_8C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false), it might be worth it to give a good read.

LHutton
September 5th, 2015, 08:26 AM
I think the only way we'll make it to like 2200 is a huge decrease in population. Either it happens sooner and we make it on our terms, or it happens later as a result of disease or famine or whatever, and it's some post-apocalyptic type thing.

Or we find another Earth-like planet we can live on and the means to get there.
Well that's my take on things too. But after decades of criticising the Chinese for the 'inhumanity' of a single child policy, you'll be hard-pushed to get politicians to admit it's a problem.


I disagree. Population isn't the problem on its own. It's use of resources. Population is going to peak at 10 billion people most likely, and there's still a lot of people who use very little resources to live. It's the western (and increasingly eastern as well) powers which are taking up most of the oil, clean water, etc.

Remember, the U.S. uses 25% of the world's oil
Use of resources certainly can make it worse, but for any given usage, more people always makes it worse.

http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/wp-content/Pop-vs-emissions.pdf

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/pop_v_emiss_fig1.JPG

MR2 Fan
September 5th, 2015, 12:38 PM
what about bovine emissions?

LHutton
September 6th, 2015, 01:20 AM
Cows are primarily reared to provide for the consumption of humans (beef, milk, cheese etc.).

Crazed_Insanity
September 8th, 2015, 08:50 AM
I think we can all agree the Octomom should be shot. Using the guns I don't believe in.

Returning to the original topic at hand anyway, I am at heart an optimist and firmly believe the human race can survive and thrive--if shithead climate change denialists, religious fundamentalists, super right-wing neoconservatives AND people who celebrate ignorance and a lack of intelligence get the hell out of the way. Or, if we move them out of the way.

Those are a lot of 'ands'! I think it's unlikely that all of your conditions can be met... unless of course you can somehow rise into power and become the next 'good' Hitler and get rid of the world of all the religions or religious people who disagree with you so that you can realize your dream of a race of atheistic people who'd all agree with you or with one another? Dream on. :p Okay, maybe your next targeted groups of folks to go would be the group of folks with different political ideologies... so maybe when all the atheistic conservatives are dead, then you can have world peace? ;) Again, Dream on.

We can all do our part to allow our species to survive and thrive. Some of us will be wrong and some of us will be right. Only time will tell. The least we can do is do what we believe is the right thing to do for now.

tigeraid
September 8th, 2015, 10:52 AM
As amazing as an atheistic society would be, I would easily settle for "actual, real, true separation of church and state, worldwide." Which I agree, "dream on."

thesameguy
September 8th, 2015, 11:01 AM
Why care? Climate science has nothing to do with religion, and yet there is a staunch group of deniers out there gumming up the works. You are never going to separate people from their beliefs - whether rational or irrational - so who cares whether it's FSM or dying polar bears? I don't agree with reality TV and would lobby hard for the separation of state and professional sports and would probably take a dozen rabid Christians over a dozen rabid sports fans, but I don't see us mulching Raider Nation or the church, so whatever. I don't think what people believe in has anything to do with anything - the only important thing is for them to believe in their stupid things in such a way that you don't need to defend the stupid things you believe in. A world of atheism doesn't solve anything, it just changes the conflict. Zero sum game.

MR2 Fan
September 8th, 2015, 12:04 PM
A world of atheism doesn't solve anything, it just changes the conflict. Zero sum game.

QFT. Humans are by nature, irrational, illogical and dangerous beings. I'm not sure if we'll ever move entirely beyond that.

Kchrpm
September 8th, 2015, 12:51 PM
Once we have AI implants to monitor and control us, everything should be fine.

Jason
September 8th, 2015, 01:09 PM
QFT. Humans are by nature, irrational, illogical and dangerous beings. I'm not sure if we'll ever move entirely beyond that.

Frankly, world peace won't happen until there is a non-abstract outside threat to the entire world. Basically we need aliens to be a threat to our existence. Until then we'll kill each other and be greedy as fuck in the process.

I could see us having some major changes in the world once climate change gets really bad, but for now its "small" changes that "don't impact me" so no one really cares.

thesameguy
September 8th, 2015, 01:42 PM
Frankly, world peace won't happen until there is a non-abstract outside threat to the entire world. Basically we need aliens to be a threat to our existence. Until then we'll kill each other and be greedy as fuck in the process.

I could see us having some major changes in the world once climate change gets really bad, but for now its "small" changes that "don't impact me" so no one really cares.

Agreed... and striking the balance between "world threat that unifies" and "world threat that fractures" is going to be tough. The threat needs to be big enough to be real, and quantified well enough for us to understand success comes by global sacrifice and banding together. If there's any hope "me and my guns in the hills" is a reasonable solution, it'll go downhill fast.

Ultimately I don't care much. I only need another 50 or so years out of this rock, then I relinquish my interest.

TheBenior
September 8th, 2015, 01:44 PM
Frankly, world peace won't happen until there is a non-abstract outside threat to the entire world. Basically we need aliens to be a threat to our existence. Until then we'll kill each other and be greedy as fuck in the process.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/underwire/2009/07/watchmen-squid.jpg

FaultyMario
September 11th, 2015, 09:18 AM
And so we are back to square one. After a century or so of the happy marital cohabitation between ethics and rational-instrumental reason, the second partner opted out of the marriage and ethics remained alone in charge of the once shared household. And when alone, ethics is vulnerable and does not find it easy to stand its ground on its own.

The question 'Am I my brother's keeper?', which not long ago was thought to be answered once and for all and so seldom was heard, is asked again, more vociferously and belligerently by the day. And people wishing for a 'yes' answer try desperately, yet with no evident success, to make it sound convincing in the cool and businesslike language of interests. What they should do instead is to reassert, boldly and explicitly, the ethical reason for the welfare state - the only reason the welfare state needs to justify its presence in a humane and civilized society.

From Zygmunt Bauman's "Am I my brother's keeper?" Essay (http://theology.co.kr/wwwb/data/levinas/levinas11.pdf).

Good read, if anyone has the time.

overpowered
September 11th, 2015, 12:36 PM
I could see us having some major changes in the world once climate change gets really bad, but for now its "small" changes that "don't impact me" so no one really cares.It's funny though. Since 1990, the average global sea level has risen 8 inches. Florida is having worse flooding than ever, which actually is effecting the people there and they still elected Rick Scott.

Godson
September 11th, 2015, 10:22 PM
Per "the world is a worse place mentality," a statement I STRONGLY disagree.

Please watch


https://vimeo.com/128373915