population reduction after ecnomic collapse

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Sorry mr g for not being contructive i was drunk and i hope you where to (even though i doubt it) when you wrote your insane genocidal post.Unlike you i dont blame the little man for the ills of the world i blame it's leadership.You can take the world of sports for instance if a team has bad coach and a management thats broke and corrupt if the team doesnt preform well who has the ultimate responibillity i would say the coach and the management.I know this may sound a little simplefied but in the world to day we have a leadership that doesnt do shit to benefit humanity insted they start wars rape third world nations leave them in poverty and when there is not enough dollars to go around they want to start killing people. the best way to control population is to raise the stanard of living for people and remember i write this out of the prespective that your little global warming religon is a hoax partially invented as an excuase to not indurialize the third world.You can call me crazy i really dont care i am not the one advocating genocide.

You still don't understand what genocide is do you?





It is fine if you don't agree with ThaG, but why don't you try to provide more constructive arguments against his points?

So your solution to the problem of overpopulation is to "raise the stanard of living for people"? How do you propose to do that while at the same time not exhausting the limited resources available to us? FYI - global warming caused by humans (whether or not it exists) is far from the only side effect of overpopulation as you have seemingly neglected to mention any of the others.

You must agree that there is a limit to the number of people that the Earth can support. Lets say for the sake of the argument that you don't think we have reached that limit as of yet. So we utilize your suggestion and raise the standard of living for everyone on earth, consume more resources, and increase the total population to 30 Billion. When earth reaches the point when even you would agree it is unable to support the amount of people, what THEN do you propose to do about the problem overpopulation?

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

I didn't answer the question because I didn't understand what you were getting at. Maybe I am not aware of the meaning of the metaphor you use but why should I go to jail to begin with?

In other words, will YOU be left alive or killed off? You speak from "their" point of view, as if YOU are one of the ones that will be left to live on and advance the race...who says YOUR card is punched to go to the "big show"? Maybe YOU will not meet the criteria "they" seek.

This is why people think youre a douche bag...your constant imperialistic views and "i sit on a cloud of judgment handing down life-lessons and belittling the underlings" attitude really gets tiresome.

BTW, there is no clear cut measurement of intelligence. So this argument may be completely moot anyways.

 

[james blunt]

You still don't understand what genocide is do you?





It is fine if you don't agree with ThaG, but why don't you try to provide more constructive arguments against his points?

So your solution to the problem of overpopulation is to "raise the stanard of living for people"? How do you propose to do that while at the same time not exhausting the limited resources available to us? FYI - global warming caused by humans (whether or not it exists) is far from the only side effect of overpopulation as you have seemingly neglected to mention any of the others.

You must agree that there is a limit to the number of people that the Earth can support. Lets say for the sake of the argument that you don't think we have reached that limit as of yet. So we utilize your suggestion and raise the standard of living for everyone on earth, consume more resources, and increase the total population to 30 Billion. When earth reaches the point when even you would agree it is unable to support the amount of people, what THEN do you propose to do about the problem overpopulation?

off course there limits there are limits to every thing but the global warming and overpopulation talk is politics not sciense coming out off left center of the angloamerican elite.Now i dont have the statistics to argue with thag on every point i just have a hard time beliving in politcs and academics thats been corrupted by oligarchy organisations like bilderberg group and the club of rome.

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

off course there limits there are limits to every thing but the global warming and overpopulation talk is politics not sciense coming out off left center of the angloamerican elite.Now i dont have the statistics to argue with thag on every point i just have a hard time beliving in politcs and academics thats been corrupted by oligarchy organisations like bilderberg group and the club of rome.

That is great but totally irrelevant to the questions I posed to you.

How do you propose to;

1) "raise the stanard of living for people"

2) Deal with overpopulation/finite resources?

We agree the earth can only sustain a limited number of inhabitants, whether or not you think we have yet to reach that limit, what is your solution when we do?

 

[ThaG]

In other words, will YOU be left alive or killed off? You speak from "their" point of view, as if YOU are one of the ones that will be left to live on and advance the race...who says YOUR card is punched to go to the "big show"? Maybe YOU will not meet the criteria "they" seek.

This is why people think youre a douche bag...your constant inperialistic views and "i sit on a cloud of judgment handing down life-lessons and belittling the underlings" attitude really gets tiresome.

BTW, there is no clear cut measurement of intelligence. So this argument may be completely moot anyways.

What happens with me, or any person, does not matter at all in the big scheme of things. The important thing is to preserve civilization and its chances of making it out of this planet before it self-destructs (because this will happen, sooner or later due to our bio-behavioral characteristics).

 

[ThaG]

Sorry mr g for not being contructive i was drunk and i hope you where to (even though i doubt it) when you wrote your insane genocidal post.Unlike you i dont blame the little man for the ills of the world i blame it's leadership.You can take the world of sports for instance if a team has bad coach and a management thats broke and corrupt if the team doesnt preform well who has the ultimate responibillity i would say the coach and the management.I know this may sound a little simplefied but in the world to day we have a leadership that doesnt do shit to benefit humanity insted they start wars rape third world nations leave them in poverty and when there is not enough dollars to go around they want to start killing people. the best way to control population is to raise the stanard of living for people and remember i write this out of the prespective that your little global warming religon is a hoax partially invented as an excuase to not indurialize the third world.You can call me crazy i really dont care i am not the one advocating genocide.

I don't blame the little man, I blame Homo sapiens in general. We are in the situation we're in because we have not evolved any self-restraint mechanisms, and we have not evolved those because we have not been on top of the food chain for most of our history and because, again for most of it, we have been hunter-gatherers, with the mindset that come with it, i.e everything is out there for us to eat. Now we are on top of the food chain and we have the ability to do damage to the planet on an unprecedented scale, but we still don't have any self-restraint mechanisms to keep us in check.

This has nothing to do with the little man vs elite issue that most people are stuck in in their minds (mostly because they want to be elite and not little man). It is not the elite that does the most damage to the planet, it is the billions of little man who consume as if there is no tomorrow. That is not to say that the elite isn't responsible for this or that the elite is anything good as such, I am just stating that the difference between the elite and the little man is trivial compared to the common destructive element in their behavior, that they all inherited from our Stone Age predecessors.

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

What happens with me, or any person, does not matter at all in the big scheme of things. The important thing is to preserve civilization and its chances of making it out of this planet before it self-destructs (because this will happen, sooner or later due to our bio-behavioral characteristics).

But if you are not here to witness it, why do you care so much?

 

[radiostationrep]

i'm not reading through all this but know

we humans took it upon ourselves to dictate our envionment. everything has a place and reason for being here, or atleast in the begining. we dictate other species lifespan, environment, etc. we are the creators of our own demise. reproduction is a part of life, but not to the level it has reached. the only way the planet will survive is to reduce human life. regardless, none of us will be here to see the destruction come full circle, but its good to be aware.

 

[HERESY]

The number of people who meet the criteria is much smaller than the minimal number of people who will have to stay alive for civilization to be preserved (because we have to cut number to a few hundred millions at most, but we don't want to end up with 500,000 people on the whole planet either because this will be too few). Therefore it will be much easier to pick those who need to go

You spoke about expertise, and this does not answer the question so I'll repeat it. How do we define or gauge a persons level of expertise? Do we do so by what college a person graduates from? Does a person have to have graduated from an Ivy league school or does an AA from a community college work? What about college graduates (or high school students) who dropped out, entered other fields and made a fortune doing whatever it was they found their niche in? Does one need to publish a work or have some type of accolade that distinguishes them (experts) from those who aren't?

Actually it is the Average Joe that is most responsible, with his ignorance and generally anti-intellectualist attitude. This allowed for the people on top to exploit the Average Joe, and don't even for a second think that the people on top are drastically different from him in terms of their world view. And BTW I personally have understood these problems for a long time, of course my awareness has only grown deeper with time, but I come from an Average Joe background and this means that is perfectly possible for the Average Joe not to be the dumb ass he is right now. Especially in the age of the Internet

I agree with some of this. In many cases, there is no excuse for being dumb. However, look at countries that are stricken with poverty and/or war, lack education, have a high birth rate, and basically have a broken infrastructure. Many times their problems can be traced to the people on top doing something to keep them in bondage (the situation in Rwanda is a prime example.) So knowing these people did not cause their situation, how can they take the blame?

The one that produced the industrial civilization says exactly that, and its major institution still insists on this passage. It is certainly true that religion per se does not prohibit birth control, the second most successful large scale birth control program is in theocratic Iran in case you don't know. However, there is a big difference between Iran with its thousands of years of culture and history and the rest of the Muslim world, and in general, religion is definitely a hindrance to population control.

Again, not all christian sects adhere to that, but most importantly, not all religions prohibit birth control. Your argument would be better if you were to focus on specific groups/religions instead of relying on a vague and blanket use of the word like you did in the previous post.

BTW, heres an interesting little link to read. Make sure you click on some of the other articles within the link.

http://atheism.about.com/od/abortioncontraception/p/ReligionBirth.htm

We don't need irrationality, scientists' intuition may have suggested some experiment to be done here and there, but it was the experiment itself, performed by the rigorous standards of science that solved the problem. Irrational approaches have been historically shown to fail most of the time, that's why we have developed a systematic way of discovering objective truth about the world around us, called science, and it has a rich and history to back up its claim for superiority over everything else

Some of the claims made within science itself have been VERY irrational. Again, since we do not understand or universe, how everything works, etc, you are going to have irrational thinking or intution and this is regardless of the scientific method. If it holds up or not under testing is not the problem, the fact is, you can't eliminate irrationality because humans are going to think, say, imagine and do.

Intellectualism as a term is very rarely used because it does not make much sense, however, anti-intellectualism is a very well established term and we all know what it means so there is no need to twist things around and avoid the actual argument.

If the term intellectualism is rarely used and doesn't make sense, how then can you say anti-intellectualism is a very established term and say we all know what it means, when the word is derived from intellectualism?

So what exactly is your definition of anti-intellectualism? Is there a possibility that what you deem to be anti-intellectualism may be deemed something different by another party?

I didn't answer the question because I didn't understand what you were getting at. Maybe I am not aware of the meaning of the metaphor you use but why should I go to jail to begin with?

I Pukokeki explained it, and your answer was the one I expected. Thanks.

 

[james blunt]

That is great but totally irrelevant to the questions I posed to you.

How do you propose to;

1) "raise the stanard of living for people"

2) Deal with overpopulation/finite resources?

We agree the earth can only sustain a limited number of inhabitants, whether or not you think we have yet to reach that limit, what is your solution when we do?

look i am not tryin to make an argument based on statistics and sciense i'm trying to make a political one and i'm sorry if you cant tell the diffrense.What i am saying is that the facts thag is claiming is fucked up because they come from a fuckt up source.and if dont belive me i advice you to do some research.

 

[ThaG]

But if you are not here to witness it, why do you care so much?

I have previously talked about the ontogenetic vs phylogenetic instinct for survival

 

[ThaG]

look i am not tryin to make an argument based on statistics and sciense i'm trying to make a political one and i'm sorry if you cant tell the diffrense.What i am saying is that the facts thag is claiming is fucked up because they come from a fuckt up source.and if dont belive me i advice you to do some research.

That's the problem

People think politically, while the problems are in the physical reality realm.

And what exactly is the fucked up source my facts come from? And why is it fucked up?

 

[ThaG]

You spoke about expertise, and this does not answer the question so I'll repeat it. How do we define or gauge a persons level of expertise? Do we do so by what college a person graduates from? Does a person have to have graduated from an Ivy league school or does an AA from a community college work? What about college graduates (or high school students) who dropped out, entered other fields and made a fortune doing whatever it was they found their niche in? Does one need to publish a work or have some type of accolade that distinguishes them (experts) from those who aren't?

I do not have readily available definitions because it makes no sense to waste time thinking about such as we all know that I am talking about what we should do, not what we will do. BTW, I will state this once again, if we do what we should do, there is no need to kill a single person, we just have to stop having babies for some time and we will be a billion people down within 10 years so in about half a century we can easily make it down to the 500 million we should not exceed. And those will be much happier, well educated and well-fed 500 millions than the average person around the world today.

I agree with some of this. In many cases, there is no excuse for being dumb. However, look at countries that are stricken with poverty and/or war, lack education, have a high birth rate, and basically have a broken infrastructure. Many times their problems can be traced to the people on top doing something to keep them in bondage (the situation in Rwanda is a prime example.) So knowing these people did not cause their situation, how can they take the blame?

You are right that Rwanda's (and Africa's in general) situation is largely the result of colonialism. However, when I use the term "Average Joe", I don't mean Africa, I mean the West (because it does not apply that well to Africa).

Also, the Rwandans are in general much better aware of the Malthusian roots of their periodic genocides than the rest of the world is (at least based on the various accounts of the 1994 events and the previous genocides in the 60s and the 70s there and in Burundi that I have read)

Again, not all christian sects adhere to that, but most importantly, not all religions prohibit birth control. Your argument would be better if you were to focus on specific groups/religions instead of relying on a vague and blanket use of the word like you did in the previous post.

BTW, heres an interesting little link to read. Make sure you click on some of the other articles within the link.

http://atheism.about.com/od/abortioncontraception/p/ReligionBirth.htm

Roman Catholic Christianity & Birth Control:

Roman Catholicism is popularly associated with a strict anti-contraception position, but this strictness only dates to Pope Pius XI’s 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii. Before this, there was more debate on birth control, but it was generally condemned like abortion. This is because sex was treated as having no value except for reproduction; therefore, hindering reproduction encouraged sinful uses of sex. Nevertheless, bans on contraception are not an infallible teaching and could change.
Protestant Christianity & Birth Control:

Protestantism is perhaps one of the most diffuse and de-centralized religious traditions in the world. There is almost nothing that isn’t true of some denomination somewhere. Opposition to birth control is increasing in conservative evangelical circles who are, curiously, relying heavily on Catholic teachings. The vast majority of Protesant denominations, theologians, and churches at least permit contraception and may even promote family planning as an important moral good.

that's what I am talking about

and this:

http://atheism.about.com/od/abortioncontraception/p/BirthControl.htm

One of the most visible means which the Christian Right uses to attack birth control is by opposing education about contraceptives and contraceptive techniques in sexual education classes in the public schools. There is a big push for abstinence-only programs, where students are taught that only about abstinence — not physical or chemical contraceptives. This helps people grow up relatively ignorant: if they aren’t aware of their options, then they aren’t likely to choose contraception.

Some of the claims made within science itself have been VERY irrational.

examples?

Again, since we do not understand or universe, how everything works, etc, you are going to have irrational thinking or intution and this is regardless of the scientific method. If it holds up or not under testing is not the problem, the fact is, you can't eliminate irrationality because humans are going to think, say, imagine and do.

I don't think you understand the nature of the rationalism vs superstition debate

If the term intellectualism is rarely used and doesn't make sense, how then can you say anti-intellectualism is a very established term and say we all know what it means, when the word is derived from intellectualism?

So what exactly is your definition of anti-intellectualism? Is there a possibility that what you deem to be anti-intellectualism may be deemed something different by another party?

I don't see a reason why there always have to be pairs of ('anti'/no-'anti') words. This a prime example of one such word, it appeared to describe the negative attitude of some people on science and education in general. The other word isn't widely used because there is little need for it

 

[james blunt]

I don't blame the little man, I blame Homo sapiens in general. We are in the situation we're in because we have not evolved any self-restraint mechanisms, and we have not evolved those because we have not been on top of the food chain for most of our history and because, again for most of it, we have been hunter-gatherers, with the mindset that come with it, i.e everything is out there for us to eat. Now we are on top of the food chain and we have the ability to do damage to the planet on an unprecedented scale, but we still don't have any self-restraint mechanisms to keep us in check.

This has nothing to do with the little man vs elite issue that most people are stuck in in their minds (mostly because they want to be elite and not little man). It is not the elite that does the most damage to the planet, it is the billions of little man who consume as if there is no tomorrow. That is not to say that the elite isn't responsible for this or that the elite is anything good as such, I am just stating that the difference between the elite and the little man is trivial compared to the common destructive element in their behavior, that they all inherited from our Stone Age predecessors.

so its the overconsumer that deserves to die? i dont understan how you can belive in this bullshit when you just saw how they bailed out the banks at wall street dont you understand that your money dont go to any new sceinse projects or new fresh ideas on how to save civillization you have to have to have goverment that is not controled by bankers for that.Thats why they come up with there bogus claims like co2 cuasing global warming so you feel guillty just for being alive so they can continu there casino game at wall street with out being bothered.

 

[shame]

Sorry mr g for not being contructive i was drunk and i hope you where to (even though i doubt it) when you wrote your insane genocidal post.Unlike you i dont blame the little man for the ills of the world i blame it's leadership.You can take the world of sports for instance if a team has bad coach and a management thats broke and corrupt if the team doesnt preform well who has the ultimate responibillity i would say the coach and the management.I know this may sound a little simplefied but in the world to day we have a leadership that doesnt do shit to benefit humanity insted they start wars rape third world nations leave them in poverty and when there is not enough dollars to go around they want to start killing people. the best way to control population is to raise the stanard of living for people and remember i write this out of the prespective that your little global warming religon is a hoax partially invented as an excuase to not indurialize the third world.You can call me crazy i really dont care i am not the one advocating genocide.

Whats worse is elites are the ones who create money out of nothing....money doesnt mean shit if your the one that creates it....it just becomes a tool to control people....on the other hand if us everyday people decided not to go along with the elite agenda by refusing to do things like paying tax, going to war, accepting thier paper IOU's ect. then they would probably be alot less succesful....but that would mean people have to pay attension to more than american idol and Britney Spears....I dont think alot of us are ready for that because life wouldnt be pretty and consumer like anymore.

Good post man..

 

[HERESY]

I do not have readily available definitions because it makes no sense to waste time thinking about such as we all know that I am talking about what we should do, not what we will do. BTW, I will state this once again, if we do what we should do, there is no need to kill a single person, we just have to stop having babies for some time and we will be a billion people down within 10 years so in about half a century we can easily make it down to the 500 million we should not exceed. And those will be much happier, well educated and well-fed 500 millions than the average person around the world today.

You keep avoiding the question. This is not a matter of what we all know, because what we all know, is most likely based on opinion or derived from our interpretation of someone elses work/research/opinion. Again, you made statements about anti-intellectualism, expertise, and how people with expertise should be preserved. So again, I'm asking you, How do we define or gauge a persons level of expertise?

If you cannot answer it, simply say you can't answer it. No one here will crucify you for it, but introducing subject matter that has little to do with questions derived from your very own statements doesn't do anyone any good.

You are right that Rwanda's (and Africa's in general) situation is largely the result of colonialism. However, when I use the term "Average Joe", I don't mean Africa, I mean the West (because it does not apply that well to Africa).

Also, the Rwandans are in general much better aware of the Malthusian roots of their periodic genocides than the rest of the world is (at least based on the various accounts of the 1994 events and the previous genocides in the 60s and the 70s there and in Burundi that I have read)

A large percentage of the worlds population come from impoverished nations. Many of the problems these nations face can be directly or indirectly linked to the elite and their organizations such as the IMF (again refer to Rwanda.) Knowing these places have a high population, low education (especially in regards to birth control methods and/or access) and a broken infrastructure, I'm curious to your stance on them, and their survival, since you don't apply the "average joe" term to them.

that's what I am talking about

and this:

http://atheism.about.com/od/abortion...rthControl.htm

So focus on them and STOP making blanket/general statements about religion as a whole. It does nothing but give the impression that you don't know what you're talking about and get off on spouting rhetoric and warped ideaologies like a talking, breathing, eating and shitting automaton.

examples?

There is actually no need to list this as you will either say it's old and thats how things were, imply things have been changed or are currently changing it, or will attempt to disprove it and waste our time doing so.

No need for that tonight.

I don't think you understand the nature of the rationalism vs superstition debate

No, I understand it completely, but there is no way you can fully accept rationalism, or fully implement it, as long as mankind is limited in it's knowledge as it relates to the universe. You will always have someone saying "this is X" or "that is Y" as long as things remain undiscovered.

I don't see a reason why there always have to be pairs of ('anti'/no-'anti') words. This a prime example of one such word, it appeared to describe the negative attitude of some people on science and education in general. The other word isn't widely used because there is little need for it

You still don't comprehend the question. Is there a possibility that what you deem to be anti-intellectualism may be deemed something different by another party? In addition, who said the word intellectualism isn't widely used? I've seen it used in many instances, e.g. in place of "rationalism", so are you making that claim up or is it limited to your experience?

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

look i am not tryin to make an argument based on statistics and sciense i'm trying to make a political one and i'm sorry if you cant tell the diffrense.What i am saying is that the facts thag is claiming is fucked up because they come from a fuckt up source.and if dont belive me i advice you to do some research.

Man if you were half as good at answering questions as you are at dodging them I would personally nominate you for the next episode of Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader.

 

[HERESY]

Man if you were half as good at answering questions as you are at dodging them I would personally nominate you for the next episode of Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader.

Yet you say nothing about FhaG's inability to answer questions derived from his premise?

I don't watch tv so I can't tell you what I'd nominate you for.

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Yet you say nothing about FhaG's inability to answer questions derived from his premise?

I don't watch tv so I can't tell you what I'd nominate you for.

LOL

I agree that the ThaG has dodged some of the questions you have posed to him in this thread, but that is between you and him.

Whether or not I agree with ThaG, he has at the very least used his noggin to come to the conclusion that; Yes overpopulation and finite resouces is a problem, and his solution is to either temporarily limit reproduction, enforce some more drastic measure of madated population reducation based on levels of intellectualism, or suffer the consequences of a naturally induced population reduction.

I agree 100% with the questions posed to ThaG on the subjective nature of his "intellectual" criteria but I support him for at least logically coming to some solution to the impending problem.

James blunt on the other hand, has only attacked ThaG by regurgitating tired message board rhetoric about The Bilderberg Group while challenging the accuracy of ThaG's facts as "fucked" without coming to any personally derived conclusions or offering any solutions to the problem we all seem to agree upon.

If he agrees overpopulation is an impending problem, I would like for him to offer his solution to the problem.

 

[ThaG]

Tow things I want to clarify:

1. I don't advocate selecting people based on intelligence, I advocate selecting them based on how useful they would be for building a stable and sustainable society in "The World After". So it happens that intelligence is one of the things that are very useful if you want to do that, but this is the consequence, not the cause.

2. I openly admit that I don't have a readily available solution to the question of how you select whom to keep, except for what I already said: that it's much easier to select those who have to go and even after you have gotten rid of, the majority of people left still will not up to the task of building of sustainable society, so deeply rotten our world is today; and that if we decide to stop reproducing for some time and invest all our resources into building sustainable infrastructure and educating every young person alive to a sufficiently (and that would mean very high according to today's standards) level and make each and every one of them aware of why the crash of the industrial civilization happened (which is really just another civilizational collapse in the long list of such, all caused by the same thing - unsustainable growth and diminishing return of compelxity), then we might avoid the worst.