We Seriously need a Change in this Country
- Thread starter Collapse
- Start date
Or infanticide. And sterilization after that.
Just because I actually think about things and when I do so I try to exclude all brainwashing everyone of us has being subjected to while growing up, does not mean I am out of my mind
What I suggest is actually quite a humane way of achieving the goals. It is also less effective than the alternative
And the alternative is the following: we calculate the carrying capacity of each country, we do not forget that it will only decrease in the foreseeable future until the ecosystems recover from what they have been subjected to for the last 10,000 years, and we set the target population for each country at ~1/4 the current carrying capacity. Then each country takes care of reducing its population to that number in whatever way it finds convenient within an year
Just because I actually think about things and when I do so I try to exclude all brainwashing everyone of us has being subjected to while growing up, does not mean I am out of my mind
What I suggest is actually quite a humane way of achieving the goals. It is also less effective than the alternative
And the alternative is the following: we calculate the carrying capacity of each country, we do not forget that it will only decrease in the foreseeable future until the ecosystems recover from what they have been subjected to for the last 10,000 years, and we set the target population for each country at ~1/4 the current carrying capacity. Then each country takes care of reducing its population to that number in whatever way it finds convenient within an year
ThaG had it right - what is money, really? It's merely a symbol of wealth, one that we created which objectively means nothing. What really matters is energy and natural resources. At the current US population, combined with everyone's obsession with consumerism and material possessions, there's no way you can just say 'import less and export more'. What are you going to export? Do you think if the US relied on their own natural resources they could provide for their people at the current rate of consumption, let alone actually export anything? Hell no. The US has long been a black hole, sucking resources and energy into it's pits having already used up most of it's own resources. Now the rest of the world has it, you want it, you're at their mercy. Face it, the US is in a really nasty position and there's not a lot anyone can really do about it right now. Then you've got those retards who claim that the only way the US can 'bounce back' is if people continue spending and wasting like they have in the past - fucking retarded...
Population and environmental degradation are the most serious problems. Again, ThaG's right - we need to stabilize our global population quickly in order to avoid increasing rates of environmental degradation and wars fought over diminishing natural resources and famine. Enough with all the bleeding hearts who are opposed to anything bad happening to humans, fuck humans, we're a plague and need to be culled. If we don't limit our population, then our planet is doomed, and that means EVERYONE is doomed. Chop off the arm to save the life. There's no painless way to do it, but it has to be done.
Population and environmental degradation are the most serious problems. Again, ThaG's right - we need to stabilize our global population quickly in order to avoid increasing rates of environmental degradation and wars fought over diminishing natural resources and famine. Enough with all the bleeding hearts who are opposed to anything bad happening to humans, fuck humans, we're a plague and need to be culled. If we don't limit our population, then our planet is doomed, and that means EVERYONE is doomed. Chop off the arm to save the life. There's no painless way to do it, but it has to be done.
I agree money isn't everything, and you can't take it with you and all the other cliche's...but what exactly are you without money in the western society? You're fucking broke, homeless, and starving. There are 4 basic needs you must meet in this society and you need money for all of them.....And how do you 2 suppose we change everybody's mentality here? Most people have a similar objective in life and that is to make enough money to retire one day so they can live their life peacefully and comfortably.
What people fail to realize is that there is no peaceful way to rapidly decrease population (even if they realize that population is a problem which itself is problematic to achieve). If we all decided not to have kids, then it could happen, how quickly depends on the fertility rate (number of kids per woman) but I am too lazy to write MATLAB scripts and run simulations to tell you the exact numbers right now.
However, in an advanced country like the USA, the majority of people refuse to even realize that we have a problem with global warming, resource depletion and overpopulation (with the fraction of people in denial of those increasing with the order hey were listed)
And do you know what the situation in the third world is where significant fraction of the population can't even read? (well, that's true for the US too, but for different reasons)
I read an article on global warming awareness in Asia some time ago. In Indonesia, the large majority of the population has not even heard that such a thing as global warming exists, not only that, most of the journalists in the country didn't know about it either. The who is going to educate these people not to have kids because they're killing the planet, if we can't educate our own supposedly civilized Christians not to do so? That's in a Muslim country where 10 years ago they CELEBRATED passing the 200 million mark, where they're at 230 millions now, where the second most overpopulated place on Earth is (Java at 130 million people on 126,700 km², the first is Bangladesh with >150 million on 147,570 km²
and where they have a program for moving people form Java to other islands because Java is overpopulated, i.e they already have a problem with overpopulation. But they're celebrating.
The same thing goes about Bangladesh, where despite the fact that the country will cease to exist at some point of this or the beginning of next century, few people know what global warming is. And they keep having babies.
So it will never happen without the use of force. Sterilization is a lot more humane procedure than the execution of billions, I think everybody will agree.
However, in an advanced country like the USA, the majority of people refuse to even realize that we have a problem with global warming, resource depletion and overpopulation (with the fraction of people in denial of those increasing with the order hey were listed)
And do you know what the situation in the third world is where significant fraction of the population can't even read? (well, that's true for the US too, but for different reasons)
I read an article on global warming awareness in Asia some time ago. In Indonesia, the large majority of the population has not even heard that such a thing as global warming exists, not only that, most of the journalists in the country didn't know about it either. The who is going to educate these people not to have kids because they're killing the planet, if we can't educate our own supposedly civilized Christians not to do so? That's in a Muslim country where 10 years ago they CELEBRATED passing the 200 million mark, where they're at 230 millions now, where the second most overpopulated place on Earth is (Java at 130 million people on 126,700 km², the first is Bangladesh with >150 million on 147,570 km²
and where they have a program for moving people form Java to other islands because Java is overpopulated, i.e they already have a problem with overpopulation. But they're celebrating. The same thing goes about Bangladesh, where despite the fact that the country will cease to exist at some point of this or the beginning of next century, few people know what global warming is. And they keep having babies.
So it will never happen without the use of force. Sterilization is a lot more humane procedure than the execution of billions, I think everybody will agree.
CHINA'S THIRD WORLD CHALLENGE
Rich Nations Should Pay for Green Technology
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao opened a climate conference in Beijing on Friday with a call for industrial nations to pay for green technology in the developing world. Westerners are skeptical, and the UN says nothing will change until America shows its cards.
China opened a two-day conference on climate change Friday by calling for the Western world to rein in its lavish ways and commit funds to fight global warming in poor nations, where people are threatened by droughts and rising seas.
"Developed countries shoulder the duty and responsibility to tackle climate change and should alter their unsustainable lifestyle," Premier Wen Jiabao told a conference of representatives from 76 nations in Beijing.
The United Nations-sponsored, two-day meeting is one of a series of conferences around the world aimed at finding some global consensus before a 2009 climate summit in Copenhagen. China used the platform to push its vision of international aid for developing nations to build new green technology and cut their greenhouse-gas emissions.
Wen's suggestion was controversial, because China counts as a developing nation but is widely believed to be the world's largest carbon-dioxide polluter. Wen said rich nations nevertheless had to take responsibility -- and commit money -- because of their longer history of industrial pollution and their higher per-capita carbon footprints. He said a coming recession was no excuse to abandon commitments to reducing greenhouse emissions.
"As the global financial crisis spreads and worsens, and the world economy slows down apparently," Xinhua news agency quoted him as saying, "the international community must not waver in its determination to tackle climate change."
The Chinese vision, according to some officials in Beijing, has developed nations committing up to 1 percent of their gross domestic product to Third World projects that would support development of green technologies and help to protect poor people from expected heat waves, droughts, fierce storms and rising sea levels.
The sum, based on the size of Western economies in 2007, would be a total of $284 billion per year from the members of the Organization for Cooperation and Economic Development (OECD).
Waiting for Obama
But Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, has said the financial crisis would restrict the amount of money the West can transfer to a Third World green-development program. "If we go to citizens under the current circumstances … and say 'I'm increasing your tax burden in order to pay for climate policy,' that might not go down very well," he said.
He added that the international debate on climate change would not move forward significantly until the new Obama administration announced its policy. President George W. Bush walked out on the Kyoto Protocol in early 2001, crippling UN efforts to agree on a successor treaty to Kyoto -- which is the ambitious goal of the Copenhagen talks in December 2009.
"It is impossible to advance on this important topic without the full engagement of the United States," de Boer told Agence France-Presse.
During his presidential campaign, Obama said he would set a goal of reducing US emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and by 80 percent by 2050, using a so-called cap-and-trade system -- emissions limits combined with a market for companies to buy and sell the right to emit more.
The Bush administration has long held the position it would not sign on to any climate protection treaty unless emerging economies also agree to binding cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. But President-elect Obama has said he would not wait for developing nations like China and India to rein in their emissions before setting US policy. Instead he said he would pressure them to follow up quickly with their own binding commitments.
The UN will hold a major climate conference in Poznan, Poland, this December -- to hammer out a draft for the Copenhagen summit -- and de Boers expressed hope that a representative from Obama's team would attend. The president-elect won't take office until January 2009.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,589066,00.html
Rich Nations Should Pay for Green Technology
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao opened a climate conference in Beijing on Friday with a call for industrial nations to pay for green technology in the developing world. Westerners are skeptical, and the UN says nothing will change until America shows its cards.
China opened a two-day conference on climate change Friday by calling for the Western world to rein in its lavish ways and commit funds to fight global warming in poor nations, where people are threatened by droughts and rising seas.
"Developed countries shoulder the duty and responsibility to tackle climate change and should alter their unsustainable lifestyle," Premier Wen Jiabao told a conference of representatives from 76 nations in Beijing.
The United Nations-sponsored, two-day meeting is one of a series of conferences around the world aimed at finding some global consensus before a 2009 climate summit in Copenhagen. China used the platform to push its vision of international aid for developing nations to build new green technology and cut their greenhouse-gas emissions.
Wen's suggestion was controversial, because China counts as a developing nation but is widely believed to be the world's largest carbon-dioxide polluter. Wen said rich nations nevertheless had to take responsibility -- and commit money -- because of their longer history of industrial pollution and their higher per-capita carbon footprints. He said a coming recession was no excuse to abandon commitments to reducing greenhouse emissions.
"As the global financial crisis spreads and worsens, and the world economy slows down apparently," Xinhua news agency quoted him as saying, "the international community must not waver in its determination to tackle climate change."
The Chinese vision, according to some officials in Beijing, has developed nations committing up to 1 percent of their gross domestic product to Third World projects that would support development of green technologies and help to protect poor people from expected heat waves, droughts, fierce storms and rising sea levels.
The sum, based on the size of Western economies in 2007, would be a total of $284 billion per year from the members of the Organization for Cooperation and Economic Development (OECD).
Waiting for Obama
But Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, has said the financial crisis would restrict the amount of money the West can transfer to a Third World green-development program. "If we go to citizens under the current circumstances … and say 'I'm increasing your tax burden in order to pay for climate policy,' that might not go down very well," he said.
He added that the international debate on climate change would not move forward significantly until the new Obama administration announced its policy. President George W. Bush walked out on the Kyoto Protocol in early 2001, crippling UN efforts to agree on a successor treaty to Kyoto -- which is the ambitious goal of the Copenhagen talks in December 2009.
"It is impossible to advance on this important topic without the full engagement of the United States," de Boer told Agence France-Presse.
During his presidential campaign, Obama said he would set a goal of reducing US emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and by 80 percent by 2050, using a so-called cap-and-trade system -- emissions limits combined with a market for companies to buy and sell the right to emit more.
The Bush administration has long held the position it would not sign on to any climate protection treaty unless emerging economies also agree to binding cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. But President-elect Obama has said he would not wait for developing nations like China and India to rein in their emissions before setting US policy. Instead he said he would pressure them to follow up quickly with their own binding commitments.
The UN will hold a major climate conference in Poznan, Poland, this December -- to hammer out a draft for the Copenhagen summit -- and de Boers expressed hope that a representative from Obama's team would attend. The president-elect won't take office until January 2009.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,589066,00.html
i understand ur logic behind ur point, but ur pushin the line of right n wrong. if population gets out of control, we jus need to find a way to compensate, building upwards, finding life elsewhere(other planets maybe), build over the ocean.
why would we want to force abortion? who is anyone to decide on how many children someone can have? thas where u cross the line. im sure there r ways gettin around population growth other than abortion, lol. think forward not baccwards
why would we want to force abortion? who is anyone to decide on how many children someone can have? thas where u cross the line. im sure there r ways gettin around population growth other than abortion, lol. think forward not baccwards
not 'relevant'? r u on cracc? the federal reserve is the reason behind the defecit. do u even know what the federal reserve is?????? lol ur trippin again my nigga. go do some research on it n come bacc n tell me it wont bring 'relevant' change. and as for america bein found as a republic, thas where the people have the power, not the fuccin government, which has little power and r held in the hands of elected officials by 'the people' not the fuccin illuminati or whoever the fucc is pullin the strings. democracy is 'majority rules', like a lynch mobb, if the majority is wrong, then what? thas right, were fucced, just like we are now. dont tell me about 'relevant change' unless u know what the hell these 3 things r k pal?
Right and wrong are imaginative categories that do not exist in nature
And our problem is that we prefer to disregard the laws of nature and think that they do not apply to us
We are talking about the survival of our civilization, quite likely humans as a species and maybe even the majority of life on the planet. Right and wrong as defined by some tribal superstitions from thousands of years ago are irrelevant here
And our problem is that we prefer to disregard the laws of nature and think that they do not apply to us
We are talking about the survival of our civilization, quite likely humans as a species and maybe even the majority of life on the planet. Right and wrong as defined by some tribal superstitions from thousands of years ago are irrelevant here