The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Oceans Soon Too Acidic and Messed Up to Sustain Complex Ecosystems
Posts
What are you? European?
When he needs to go he's a russian.
Wait this isn't the Bad Joke Thread.
I will see myself out.
well actually
You cannot change fate now! Oppose me and I will destroy you also!
All the dreams that might have been. All the happiness, and sorrow, you might have experienced. Gone forever!!! For you there will be no tomorrow!
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
Anyone who actually suggests sterilizing the poor doesn't consider themselves part of that group.
You can have this one for free Obama
This will be here until I receive an apology or Weedlordvegeta get any consequences for being a bully
Yeah I thought it was
Population control would technically help the environment, but there are two huge marks against it as a strategy: 1) it is one of the most ethically dubious options, and 2) it's also one of the least effective.
Why? Well, I'll let Pulitzer Prize-winning scientist Jared Diamond explain:
So yeah
Even if you genocided the entire Third World, it wouldn't be enough. Population control would do almost nothing to help.
Instead, what we need to do is change our definition of what a First World lifestyle is like to be more accommodating to the limited resources the planet possesses.
Great, you can have mind sex without consequences now!
Yeah, we should kill the first world nations, that'll do the trick. :rotate:
Joking.
I spent most of my training facedown in the dirt unconscious while a classmate did all the actual work.
So you agree that ultimately, pretty much everyone, no matter who they are, where they are, and what their current standard of living is, does have to lower their standard of living, lest it will be an impossibility to sustain life on Earth, at the very least as we know it? That most likely even our own survival is in jeopardy? Regardless of if we manage to reverse global population trends or not?
As you say, given current ethics and morals and the political limitations of democracy, as well as the prevalence and strength of capitalism (since it best caters to our base natures), it's practically impossible to lower the standards of living for anyone, even the most well off people. Practically nobody is willing to give up even an inch of their wealth. Most actually want to do better for themselves still.
For example, we won't give up on personal automotive transportation, no matter how frivolous our use of it is. Most won't give up their car. Driving a Tesla is akin to saving the world. It isn't enough though. Not by a longshot. Given the current world population, the average consumption of goods and resources, and the average pollution footprint of each, a change like that isn't even close to being enough, even if we'd replace every single gas guzzler with a Tesla. Hell, our cattle farting up the atmosphere alone is already catastrophic on its own, and that doesn't make everyone reject meat, and become Hindu now, does it?
Before it's too late - the only way to get people to give up on frivolous wealth like personal automotive transportation? Some sort of fascism. Personally, I believe that humanity might work best under some form of technofascism, especially once we can offload the burden of leadership to purpose built AI systems, that can analyze all collected metrics and devise the most efficient and sustainable plans, by which we all abide, because in the end, there's no arguing with facts. There'd even be room for some nod to democracy here, like having a popular vote to chose between several sensible options devised by our machine overlords.
From a technofascistic point of view, putting our utmost effort into procreation, procreating as a species, instead as individuals, and engineering the best possible new generation, that makes a whole lot of sense. Our current way of procreation is extremely selfish, and absolutely based in our base natures, and is in total denial of what we have become. Unsustainable as a whole.
I feel like there's some miscommunication going on here.
Or OP sympathizes with the antagonists of Utopia, in which case it's time to call the nice men with the straitjackets.
I am pretty disappointed, tbh
And then the robots achieve sentience and go out to explore the galaxy taking what remains of our spirit and culture with them
That's the endgame as I see it
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
So if you were hoping I'd somehow sympathize with your viewpoint, sorry.
If, via democratic freedom, the First World continues its present course and does not lower its standards of living to a sustainable level, then I will accept that as the future that we choose and will have to figure out how to live with (and hopefully learn from the experience to build a more sustainable civilization).
I mean, I'll definitely complain about it and yell, "SEE? I TOLD YOU FUCKERS THIS WOULD HAPPEN!" Much like I assume plenty of environmental scientists will in the next few decades. But I'm not going to violate my own ethics just because I think I know better than everyone else (even it were the case that I really did know better).
EDIT: Basically, the freedom to choose is important. And the freedom to fuck up royally is part-and-parcel to it.
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
We will live on through our memes.
Let's say the worst comes to the worst, and billions die due to pollution and climate change and sea level rise causing food shortages and mass migrations, as well as extreme political strife and civil unrest and war everywhere. Bio diversity drops by 99%. Pretty much all that's left is us, and what we build from the mass extinction graveyard that will be our legacy and inheritance. That and rats and racoons and cockroaches.
Is upholding your traditions, ethics and morals, still worth the cost?
Wait I've seen this before. Are you Keanu Reeves from The Day The Earth Stood Still?
Too much work, no return on investment. Any financial planner will tell you that kids are a net drain on assets. I advise against them.
Actually, this quote from the OP accounts for possibilities such your suggestion...
Ruling in favor of the bear.
Steam Switch FC: 2799-7909-4852
I highly, highly doubt climate change could kill off all life on Earth. Give it a few million years and everything that died off will have been replaced.
No mind babbies
Oh good, I'm safe in that case.
Also we should shoot all of our trash and pollution into the sun with a space elevator cannon
That's how that works right?
Indeed. Shoot for the stars! Literally.
Or, you know, neuter and spay everyone to prevent natural procreation. Same difference.
but I'd rather have moon colonies and asteroid mines and a mars colony than being spayed and having no children.
It's only I could theoretically have you and yours neutered and spayed by tomorrow. The positive effects of which could be felt as soon as a decade from now, when the wretched poor and desperately hungry have gone unborn, as have all the *because-it's-what-one-does* children of traditional breeders.
Can you colonize the Moon or Mars by tomorrow? Meaningfully, and not just as a hollow act of symbolism? And how exactly would space mining help with overpopulation and pollution and climate change and all the other challenges humanity is facing? It's just more fuel for the kindling, if you ask me.
What's your obsession with spaying
Equal opportunity population control. You neuter a man. You spay a woman.