Are We Knowingly Living a Lie?

[JowGaWolf]

This discussion about population reminded me of a very intriguing video:

If you have 50 minutes to kill It really gives some new insight. Bottom line is more humans means more minds working on the problems humans face. So more people might actually be part of a solution.

Personally I don't like crowds, inflation, or sprawl so I'm in favor of less humans.

lol. you don't like crowds, inflation, or sprawl. No problem. That video has a plan where some people were literally sent to be sterilized by force all for the sake of lowering the population. Pretty messed up that only certain countries were singled out. A developing country can have a population boom and it would still be lower than the total US birth for that year. That's some BS. But that's what I would worry about. Who gets to decide which populations to cut. I don't trust humans with stuff like that. It leaves too much room for evil doings.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

REMINDER TO ALL MEMBERS:

Political discussion is not allowed on Martial Talk. We can talk science and such, but keep the poiltics out of it. There are other forums that are better places for that discussion.

_____________
Gerry Seymour
MT Moderator
@gerryseymour

 

[HighKick]

There are very few complete idiots, most are stupid in specific aspects: racists, flat earthers, anthropomorphic climate change deniers, alien abductees, conspiracy theory believers, criminals, religious zealots etc. But outwith these area they appear and function completely normally.

I would more make the list as wholly media believing, racist, flat earthers, ignorant to climate change contribution, naivete' in believing conspiracies don't happen people, criminals, and zealots of any kind. Be very clear, I do not mean being passionate about something.
We are all ignorant about something, all day every day. It is Stupid to think we are not.

 

[HighKick]

lol. you don't like crowds, inflation, or sprawl. No problem. That video has a plan where some people were literally sent to be sterilized by force all for the sake of lowering the population. Pretty messed up that only certain countries were singled out. A developing country can have a population boom and it would still be lower than the total US birth for that year. That's some BS. But that's what I would worry about. Who gets to decide which populations to cut. I don't trust humans with stuff like that. It leaves too much room for evil doings.

You don't think evil is not already happening? That is naive.
Reading through the thread, it is a scary truth that we are asking a planet to support more people than in can, largely because we are not willing to live in harmony with the planet. It would require a paradigm shift in the way people exist, and yes, population reduction. Not selective but more by survival of the fittest (collectively).

 

[HighKick]

In the South West of Britain (considered the most lovely part of the U.K. …’a turd rolled in glitter’) House building companies are protesting and threatening legal action because they are being made to pay to liberate and maintain the equivalent area of land elsewhere plus 10%. They can pay farmers to do this for them. They are having to minimise the impact of their building on rivers streams etc with regards sewage and silt but doing so half-heartedly.

This is reluctant green washing and points to the attitudes our industries have towards reducing environmental impact of their business.

Do builders and buyers have to pay an impact fee per house? That would be the equivalent here, but I think your countries idea is much better.

 

[HighKick]

My friends in Scandinavia are reporting ambient temperatures of -40 Celsius which is incredibly unusual, -25 Celsius being more usual.

If my calculator is correct, it is a bit ironic that -40C is -40F, a temp recently reached in parts of Canada and Alaska. Rogers Pass, Montana has reached -70°.

 

[HighKick]

Good point.

What often strikes me, is that there is a lot of talk about transferring to green energy source, but we chould also talk about reducing the overall energy expenditure ("green" or not!)

During the pandemic, I realized that alot of transportartion is simply unnecessary. Instead of switching from diesel to electric cars, why not stop going back and forth like squirrels unless really necessary. But the car manufacturers would not like that. But then it's profit interest behind.

"61% of CO2 emissions in EU are due to cars.
...
The production and disposal of an electric car is less environmentally friendly than that of a car with an internal combustion engine and the level of emissions from electric vehicles varies depending on how the electricity is produced."
-- CO2 emissions from cars: facts and figures (infographics) | News | European Parliament

We can't remove all transportation, but to speak for myself, I transport myself to the office and sit in the front of the computer all day, then i transport myself back home. During the pandemic i worked from home and to 95% that was no issues. In the days of information and digital communication, I think alot of driving back and forth is not necessary. Instead we can transport the information back and forth.

Does the last chart include All passenger cars, including internal combustion? If so, there are positives to the I/C story.

 

[HighKick]

But the responsibility is that of the consumer. Just because Apple puts a new phone in front of us making the previous version from 10 months ago ‘obsolete’, it doesn’t mean we have to buy it. We should not be so manipulable that we consume it. But situational stupidity kicks in, we buy into the cool advertising with a frizzy-haired youth flipping his skateboard with a perfect smile while posting a picture of the kid in the sweat shop who glued the product together (so you can’t replace the throttled battery) and we have to queue outside the shop to be the first to have it.

You know, some anthropomorphic climate change deniers suggest the rise in atmospheric CO2 is a good thing because it will increase crop yields (CO2 is required by plants in photosynthesis and hence growth) to feed an ever increasing population!

You know, that’s probably not enough to halt or reverse the negative impact we‘re having on the plane. The population would need to reduce (by natural attrition, I hasten to add) to a tenth of it’s current level (7.8billion to 780million).

Isn’t that redistributing the population rather than creating more of it to consume more?

I dont understand why economies need to grow year-on-year. If they all become static won’t that cure the issue of inflation etc, assuming the population levels become static….there you go….population is the issue…..

You know, that’s probably not enough to halt or reverse the negative impact we‘re having on the plane. The population would need to reduce (by natural attrition, I hasten to add) to a tenth of it’s current level (7.8billion to 780million).

It would require more than just a population reduction. It would require a paradigm shift in how we live. 8-billion or 8-million, people would balk on such an idea.

 

[HighKick]

Although it doesn’t make any difference to this debate, it does explain the actual mechanism of global warming.

Fantastic video.

 

[JowGaWolf]

You don't think evil is not already happening? That is naive.

Not sure how you got this meaning. Let me clarify. In short if there has to be various checks and balances, and redundancies in plan to make it more difficult to do evil things. If you don't do things like this then people will have no resistance against the bad things they would do. This is why I don't mind laws and regulations. It defines what's going to be allowed and what isn't. It's the only way you can hold someone accountable.

Reading through the thread, it is a scary truth that we are asking a planet to support more people than in can,

If you do some research on this you will see that this is a more effective way than creating a policy to force people to have fewer or no kids. Policies such as that will bring more problems than solve. China learned this the hard way.

The environment in general does a good job in managing the populations. You may not like how it does it, but it works in a way that causes fewer issues.

I recommend doing a google search about "fewer women are having babies"

 

[JowGaWolf]

I wonder if those who want to reduce the population have made the commitment not to have children. I wonder if any have volunteered to be sterile.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Hopefully this will clear up some of the Population myths
"
Myth 1: There are too many people being born


Increasing climate catastrophes, endless conflict over resources, soaring hunger, pandemics, economic devastation….the causes behind these crises are multiple and overlapping. For many, it's only natural to point the finger at fertility rates: The world population is too large, our resources can't cope, etc.


But the truth is, reaching 8 billion is a sign of human progress. It means more newborns are surviving, more children are going to school, receiving health care and making it to adulthood. People today are living almost 10 years longer than they were in 1990. Changes in fertility rates will do little to change our population’s current trajectory of growth (for the next 25 years, two thirds of all population growth will be driven by past growth). In fact, if we look at the rate of population growth, it is slowing significantly"

Source United Nations Population Fund: Population bomb, bust – or boon? New UNFPA report debunks 8 myths about a world of 8 billion

 

[BaehrTKD]

Hopefully this will clear up some of the Population myths
"
Myth 1: There are too many people being born

Birth rate isn't relevant. Total number of humans on the planet is the deciding metric.

Increasing climate catastrophes, endless conflict over resources, soaring hunger, pandemics, economic devastation….the causes behind these crises are multiple and overlapping. For many, it's only natural to point the finger at fertility rates: The world population is too large, our resources can't cope, etc.

That's correct. We're using up (and/or destroying) natural resources faster than nature can replenish them. We're also killing off just about every other animal species in the process by taking their habitat for our own.

Also, there is the quality of life argument. Just as rats can go insane and eat each other in captivity, humans have a breaking point too. Humans need space, apart from other humans, and we're not getting that today. As a result, we are seeing skyrocketing levels of violent crimes like mass shootings, etc. People don't want to live in a fishbowl and people don't want to constantly be around other people. People need a certain amount of "territory" to call their own, just like animals in the wild do.

But the truth is, reaching 8 billion is a sign of human progress.

If your goal is to maximize the productivity of your civilization in a game like civ then yes. If your goal is to colonize new areas, yes. However, we have fully colonized the whole planet, and our increased productivity isn't benefiting us. We're losing wealth. We're losing land. We're losing personal space. By every quality of life metric, we're decreasing, not increasing.

Give me modern medicine and technology with a 1920's population level and I guarantee you the world would be a much happier place. Imagine waking up to 100 acres of forested land in your backyard rather than your neighbour's dog barking, or the jackhammer from the construction next door, or the noise from the cars zipping down the highway that runs past your house, etc.

99% of the population wins. The only people that would lose are the billionaire CEOs, who would go back to being millionaires again.

 

[Gyakuto]

Give me modern medicine and technology with a 1920's population level and I guarantee you the world would be a much happier place. Imagine waking up to 100 acres of forested land in your backyard rather than your neighbour's dog barking, or the jackhammer from the construction next door, or the noise from the cars zipping down the highway that runs past your house, etc.

That is such grim picture you paint and yet so familiar

 

[JowGaWolf]

Birth rate isn't relevant. Total number of humans on the planet is the deciding metric.

Read the research and you'll see why Birth rate matters. If you don't understand the mechanics of how population work then you don't have the necessary information needed to accurately analyze population .

That's correct. We're using up (and/or destroying) natural resources faster than nature can replenish them. We're also killing off just about every other animal species in the process by taking their habitat for our own.

Also, there is the quality of life argument. Just as rats can go insane and eat each other in captivity, humans have a breaking point too. Humans need space, apart from other humans, and we're not getting that today. As a result, we are seeing skyrocketing levels of violent crimes like mass shootings, etc. People don't want to live in a fishbowl and people don't want to constantly be around other people. People need a certain amount of "territory" to call their own, just like animals in the wild do.

So many incorrect things here. I will try to address them in a way that will hopefully get you think about things a little more.
"We're using up (and/or destroying) natural resources faster than nature can replenish them.": To begin with this has nothing to with population and everything to do about greed and money. Reducing the population won't stop these resources from being exploited in harmful ways. As a matter of fact the resources that you are describing are often in areas where the human population is significantly smaller. This also so ignores technological advances like this. Note that they aren't talking about making the population smaller. They are talking about better management of resources.

"We're also killing off just about every other animal species in the process by taking their habitat for our own.": This ignores a lot of things that occur like " The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been successful in preventing extinction for 99 percent of the species that are listed as endangered or threatened 1." and things like

"Another way in which humanity is saving animals is through the creation of wildlife sanctuaries and national parks. These protected areas provide a safe haven for animals to live and thrive without the threat of human interference 2"

"there is the quality of life argument. Just as rats can go insane and eat each other in captivity, humans have a breaking point too. Humans need space, apart from other humans, and we're not getting that today. As a result, we are seeing skyrocketing levels of violent crimes like mass shootings," Population size has nothing to do with gun violence. There are other countries with large populations that don't have the same gun violence that the US has.

"People don't want to live in a fishbowl and people don't want to constantly be around other people. People need a certain amount of "territory" to call their own, just like animals in the wild do." Just to add to this. Covid pretty much proved this incorrect. Who would have thought the hardest part about a Pandemic was to get people to stop being around other people and forming crowds.

As far as people needing space apart from other humans.. That's also not true. Humans are not rats, so I don't know why you would compare the our socialization to rats. Here's how much humans like their space.

1. We crowd and pack ourselves into sporting events.
2. We crowd and pack ourselves into holiday events.
3. We crowd and pack ourselves into restaurants
4. We crowd and pack ourselves into entertainment complexes (Movies, Casinos, Amusement parks, Night Clubs, Beaches, Concerts, vacations. etc.)
5. We crowd and pack ourselves into schools and colleges.
6. Some of us crowd and pack ourselves into work spaces, weddings, and birthdays. and religious events)

So this thing about "Humans need their space" is incorrect when you look at the fact that the majority of the people on this planet join each other and crowd around each other for fun and enjoyment. I don't know about these guys, But I'm pretty sure the majority of the people on the train aren't going to suddenly more into multiple attacks where they just can't take it anymore.

Again. Non of this has to do with Population and the ills of society. Many of the world's most dangerous places in the world are also the least populated which make sense. Who wants to live in an area with a lot of violence? Isn't that what we are seeing with people at the south of the border trying to get into the US? How big does a population have to be in order for Child Soldiers to exist?

My bet is the smaller the population the easier it is for warlords to take over. I used to be on the front line of an effort to life enrichment programs to one of the most dangerous areas in Baltimore City. Population was clearly not the reason why people were killing each other.
The family that got burned out was few blocks away from where I used to live and work. As far space goes. There was a lot of in the forms of abandon houses.

This is where I worked

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

Rich people live in taller buildings with more people packed in it and they don't fight each other like what happens in the hood. As a matter of fact if you take a trip around the streets using the map, you'll see that the builds start to look nicer. Many of of housing now in those high rises are million dollar housing units

 

[HighKick]

Not sure how you got this meaning. Let me clarify. In short if there has to be various checks and balances, and redundancies in plan to make it more difficult to do evil things. If you don't do things like this then people will have no resistance against the bad things they would do. This is why I don't mind laws and regulations. It defines what's going to be allowed and what isn't. It's the only way you can hold someone accountable.


If you do some research on this you will see that this is a more effective way than creating a policy to force people to have fewer or no kids. Policies such as that will bring more problems than solve. China learned this the hard way.

The environment in general does a good job in managing the populations. You may not like how it does it, but it works in a way that causes fewer issues.

I recommend doing a google search about "fewer women are having babies"

I am well aware of several countries seeing population decrease. And everyone who studies a modicum of history should know that the planet can be violent.
What I also see is that, in typical bureaucrat fashion, regulation did not go far enough. The same can be said about your 'bad things' comment. The punishment simply must be worse than the crime, else the motivation to commit the crime will still be there.
I am pretty sure we have very different ideas about regulation.

 

[JowGaWolf]

What I also see is that, in typical bureaucrat fashion, regulation did not go far enough.

It never goes far enough but it always moves forward in the right direction. I remember when Solar Panels weren't a thing. I was born shortly after the EPA was created. They used to show videos to student about how companies used to dump chemicals in the water. I've been on the planet for 51 years and I've only seen forward movement on environmental issues. It has it's little stumble backwards but it recovers and moves forward. I think this is the natural progress of things as other countries who pollute will eventually choose the path to where they care for, maintain, and expand environmental progress. To be honest as much as it frustrates me sometimes. I think that it's better for a government to not move at lighting speed. Big companies move slow as well. They are light long freight trains. They start slowly and take longer to stop once they get going. Moving slowly gives them time to double check and verify things. This is a good example, of just how complex it is to make changes.

The same can be said about your 'bad things' comment. The punishment simply must be worse than the crime, else the motivation to commit the crime will still be there.
I am pretty sure we have very different ideas about regulation.

I'm willing to bet that everyone feels the same way about regulation and that it's needed. The reason I say this is because when people get screwed over by a company, they begin to ask for regulations to be made. Everyone wants to drink clean water right?

 

[Bujingodai]

I like the point about not rushing
Our enviro minister in Canada is a zealot and us rushing into the EV market looking to ban IC cars is short sighted. Just not practical here and the EV market isn't there yet, the cars are not reliable enough, not affordable enough and infrastructure is a joke for what they want.

Might be in time. But we need to see the mistakes first.

 

[Gyakuto]

I like the point about not rushing
Our enviro minister in Canada is a zealot and us rushing into the EV market looking to ban IC cars is short sighted. Just not practical here and the EV market isn't there yet, the cars are not reliable enough, not affordable enough and infrastructure is a joke for what they want.

Might be in time. But we need to see the mistakes first.

But we’re told that ‘time is running out’ and we need to act now!

But I agree that EV cars and their supporting infrastructure is not there yet, especially in a huge country like Canada!

 

[Gyakuto]

My nephew was studying Chemical Engineer at university. During one of his lectures in a series about environmental impact of industrial processes, they analysed counterintuitive concepts, in this case, paper coffee cups versus those made of plastic. To cut a long story short, when everything was taken into account, the plastic cups had less negative environmental impact than the paper ones since once they’re manufactured, they can be stored in any old warehouse whereas waxed paper cups require humidity/temperatures controlled storage lest they get soggy and grow mould etc.

I was very surprised as we’re all the students.