Impressive words vs. impressive ideas
Sometimes people need their impressive words because once people understand the ideas they'd disagree.
Sometimes people need their impressive words because once people understand the ideas they'd disagree.
The fact that more men are virgins and more women are childless in their 30s than ever before definitely shows that natural selection is a thing, but evolution isn't an intelligent force, just an unavoidable one. During the great oxygenation event most life on earth died out because evolution selected for photosynthesis but not for oxygen resistance because there wasn't enough oxygen for that to matter right up until it mattered a lot. In a lot of ways I'm surprised the great oxygenation event isn't the most discussed geological event on the planet Earth since it's so relevant in so many ways.
This is one paper, and after a global outcry the authors printed a letter saying "ya got it all wrong!!!", but it is one example of someone advocating for such a position:
https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261
https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261
I keep two different ideas in mind in this regard.
I did a paper back in 2009 where I calculated the energy required to move just a few industries to green energy or nuclear, and just managing 3 industries without any of the surrounding required industries would require all the electricity production on earth produced using green or nuclear. My conclusion was that there needs to be way fewer people if we intend to use green energy to sustain our quality of life because there just isn't enough capability to produce energy without the fossil fuels subsidy for 9 billion people. We need fewer people to maintain this quality of life without quickly using up the fossil fuel energy subsidy we'll never get back.
On the other hand, we're facing cataclysmic population declines in the west and much of Asia because many forces are preventing people from having kids and that has many capacities to make things worse because of several dynamic systems in play.
If we let the major civilizations just collapse in population, populations that don't collapse will eventually be capable of just coming over and falling on top of the dying civilizations, resulting in population growth (just not of the civilizations that cared about overpopulation)
If we just import people from high growth areas to low growth areas then that's basically the same as not limiting growth, you still need to service all these people and in the process high growth civilizations could become the new dominant culture in the area this ending any drive to depopulate.
A fully unmanaged population collapse would result in entire generations without kids and so without anyone to care for them, whether in terms of their own kids caring for them, or in terms of people to be paid to care for them, and there may not be the economic output to do so anyway.
A fully unmanaged population collapse would also be a skills collapse. We're seeing that now with the boomers retiring and few people trained to replace them.
Entire family lines will fully disappear. The consequences I think will be felt in a couple decades as people start to realize their names will die with them. Mass social instability as that realization spreads through the culture.
So with all that, what's coming is equally as bad in the short term and may just result in new people who don't care about any of this becoming dominant, so as with many ultimately good things it must be implemented with care and wisdom, accounting for all the different factors that will be problems along the way.
I did a paper back in 2009 where I calculated the energy required to move just a few industries to green energy or nuclear, and just managing 3 industries without any of the surrounding required industries would require all the electricity production on earth produced using green or nuclear. My conclusion was that there needs to be way fewer people if we intend to use green energy to sustain our quality of life because there just isn't enough capability to produce energy without the fossil fuels subsidy for 9 billion people. We need fewer people to maintain this quality of life without quickly using up the fossil fuel energy subsidy we'll never get back.
On the other hand, we're facing cataclysmic population declines in the west and much of Asia because many forces are preventing people from having kids and that has many capacities to make things worse because of several dynamic systems in play.
If we let the major civilizations just collapse in population, populations that don't collapse will eventually be capable of just coming over and falling on top of the dying civilizations, resulting in population growth (just not of the civilizations that cared about overpopulation)
If we just import people from high growth areas to low growth areas then that's basically the same as not limiting growth, you still need to service all these people and in the process high growth civilizations could become the new dominant culture in the area this ending any drive to depopulate.
A fully unmanaged population collapse would result in entire generations without kids and so without anyone to care for them, whether in terms of their own kids caring for them, or in terms of people to be paid to care for them, and there may not be the economic output to do so anyway.
A fully unmanaged population collapse would also be a skills collapse. We're seeing that now with the boomers retiring and few people trained to replace them.
Entire family lines will fully disappear. The consequences I think will be felt in a couple decades as people start to realize their names will die with them. Mass social instability as that realization spreads through the culture.
So with all that, what's coming is equally as bad in the short term and may just result in new people who don't care about any of this becoming dominant, so as with many ultimately good things it must be implemented with care and wisdom, accounting for all the different factors that will be problems along the way.
Yeah, it's exactly what it sounds like... Rebranded infanticide.
In keeping with my point, I do need to mention that both the idea and the rebranding represent a tiny minority, and you can always find someone willing to adopt any wacky idea, so...
There are historical precedents (which aren't useful to the current situation but are interesting nonetheless) -- in feudal Japan, a practice called mabiki occurred where Japanese people considered children to be ethereal beings with one foot in the spirit world and one in the physical world, and as they get older their link to the tangible world grows, so at birth the parents would make a decision as to whether to keep the baby because a family and a community might not be able to support another young mouth, and apparently that's not unusual across a number of cultures. The practice was outlawed during the Meiji restoration's westernization, so it wasn't that long ago that the practice occurred to tens of thousands of newborns every year.
There's also precedent for taking a captured prisoner of war to a stone temple and tearing out their still beating heart while they still live in order to make sure the sun keeps rising so appeals to antiquity aren't always so convincing, but it's still interesting as a historical fact.
In keeping with my point, I do need to mention that both the idea and the rebranding represent a tiny minority, and you can always find someone willing to adopt any wacky idea, so...
There are historical precedents (which aren't useful to the current situation but are interesting nonetheless) -- in feudal Japan, a practice called mabiki occurred where Japanese people considered children to be ethereal beings with one foot in the spirit world and one in the physical world, and as they get older their link to the tangible world grows, so at birth the parents would make a decision as to whether to keep the baby because a family and a community might not be able to support another young mouth, and apparently that's not unusual across a number of cultures. The practice was outlawed during the Meiji restoration's westernization, so it wasn't that long ago that the practice occurred to tens of thousands of newborns every year.
There's also precedent for taking a captured prisoner of war to a stone temple and tearing out their still beating heart while they still live in order to make sure the sun keeps rising so appeals to antiquity aren't always so convincing, but it's still interesting as a historical fact.
I remember after Roe v. Wade got repealed there was a lot of discussion about polls that broke down where people were on the subject, and there was a point where it really wasn’t overall very controversial. Like, the first few weeks (10-12 I think was where the survey found the most support) and in the event of incest, rape, health of the mother, and if it’s discovered the baby has a major defect that will cause immediate death outside the womb or major lifetime disability, and if you had that, then something like 85% of people would be ok with that.
You have a small minority who are fully against it under any circumstances, and a small minority who want 9 month abortions or even post birth abortions and they’re both unreasonable.
Problem is USP. Unique selling proposition, a core idea in advertising from albert lasker the father of modern advertising, says you need to find something unique to sell. That’s where wedge issues come from. Instead of finding a compromise everyone is happy with and working off a record of representing your constituents, you find stuff to differ on that you think will attract more people to your product than not.
It’s a big part of the problem of elections being decided so much by advertising. I’m not anti-advertising, it’s an important tool that can help bring people to products and services. Despite that, It needs to stay in it’s lane and I think a bad part of our civilization that it’s seeped so deeply into other aspects of our culture. Everyone is trying to be a microcelebrity with a personal brand, and politicians are no different, but when the product is responsible governance we don’t need slick advertising, we need deep wisdom.
I love when it's like "this makes me socialist"
So the state is taking more of your income than you get and handing it to the most powerful people on earth then printing even more fake money out of thin air to give to the most powerful people on earth and driving people into poverty and homelessness thereby makes someone want more state power and less control over their own lives.
Maybe democracy doesn't work after all.
So the state is taking more of your income than you get and handing it to the most powerful people on earth then printing even more fake money out of thin air to give to the most powerful people on earth and driving people into poverty and homelessness thereby makes someone want more state power and less control over their own lives.
Maybe democracy doesn't work after all.
Boomer news orgs need to hire a meme checker to make sure they aren't just reposting a meme.
Honestly, soapbox on mobile with notifications turned on is as good as any app I've used.
Even if it's for a thing you agree with, anyone cheering for big companies violating civil rights to cling to a political cause is a fool. That's an abuse of power that can turn in a heartbeat (and has, and will again)
The dirtiest little secret is that as far as I can tell Trump is a liberal, essentially a fairly progressive 90s Democrat (and he first ran on the democratic ticket).
"Why would you think we did that?"
Well you went in international media and bragged about doing it for years at a time.
Well you went in international media and bragged about doing it for years at a time.
I was going to disagree until I realized that I never use stock samsungs. I end up running adb decrapifier scripts that are hundreds of lines long and remove most samsung software.
My wife and I have been talking about the concept of forgiveness.
Thing is, you can't truly forgive someone unless they're repentant. If they don't think they've done anything wrong then you really can't forgive them because in their minds there's nothing to forgive.
Considering that we can see right now they're still doing the same things they did during COVID just in other areas of life, they're completely unrepentant. They want to be 'forgiven' because they're done with that particular thing but they're still using the same tactics for all the stuff they're still interested in, forcing what they want down everyone's throats the same way.
Everyone remembers "Judge not lest ye be judged", but few people remember the next part: "Go and sin no more".
It might be that you have to let go of old hatred for your own sake even if the other person is unrepentant, but that's much different than giving someone who is unrepentant full amnesty for their actions. It's a big difference, and the two forms of forgiveness mean something quite different in practical terms.
Thing is, you can't truly forgive someone unless they're repentant. If they don't think they've done anything wrong then you really can't forgive them because in their minds there's nothing to forgive.
Considering that we can see right now they're still doing the same things they did during COVID just in other areas of life, they're completely unrepentant. They want to be 'forgiven' because they're done with that particular thing but they're still using the same tactics for all the stuff they're still interested in, forcing what they want down everyone's throats the same way.
Everyone remembers "Judge not lest ye be judged", but few people remember the next part: "Go and sin no more".
It might be that you have to let go of old hatred for your own sake even if the other person is unrepentant, but that's much different than giving someone who is unrepentant full amnesty for their actions. It's a big difference, and the two forms of forgiveness mean something quite different in practical terms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9oCywrlUW4
Viva Frei seems to think that it's just intended to get idiots to do something stupid because a lot of people know full well what's coming
Viva Frei seems to think that it's just intended to get idiots to do something stupid because a lot of people know full well what's coming
I saw a thread today where someone was calling the common man stupid for not wanting to do more about climate change, and specifically mentioning the recent cop28 held in Dubai.
It's an easy thing to just assume people are stupid. It makes the world nice and simple and if only people would stop being stupid and start being smart (smart like you, obviously!) All the problems of the world would be solved.
For a lot of people, reality isn't so simple. The common man is already struggling. Throughout history, the age people get married and have kids has been indicative of the stress civilizations are under, and many people aren't having kids before they get too old to have kids because that's the level of stress the common man is under. Global civilization is facing a demographic bomb as every continent except Africa is facing a massive reduction in population in coming decades because nobody is having kids because life is so hard.
As a study in contrasts, just look at wages vs. rent while I've been an adult. Minimum wage went from 11/hr to 15/hr. Meanwhile, my first 2 bedroom apartment was 350/mo, and today you can't get anything for less than 1200. A few years before I rented, there were decent houses available for $50,000 and today the average house price nationwide is $800,000. (Not the US, obviously)
So when a bunch of the business leaders and politicians who magically seem to get richer every time something is done "for our own good" -- politicians who make as much as a senior engineer on paper but all of whom seem to become fabulously wealthy regardless (huh wonder where all those extra millions came from) while the common man has suffered -- get together to figure out new ways to squeeze the common man, is it really so stupid to be skeptical? "Don't worry everyone, we're going to make your life even harder but it's all for your own good."
Having the summit in Dubai is fitting -- a city of extreme inequality, paid for with oil money, built by slaves, ruled by kings.
You can try to guilt and shame people into not caring about basic biological drives, but you actually can't. Entire generations of people have been pushed so far that their family lines will end with them. It's comfortable enough -- like being in a pool of comfortably warm water right up to your neck that you can't escape from, but when you can see people plotting to add more water to your pool the next step is you drown.
In previous eras, common people being this stressed out led to the fall of the Roman empire, the French reign of terror, the end of the Romanov dynasty in Russia or the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany. While you call people stupid for not listening to their leaders, historically speaking those same leaders will be lucky to keep their heads on their shoulders.
It's an easy thing to just assume people are stupid. It makes the world nice and simple and if only people would stop being stupid and start being smart (smart like you, obviously!) All the problems of the world would be solved.
For a lot of people, reality isn't so simple. The common man is already struggling. Throughout history, the age people get married and have kids has been indicative of the stress civilizations are under, and many people aren't having kids before they get too old to have kids because that's the level of stress the common man is under. Global civilization is facing a demographic bomb as every continent except Africa is facing a massive reduction in population in coming decades because nobody is having kids because life is so hard.
As a study in contrasts, just look at wages vs. rent while I've been an adult. Minimum wage went from 11/hr to 15/hr. Meanwhile, my first 2 bedroom apartment was 350/mo, and today you can't get anything for less than 1200. A few years before I rented, there were decent houses available for $50,000 and today the average house price nationwide is $800,000. (Not the US, obviously)
So when a bunch of the business leaders and politicians who magically seem to get richer every time something is done "for our own good" -- politicians who make as much as a senior engineer on paper but all of whom seem to become fabulously wealthy regardless (huh wonder where all those extra millions came from) while the common man has suffered -- get together to figure out new ways to squeeze the common man, is it really so stupid to be skeptical? "Don't worry everyone, we're going to make your life even harder but it's all for your own good."
Having the summit in Dubai is fitting -- a city of extreme inequality, paid for with oil money, built by slaves, ruled by kings.
You can try to guilt and shame people into not caring about basic biological drives, but you actually can't. Entire generations of people have been pushed so far that their family lines will end with them. It's comfortable enough -- like being in a pool of comfortably warm water right up to your neck that you can't escape from, but when you can see people plotting to add more water to your pool the next step is you drown.
In previous eras, common people being this stressed out led to the fall of the Roman empire, the French reign of terror, the end of the Romanov dynasty in Russia or the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany. While you call people stupid for not listening to their leaders, historically speaking those same leaders will be lucky to keep their heads on their shoulders.