Outsourcing brings down cost of production, thus making items more affordable. This benefits the workers who were not involved in the production of the item initially. For those workers, well sucks, but they need to find another job and now the items they had previously made are cheaper them as well.
Going back to 1800??? Are you out of your MIND? Pollution became a better understood quantity in the postwar era, but even before that, cars were the solution to a completely untenable situation with horses. Mind-numbing stench of poop and rotting horse carcasses, coal smog in every major city, rampant disease, an expected lifespan of less than fifty years, production that makes today's corresponding sectors look tidy by comparison... And with billions more people. Yeah. Disaster doesn't begin to describe it. For better or worse, we have no choice but to start from where we are now. The past holds no simple solutions for today's problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Going back to 1800??? Are you out of your MIND? Pollution became a better understood quantity in the postwar era, but even before that, cars were the solution to a completely untenable situation with horses. Mind-numbing stench of poop and rotting horse carcasses, coal smog in every major city, rampant disease, an expected lifespan of less than fifty years, production that makes today's corresponding sectors look tidy by comparison... And with billions more people. Yeah. Disaster doesn't begin to describe it. For better or worse, we have no choice but to start from where we are now. The past holds no simple solutions for today's problems.
Hey, now. The two items I bolded would be a simple solution to the population problem :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would also get other politicians elected.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it would solve two problems! ;)
Outsourcing brings down cost of production, thus making items more affordable. This benefits the workers who were not involved in the production of the item initially. For those workers, well sucks, but they need to find another job and now the items they had previously made are cheaper them as well.
The result of all that is that the rich get richer, and the poor have to undercut each other for the few remaining jobs. As technology progresses, once "safe" jobs get outsourced, and the gap between owners and former-workers grows and grows. You end up with a tiny fraction of the population controlling a huge percentage of the wealth. If trickle down economics worked, our country would be booming...
But like in Fight Club, you have to ask yourself, "... how's that working out for you." Since it has been many years since NAFTA and the other global trade agreements, we know the answer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
think returning to a 1800's tech level would do the Itrick, doesn't have to be stone age but anything involving plastics and electricity is planet killing
Nope. We caused a planetary wide extinction that , geologically, rivals that which took out the dinosaurs with nothing more than pointy sticks and fire. Backwards isn't an option, the solution is either forward or bust.
think returning to a 1800's tech level would do the Itrick, doesn't have to be stone age but anything involving plastics and electricity is planet killingNope. We caused a planetary wide extinction that , geologically, rivals that which took out the dinosaurs with nothing more than pointy sticks and fire. Backwards isn't an option, the solution is either forward or bust.
Which of the extinction events during human history are you referring to?
Wich is like saying child slavery is bad but if we keep just enough to make what we want at least there isn't as much so we are doing good. Really it is more about limiting humanity than stopping us from having plastic that will do long term good.
The two are not remotely comparable. Child slavery at any level hurts an individual. Pollution levels can be low enough to be negligible or tolerable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which of the extinction events during human history are you referring to?
The event is humanity. Any time humanity shows up in the fossil record, there goes the local wildlife. Its not a recent event.
Those "stable futures" rely on each generation being larger than the last to support the ponzi scheme of taking from some to support others. Compounding the problem if you want to limit pollution causing industry that produces the wealth that pay the taxes. That does little to remedy the population issueGood luck trying to convince humans to stop breeding like rodents thoughIt seems the best way is to stop treating them like rodents. With a few exceptions, raising the standard of living (and especially guaranteeing secure retirement) tends to cause the birthrate to drop off sharply. Sadly, our economic system is set up to provide far more profit for killing people rather then providing them with stable futures.
The crazy thing is that I basically agree with Andrew R on this point.
Addressing climate change is just putting a bandaid on a head wound if we don't get population growth under control. And by under control I don't mean slowing the rate of change, but actually reducing the world population in meaningful ways. Ways that we tend to find distasteful, like an enforceable population control policy, or euthanasia.
Let me guess, you're volunteering to be the first to go in the suggested program of euthanasia then?
Let me guess, you're volunteering to be the first to go in the suggested program of euthanasia then?
Could you quote exactly where he suggested euthanasia?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me guess, you're volunteering to be the first to go in the suggested program of euthanasia then?
You only prove my point. People don't have the intestinal fortitude for what has to actually be done.
But since you're asking, sure. If, at some point in my future, I become a financial liability because of the resources I'm consuming for medical procedures to keep me alive outweigh my utility, put me down like a sick dog. I won't pretend I'm not afraid of death, but I fear being too frail to take care of myself even more.
We have a culture that is obsessed with the sanctity of "human life" even when that human life is basically just a sack of flesh hooked up to life support, or, on the other end of the deal, a smattering of cells. Furthermore we pretend that human life is the only life that matters, all the while causing the extinction of untold numbers of species of plant, animal, fungal, and microbial life.
I don't hold human life as sacred the way most people do. What I want to survive is our culture and our civilization, which means finding a sustainable model for industrial civilization.
Sure!
And by under control I don't mean slowing the rate of change, but actually reducing the world population in meaningful ways. Ways that we tend to find distasteful, like an enforceable population control policy, or euthanasia.
My bolding.
meatrace: Euthanasia used to kill those who are already dying isn't going to be visible in the population data, you realize that, right? I thought you were talking about EFFECTIVE programs, like euthanizing everyone above the age of 40 or somesuch, healthy or no. So, would you, if it meant that such programs were instated?
meatrace: Euthanasia used to kill those who are already dying isn't going to be visible in the population data, you realize that, right? I thought you were talking about EFFECTIVE programs, like euthanizing everyone above the age of 40 or somesuch, healthy or no. So, would you, if it meant that such programs were instated?
How would that be effective at all, killing people in their prime?
Remember the whole rant. The reason we need population control is because of out of control growth of resource depletion. In the US, 70% of medical costs (costs just being a way of tallying use of resources) are expended in the last 6 months of life. Not rallying millions of dollars in resources that are better utilized elsewhere, and cultivating a culture that learns to accept the inevitability of death, goes a long way in reducing the problem.Remember also that it's only industrialized societies that are depleting resources at this level. The poor and homeless in sub-saharan Africa or South America or Central Asia aren't the problem--we are. I'm not at all advocating some sort of genocide, I'm advocating that industrial civilization get our house in order and come to terms with the facts on the ground.
The event is humanity. Any time humanity shows up in the fossil record, there goes the local wildlife. Its not a recent event.
Which of the extinction events during human history are you referring to?
Fair enough. I was wondering if you meant one of the specific extinction events humanity has caused, but I have to admit that you gave a far better answer than I had considered.
Fair enough. I was wondering if you meant one of the specific extinction events humanity has caused, but I have to admit that you gave a far better answer than I had considered.The event is humanity. Any time humanity shows up in the fossil record, there goes the local wildlife. Its not a recent event.
Which of the extinction events during human history are you referring to?
There's still a lot of debate on it, and plenty of studies done on either side of the issue of whether it was climate change or human activity that caused megafauna extinction.
I see no reason why it can't be a combination.
Good sex ed, free abortions, cheap contraceptives of all kinds, education for everyone, decent pensions, options for nursing homes for the elderly, a healthy job market and a social security system worth the name. That's all you need to curbstomp population growth. Then again... there are many projections that the curve will turn downward after ten billion people... which is when the real problems will happen.
Fair enough. I was wondering if you meant one of the specific extinction events humanity has caused, but I have to admit that you gave a far better answer than I had considered.The event is humanity. Any time humanity shows up in the fossil record, there goes the local wildlife. Its not a recent event.
Which of the extinction events during human history are you referring to?There's still a lot of debate on it, and plenty of studies done on either side of the issue of whether it was climate change or human activity that caused megafauna extinction.
I see no reason why it can't be a combination.
I wouldn't be surprised if humanity had accelerated the climate change, either. Both is looking like a good answer at the moment. It matches all of the evidence collected to date.
Good sex ed, free abortions, cheap contraceptives of all kinds, education for everyone, decent pensions, options for nursing homes for the elderly, a healthy job market and a social security system worth the name. That's all you need to curbstomp population growth. Then again... there are many projections that the curve will turn downward after ten billion people... which is when the real problems will happen.
Ten billion, at our current rate of resource utilization, growth rate of resource depletion, and industrialization of third world populations, would be catastrophic for humanity.
We're barely limping along at 7.
I see no reason why it can't be a combination.
Theres a few reasons.
For starters, climate change doesn't seem to cause mass extinctions. For the time frame of say, mammoth extinction, there were 17 or so cooling and warming periods and neither one seems to coincide very well with a drop in biodiversity.
The second thing is the target of the extinctions are things that are easy for humans to hunt.
The third thing is that when you have climate change, you get one species replacing another in its niche. It gets colder, the northern mammoths replace the southern one. It gets warmer, the southern mammoths replace the northern ones. One species replaces another. What you don't get is an entire open niche going POOF.
I see no reason why it can't be a combination.
Theres a few reasons.
For starters, climate change doesn't seem to cause mass extinctions. For the time frame of say, mammoth extinction, there were 17 or so cooling and warming periods and neither one seems to coincide very well with a drop in biodiversity.
The second thing is the target of the extinctions are things that are easy for humans to hunt.
The third thing is that when you have climate change, you get one species replacing another in its niche. It gets colder, the northern mammoths replace the southern one. It gets warmer, the southern mammoths replace the northern ones. One species replaces another. What you don't get is an entire open niche going POOF.
And why I'm saying a combination, and mind I'm by no means an expert.
Climate change, in either direction, may well have precipitated the introduction of humanity to the population of megafauna who live at more extreme latitudes, such as the mammoths you speak of. It gets warmer, humanity is able to push farther north (having started in Africa).
We've seen pretty brutal extinction patterns of megafauna just in RECORDED human history, a couple thousand years, including whales. For all the reasons you suggest but which I'll make more explicit. Larger creatures require more resources, thus you can have less of them in a small area and be sustainable. They typically have much longer gestational periods, meaning they don't bounce back as quickly. They're typically slower, and for a human population cutting its teeth (so to speak) on animal flesh they make far too enticing a target for economic reasons.
But right now we're seeing the extinction of the moose, and it's not largely because of hunting or direct human interaction. Moose are dying of lyme disease and other diseases borne by insects that previously (i.e. before climate change) weren't as intense at the northern climes which the moose inhabits.
There very well could have been a similar phenomena tens of thousands of years ago, which wouldn't show up in the fossil record whatsoever.
Without immigration and children of immigrants, the us has a negative population growth. So if you can hit a western style society you can get negative population growth without gulags or strict government mandates.
The problem with a western lifestyle is that it eats up so many resources. You also can't give it up: economic power is military power. No country is going to be willing to make itself vulnerable to its less altruistic neighbors by dropping its population and cutting back on production.
Retreat is not an option.
Good sex ed, free abortions, cheap contraceptives of all kinds, education for everyone, decent pensions, options for nursing homes for the elderly, a healthy job market and a social security system worth the name. That's all you need to curbstomp population growth. Then again... there are many projections that the curve will turn downward after ten billion people... which is when the real problems will happen.Ten billion, at our current rate of resource utilization, growth rate of resource depletion, and industrialization of third world populations, would be catastrophic for humanity.
We're barely limping along at 7.
There is a choice we have to make. Either we help those in the poorer countries to improve their standard of living, or we start massive wars to protect ourselves. Both methods will eventually reduce world population. Neither will likely prevent 10 billion. If we go with wars, however, there will likely not be enough left of us or the Earth to be worth mentioning.
There is a choice we have to make. Either we help those in the poorer countries to improve their standard of living, or we start massive wars to protect ourselves. Both methods will eventually reduce world population. Neither will likely prevent 10 billion. If we go with wars, however, there will likely not be enough left of us or the Earth to be worth mentioning.
That's a false choice if ever I've seen one.
Again, it's not the population of the "poorer" countries that are causing the hassle, it's us. We need to find better and sustainable solutions to energy, water, and agriculture.
Andrew R was railing earlier about plastics and how they are death incarnate. Well, it's petrochemicals that are death incarnate, including most plastics, but there is emerging plastics technology that repurposes plant cellulose rather than petrochemical byproducts. Heck, the first plastic WAS plant cellulose.
So, hypothetically, we could engineer plants to produce the kind of cellulose that is useful in plastics manufacturing thus supplanting petrochemical byproducts, all the while actually sequestering carbon by growing them rather than releasing carbon into the atmosphere.
I dunno, it's just one little thing. But a sustainable plastics industry, with perhaps the advent of carbon composite materials, could even replace metal for many things.
This broke the other week. The development of this technology could mean bridging the gap between popular sustainable energy sources like wind and solar and more traditional fossil fuels. One of the biggest complaints of which is its inability to function off-peak (i.e. when it's not windy or sunny). Battery technology is the solution.
So. Eliminate or reduce the need to deplete nonrenewable resources such as mining of metals and petrochemical-based plastics by replacing them with plant-based plastics. Pursue alternative (including gas and nuclear, preferably breeder reactors) and renewable energy sources and better battery technology. Electric cars like the Tesla. It's a start.
Figure out a way to get atmospheric carbon into carbon fibers and make stuff out of that.
Figure out a way to get atmospheric carbon into carbon fibers and make stuff out of that.
That would be easy enough to do. Just re-engineer a type of bacteria to do it.
|
Wich is like saying child slavery is bad but if we keep just enough to make what we want at least there isn't as much so we are doing good....
And again with the binary thinking...
Only the Sith deal I'm absolutes.
Besides it is actually nothing like your example at all. To use the same analogy, he's saying that jus because we can't stop all child slavery doesn't mean that we shouldn't stop any.
After all this time, what possible difference could it make?
Figure out a way to get atmospheric carbon into carbon fibers and make stuff out of that.That would be easy enough to do. Just re-engineer a type of bacteria to do it.
Or. Ya know. Plants.
Exactly thouh. I said carbon composite because it's already something in large use but expensive (for the time being). You can engineer composite to recreate any of a range of relative densities, thus simulating a wide range of materials including wood.
I say we start a Mars colonization initiative. We start shipping people out, this reduces the population on Earth, thus relieves pressure (after an initial period of when we are constructing the ships). It also has the added advantage of not having all of our "eggs" in the same basket, just in case of an extinction level event.
As an Earthist, not an "environmentalist", I say we go to Mars and pollute the living hell out of it! Who is with me?
I'm down.
What I REALLY want though is to harness the Higgs boson to create artificial gravity and gravity-based space transportation.
I say we start a Mars colonization initiative. We start shipping people out, this reduces the population on Earth, thus relieves pressure (after an initial period of when we are constructing the ships). It also has the added advantage of not having all of our "eggs" in the same basket, just in case of an extinction level event.
As an Earthist, not an "environmentalist", I say we go to Mars and pollute the living hell out of it! Who is with me?
And thus, the people of Earth headed out to the stars, leaving a trail of devastation in their wake. Entire planets left in ruins, as the Empire of Humanity took whatever they wanted from the cosmos and then moved on. In many ways, it was a return to their origins as nomadic tribespeople - not long after leaving their home planet, the Empire split apart - charismatic individuals leading their own people the way they see fit, and with no way for a central government to maintain control over such long distances. Constantly-changing alliances and hostilities between the factions only added to the havoc this race brought to the universe.
...
...
...
I think we can make a game setting out of this!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Matt, isn't that the opening history of humanity's expansion into space from Warhammer 40k?
Why don't we modify some bacteria to live on mars and get the O2 making started?
*Drifts through space*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the plan is to modify algae for Mars.
Matt, isn't that the opening history of humanity's expansion into space from Warhammer 40k?
Well, that was more expansion without the trail of ruined planets (or at least, only ruining those of their enemies). I believe the Emperor (or at least, what's left of him) is still on Earth. Unless they retconned some more stuff in the last 15 years or so since I stopped following it :)
I was thinking more Quarian-style nomadic fleets, and humanity stripping every planet of its resources before moving on to the next one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can always go to 4chan for the kind of threads you're looking for.
Are we really such intellectual cowards that the engines of discourse perforce must drive debate that is only flawlessly, precisely, undoubtedly inoffensive to anyone in any way?What's happened to us?
Quite. Lets remember this is Paizo's message board, and not a public service. Whatever goes on here has to be justified to management, and "giving gamers somewhere to verbally rip each other's insides out in the name of debating fascinating topics" doesn't sound like a good business case to me.
Think more sitting around in comfy chairs, chatting to each other over a coffee, and less heated debate with people standing at podiums hurling insults at one another.
I say we start a Mars colonization initiative. We start shipping people out, this reduces the population on Earth, thus relieves pressure (after an initial period of when we are constructing the ships). It also has the added advantage of not having all of our "eggs" in the same basket, just in case of an extinction level event.
As an Earthist, not an "environmentalist", I say we go to Mars and pollute the living hell out of it! Who is with me?
Mars is too cold and the sunlight that reaches it too weak to grow sustenance-levels of edible plants. I propose you instead start your first exo-terrestrial colony on the Sun. Don't forget your sunglasses and Dr. Vonnegut's Magic-All-One Sunscreen.
*Drifts through space*
{sings (badly):} "Ground control to Major Kobold..."
|
|
Are we really such intellectual cowards that the engines of discourse perforce must drive debate that is only flawlessly, precisely, undoubtedly inoffensive to anyone in any way?What's happened to us?
You can always go to 4chan for the kind of threads you're looking for.
Quite. Lets remember this is Paizo's message board, and not a public service. Whatever goes on here has to be justified to management, and "giving gamers somewhere to verbally rip each other's insides out in the name of debating fascinating topics" doesn't sound like a good business case to me.
Think more sitting around in comfy chairs, chatting to each other over a coffee, and less heated debate with people standing at podiums hurling insults at one another.
[eyeroll] 4Chan is completely and categorically the opposite of what I'm talking about; take a look at my posting history and you'll see what I mean.[/eyeroll]
Yes, the boards are Paizo-land, which is why I love them--I've been posting here since 2005. My OP was not aimed at Paizo or the Mods (who have atrociously difficult jobs; and I'm pretty sure Moderating is an additional duty that gets in the way of real work).
The OP was aimed at all of us--some of us are intimidated by rigorous discourse, some of us are debate pros, and some of us are total imbecilic trolls; and we've gotten so bad at the two extremes--ultra-sensitive/ultra-trollish--that we've backed the Mods (and our beloved Paizo) into a corner labeled 'this thread is so contentious and such troll bait, we need to lock it before it starts'. We're our own worst enemy.
As to the Best Boards on the Internet (aka, Paizo Boards), and how they contribute to business at Paizo--I'm an example of a Boards-User who enjoyed the experience so much he morphed into a Regular Customer (I've spent thousands of dollars here over the years).
Mars could be something, but it would need to have a bit more mass. A few ice comets could do that trick, giving it water enough, but it would simply remain too cold for terraforming anyway. Venus is too hot (seriously all those people who look to Venus about what might happen with Earth climate, you don't think bad s#&$ would happen if the Earth was that much closer to the Sun???) which is even harder to deal with. No, our solar system doesn't provide us with any free rides.
Are we really such intellectual cowards that the engines of discourse perforce must drive debate that is only flawlessly, precisely, undoubtedly inoffensive to anyone in any way?What's happened to us?
You can always go to 4chan for the kind of threads you're looking for.Quite. Lets remember this is Paizo's message board, and not a public service. Whatever goes on here has to be justified to management, and "giving gamers somewhere to verbally rip each other's insides out in the name of debating fascinating topics" doesn't sound like a good business case to me.
Think more sitting around in comfy chairs, chatting to each other over a coffee, and less heated debate with people standing at podiums hurling insults at one another.
[eyeroll] 4Chan is completely and categorically the opposite of what I'm talking about; take a look at my posting history and you'll see what I mean.[/eyeroll]
Yes, the boards are Paizo-land, which is why I love them--I've been posting here since 2005. My OP was not aimed at Paizo or the Mods (who have atrociously difficult jobs; and I'm pretty sure Moderating is an additional duty that gets in the way of real work).
The OP was aimed at all of us--some of us are intimidated by rigorous discourse, some of us are debate pros, and some of us are total imbecilic trolls; and we've gotten so bad at the two extremes--ultra-sensitive/ultra-trollish--that we've backed the Mods (and our beloved Paizo) into a corner labeled 'this thread is so contentious and such troll bait, we need to lock it before it starts'. We're our own worst enemy.
As to the Best Boards on the Internet (aka, Paizo Boards), and how they contribute to business at Paizo--I'm an example of a Boards-User who enjoyed the experience so much he morphed into a Regular Customer (I've spent thousands of dollars here over the years).
I don't know, Andrew, aside from being mature and polite yourself, and hoping that everyone else behaves the same, it doesn't sound like there's really a solution to the problem. It's a very fuzzy line between debate pro and imbecilic troll, and if Paizo has noticed that a few specific thread topics are problematic enough to warrant preemptive locking to keep the boards civil on the whole, I think that's reason to be happy, rather than complain.