Bernie Sanders

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

I'm not sure I can wrap my arms around this perspective. Epidemics and pandemics are not useful tools to limit population and the grief and emotional destruction brought on by infant mortality and world wars do not come close to being offset by the "virtues" of population control. Since when does the end justify the means?

For me it's not about justification or anything. The fact is that humans have managed to beat natural population controls, which is very very very bad for the world overall. Natural population control is SO important to life on Earth... and humankind has fucked it all up with medicine and technology while not doing anything to compensate for the lower death rates, I.e. birth control. It is very very stupid on our part.

I won't disagree that there needs to be more effective birth control, particularly in developing countries. But I"m not sure what 'natural population controls' are. Is it the Black Death? Polio? Influenza? What about cancer? Shall we stop trying to cure that until people promise to their pill? I'm being a bit of a smart ass, but how are humans fucking with the nature? What is nature's natural state and how do you know that's what it is? Should the infant mortality always be 15% Is the max age only 60? Do we need a world war or two to thin things out?

In any rational assessment, humans as a species are much better off today than we were 100 years ago, particularly in the western world. Education, no mass wars, vaccines, eradication of horrible diseases, treatments for cancer, higher standard of living, suffrage for all...none of this was at the same level 100 years ago. It baffles me that Brian can try to make that argument.

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

I'm not sure I can wrap my arms around this perspective. Epidemics and pandemics are not useful tools to limit population and the grief and emotional destruction brought on by infant mortality and world wars do not come close to being offset by the "virtues" of population control. Since when does the end justify the means?

For me it's not about justification or anything. The fact is that humans have managed to beat natural population controls, which is very very very bad for the world overall. Natural population control is SO important to life on Earth... and humankind has fucked it all up with medicine and technology while not doing anything to compensate for the lower death rates, I.e. birth control. It is very very stupid on our part.

I won't disagree that there needs to be more effective birth control, particularly in developing countries. But I"m not sure what 'natural population controls' are. Is it the Black Death? Polio? Influenza? What about cancer? Shall we stop trying to cure that until people promise to their pill? I'm being a bit of a smart ass, but how are humans fucking with the nature? What is nature's natural state and how do you know that's what it is? Should the infant mortality always be 15% Is the max age only 60? Do we need a world war or two to thin things out?

In any rational assessment, humans as a species are much better off today than we were 100 years ago, particularly in the western world. Education, no mass wars, vaccines, eradication of horrible diseases, treatments for cancer, higher standard of living, suffrage for all...none of this was at the same level 100 years ago. It baffles me that Brian can try to make that argument.

Education: Yes, in some places but not universally and overall quality of education in America is going down, down, down, not up.

No mass wars? WWIII is what, a skirmish? War and or massive bloody killings are nearly ubiquitous in most parts of the world (including the U.S.).

Vaccines yes/no. The healthiest humans I personally know have never had a single vaccine and have rarely been to a doctor. All live in major metropolitan areas and are grown adults..

Eradication of horrible disease. Far from true. Some like small pox and measles are making a comeback. Pandemic due to over-use of antibiotics looms on the horizon.

Treatment for cancer: Much improved but we would be wise to look more at prevention.

Higher standard of living: Improving but based on energy provided by oil which is becoming more difficult to extract thus desperate measure such as fracking and tar sands. Check out James Howard Kunstler's still relevant The Long Emergency and almost any work by post-carbon visionary Richard Heinberg.

I notice you did not mention anthropogenic global warming.

Also missing: species die-off rate:

"The prehuman [species die-off] rate is now put at one to ten species extinguished per million species each year. In terms of human life span that primordial rate is infinitesimal, essentially zero in conservation thinking. (Keep in mind also that as many as six million contemporary species remain undiscovered by scientists.) Yet it also means that the current rate of extinction of the well-known species is up by a multiple of close to one thousand and accelerating- despite the heroic best efforts of the global conservation movement."

Edward O. Wilson, Half-Earth, 2016, p.185

Still baffled? Perhaps that's due to our differing perspectives, an anthropocentric viewpoint and a biocentic viewpoint.

mrussel1

Education: Our 'lead' in education is shrinking vs world, but the overall literacy rate in the US and world has never been higher. Look at these two charts for the world: https://ourworldindata.org/literacy/ and then the US (see the chart at the bottom). https://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp In particular with the US, look at the growth in literacy of blacks. You can read deeper into the study and see that the HS and college achievement across the population follows a similar path.

War: When I say '100 years ago' I'm speaking broadly about the early to mid 20th century when we were wracked by wars, fascism and tyrants. My family was affected directly by WWII and my entire extended family was wiped out by Holodomor. So to draw any equivalency to that period and today is daft. My initial post specifically called the world warS.

Vaccines: Okay, be a vaccine denier. Thanks to people like your friends who have re-started measles, mumps and whooping cough. If you are on this train, I'm not even going to argue with you about it. The merits of vaccines far outweigh the downsides. Just look at mortality rates.

You're right, I didn't mention global warming because that is an area where industrialization has negatively affected the planet. But that's one issue. On balance, the world is in a far better place than it was in the last century. It's not even close.

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

Education: Our 'lead' in education is shrinking vs world, but the overall literacy rate in the US and world has never been higher. Look at these two charts for the world: https://ourworldindata.org/literacy/ and then the US (see the chart at the bottom). https://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp In particular with the US, look at the growth in literacy of blacks. You can read deeper into the study and see that the HS and college achievement across the population follows a similar path.

War: When I say '100 years ago' I'm speaking broadly about the early to mid 20th century when we were wracked by wars, fascism and tyrants. My family was affected directly by WWII and my entire extended family was wiped out by Holodomor. So to draw any equivalency to that period and today is daft. My initial post specifically called the world warS.

Vaccines: Okay, be a vaccine denier. Thanks to people like your friends who have re-started measles, mumps and whooping cough. If you are on this train, I'm not even going to argue with you about it. The merits of vaccines far outweigh the downsides. Just look at mortality rates.

You're right, I didn't mention global warming because that is an area where industrialization has negatively affected the planet. But that's one issue. On balance, the world is in a far better place than it was in the last century. It's not even close.

I'm just telling you why I made the argument I made.

The U.S. is dumbing down. That's the truth and we could argue forever but I'm firm on that one and most people would agree. Having taught and or worked in elementary, middle, high school and community colleges, I've seen it happen.

I did not mention anyone in my family avoiding vaccines.

I did not say I am a vaccine denier.

My Pop was in WWII, had friends serve in Viet Nam (some died there) and Korea and a kid I helped raise served in Iraq. I've heard all the stories. War is not on the decline.

Yes, global warming is just one issue. One teeny weenie mother of an issue. I wouldn't take it lightly.

You still didn't mention species die off. Maybe the biggest issue of all.

PJfanwillneverleave1

Shouldn't the name of this thread be changed now?
Sanders is gone and the derailing is yuge here.

brianlux

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Shouldn't the name of this thread be changed now?
Sanders is gone and the derailing is yuge here.

NO! Instead, let's keep it Bernie. Maybe some Bernie with tie photos, please.

PJfanwillneverleave1

brianlux said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Shouldn't the name of this thread be changed now?
Sanders is gone and the derailing is yuge here.

NO! Instead, let's keep it Bernie. Maybe some Bernie with tie photos, please.

Ok fine. Only this once though.

hedonist

And, there goes the bar again.

brianlux

Frogs on unicycles tie? Oh heck yeah! I want one of those!!

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

I'm not sure I can wrap my arms around this perspective. Epidemics and pandemics are not useful tools to limit population and the grief and emotional destruction brought on by infant mortality and world wars do not come close to being offset by the "virtues" of population control. Since when does the end justify the means?

For me it's not about justification or anything. The fact is that humans have managed to beat natural population controls, which is very very very bad for the world overall. Natural population control is SO important to life on Earth... and humankind has fucked it all up with medicine and technology while not doing anything to compensate for the lower death rates, I.e. birth control. It is very very stupid on our part.

I won't disagree that there needs to be more effective birth control, particularly in developing countries. But I"m not sure what 'natural population controls' are. Is it the Black Death? Polio? Influenza? What about cancer? Shall we stop trying to cure that until people promise to their pill? I'm being a bit of a smart ass, but how are humans fucking with the nature? What is nature's natural state and how do you know that's what it is? Should the infant mortality always be 15% Is the max age only 60? Do we need a world war or two to thin things out?

In any rational assessment, humans as a species are much better off today than we were 100 years ago, particularly in the western world. Education, no mass wars, vaccines, eradication of horrible diseases, treatments for cancer, higher standard of living, suffrage for all...none of this was at the same level 100 years ago. It baffles me that Brian can try to make that argument.

Yes, natural population control for humans is generally famine, disease, infant mortality, and exposure to the elements, just like with every other animal on Earth (i don't consider war a natural population control). People are fucming with nature with medicines, charity, and technology. People generally feel morally obligated to help save people from these things (very hypocritically in many ways, especially when it comes to foreign aid), but without doing anything to counteract the effects of dramatically lowering death rates, it probably causes more problems than it solves in the long run. It's just a fact. I am not stating any kind of weird opinion or suggesting we stop trying to help people. I have a soul, lol. I am simply saying that removing so many natural population controls and not replacing them with something (birth control) we are causing harm to the world and to future generations. And what is natural? Well, I think balance is the natural state of things. Humans have eradicated any kind of natural balance between themselves and the planet that supports them. I think that is self-evident.

Free

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Shouldn't the name of this thread be changed now?
Sanders is gone and the derailing is yuge here.

His campaign has not conceded. Off to the convention!

No, I don't know what's up with that.

BS44325

Time to man up Bernie...

http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/why-can-ted-cruz-speak-rnc-primetime-without-endorsing-trump-but-bernie-sanders-endorsed-clinton-dnc/

Let's have some honesty next week!

mrussel1

BS44325 said:

Time to man up Bernie...

http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/why-can-ted-cruz-speak-rnc-primetime-without-endorsing-trump-but-bernie-sanders-endorsed-clinton-dnc/

Let's have some honesty next week!

Hillary didn't insult Bernie's wife and father. Cruz cited that as one of the primary reason he refused to endorse.

BS44325

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

Time to man up Bernie...

http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/why-can-ted-cruz-speak-rnc-primetime-without-endorsing-trump-but-bernie-sanders-endorsed-clinton-dnc/

Let's have some honesty next week!

Hillary didn't insult Bernie's wife and father. Cruz cited that as one of the primary reason he refused to endorse.

That and the constitution.

mrussel1

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

Time to man up Bernie...

http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/why-can-ted-cruz-speak-rnc-primetime-without-endorsing-trump-but-bernie-sanders-endorsed-clinton-dnc/

Let's have some honesty next week!

Hillary didn't insult Bernie's wife and father. Cruz cited that as one of the primary reason he refused to endorse.

That and the constitution.

I didn't hear the details, but that must mean that he believes Trump's proposals are unconstitutional. Is that accurate?

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

Time to man up Bernie...

http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/why-can-ted-cruz-speak-rnc-primetime-without-endorsing-trump-but-bernie-sanders-endorsed-clinton-dnc/

Let's have some honesty next week!

Hillary didn't insult Bernie's wife and father. Cruz cited that as one of the primary reason he refused to endorse.

That and the constitution.

I didn't hear the details, but that must mean that he believes Trump's proposals are unconstitutional. Is that accurate?

Yes, that is what he said. He didn't get into specifics though, so we can't say for sure what he's being totally hypocritical about. I'm going to assume he was dropping the hint because of the whole Muslim/immigrant thing, the wall, etc, and definitely NOT about LGBT rights or women's rights. Not sure where he stands on the whole cop/abuse of power issue, or the NSA.

Cliffy6745

I believe he said today that he isn't in the business of supporting people who insult his wife and family.

Can we talk about Rubio? He has to be in surgery today getting a spine, right?

BS44325

Cliffy6745 said:

I believe he said today that he isn't in the business of supporting people who insult his wife and family.

Can we talk about Rubio? He has to be in surgery today getting a spine, right?

His surgery is scheduled right after Bernie's

Cliffy6745

BS44325 said:

Cliffy6745 said:

I believe he said today that he isn't in the business of supporting people who insult his wife and family.

Can we talk about Rubio? He has to be in surgery today getting a spine, right?

His surgery is scheduled right after Bernie's

Pretty sure Hillary never called Bernie "Little Bernie", or anything mildly along the lines of what he said about him.

mrussel1

Cliffy6745 said:

BS44325 said:

Cliffy6745 said:

I believe he said today that he isn't in the business of supporting people who insult his wife and family.

Can we talk about Rubio? He has to be in surgery today getting a spine, right?

His surgery is scheduled right after Bernie's

Pretty sure Hillary never called Bernie "Little Bernie", or anything mildly along the lines of what he said about him.

Hillary did say Bernie's father was responsible for Lincoln's assassination though, so there is that.