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?
Wow. 80k. That will get her a couple 30 second spots.
I think you missed the point. Besides, since when did the most money mean the best person? If most money wins, I'm down fairly low in the standings cellar. Fine by me.
It means if you want to compete in a general election, which takes people, phone banks, get out the vote operations, travel, advertising spots, then you need money.
Yep, that's how it works. Can we have some campaign finacne reform, please?
When Jill Stein ran for Gov of MA in 2010, she got like 1.5% of the vote. It's about the bluest state in the union. Her message does not resonate with most people. Sorry.
Well, sorry but the average American (at least) is rather uninformed and reckless are they not? (I'm restraining myself while thinking of a classic George Carlin routine.) What say we work to build a better educated America and encourage people to make better, more informed choice, eh?
Because Jill Stein has zero history of accomplishing anything, let alone winning an election.
You really are afraid of change, aren't you? Go ahead, play it safe but let me ask you, has the status quo made life for us and the rest of life on earth better? In my nearly 65 years of walking around on this planet I totally believe things in general are definitely not getting better (more and more frequent wars, more disease, continued population explosion, more international strife, more religious fanaticism on all sides, more acceleration of species die off, more radioactivity, shall I go on?) and if we don't make some changes quick, we are all fucked.
What people had against Obama before he won (out of fear) was that he "had no experience". Remember that? There will always be lots of people so deathly afraid of change they will make every excuse in the book. The same goes for those willing to vote based on their fears rather than a candidate mostly aligned with their values.
Wow. 80k. That will get her a couple 30 second spots.
I think you missed the point. Besides, since when did the most money mean the best person? If most money wins, I'm down fairly low in the standings cellar. Fine by me.
It means if you want to compete in a general election, which takes people, phone banks, get out the vote operations, travel, advertising spots, then you need money.
Yep, that's how it works. Can we have some campaign finacne reform, please?
When Jill Stein ran for Gov of MA in 2010, she got like 1.5% of the vote. It's about the bluest state in the union. Her message does not resonate with most people. Sorry.
Well, sorry but the average American (at least) is rather uninformed and reckless are they not? (I'm restraining myself while thinking of a classic George Carlin routine.) What say we work to build a better educated America and encourage people to make better, more informed choice, eh?
Because Jill Stein has zero history of accomplishing anything, let alone winning an election.
You really are afraid of change, aren't you? Go ahead, play it safe but let me ask you, has the status quo made life for us and the rest of life on earth better? In my nearly 65 years of walking around on this planet I totally believe things in general are definitely not getting better (more and more frequent wars, more disease, continued population explosion, more international strife, more religious fanaticism on all sides, more acceleration of species die off, more radioactivity, shall I go on?) and if we don't make some changes quick, we are all fucked.
What people had against Obama before he won (out of fear) was that he "had no experience". Remember that? There will always be lots of people so deathly afraid of change they will make every excuse in the book. The same goes for those willing to vote based on their fears rather than a candidate mostly aligned with their values.
Whatever makes you feel good. But you have no idea what experiences motivate others to vote how they do. The difference between Obama, a federal and state senator who won elections is quite different than Stein who can't garner 5% in MA.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,946
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?
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I am not a monster! I wasn't giving my perspective, just the fact that in earlier times, population rose very slowly due to limiting factors like epidemics and infant mortality. Of course those are things we do not welcome! Of course I think death by illness and death in child birth is tragic when viewed from an individual point of view. My goddaughter just had a baby. Am I glad she and the baby are doing fine? Of course!
Mother Nature always controls population by her own means. If a species overshoots it population, die off will occur wither through increased predation, starvation, disease, or a combination of factors. Left unchecked, that will happen to humans. So a limited population is a good thing and we can achieve the same thing- zero or negative population growth- through birth control.
Population is slowing in many countries but what is often not recognized is that even when countries have zero population growth by births, the overshoot of people living longer means that the population in that country will still rise for many years. We may not be moving fast enough to avoid a die off of an unpleasant (but necessary) means.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Wow. 80k. That will get her a couple 30 second spots.
I think you missed the point. Besides, since when did the most money mean the best person? If most money wins, I'm down fairly low in the standings cellar. Fine by me.
It means if you want to compete in a general election, which takes people, phone banks, get out the vote operations, travel, advertising spots, then you need money.
Yep, that's how it works. Can we have some campaign finacne reform, please?
When Jill Stein ran for Gov of MA in 2010, she got like 1.5% of the vote. It's about the bluest state in the union. Her message does not resonate with most people. Sorry.
Well, sorry but the average American (at least) is rather uninformed and reckless are they not? (I'm restraining myself while thinking of a classic George Carlin routine.) What say we work to build a better educated America and encourage people to make better, more informed choice, eh?
Because Jill Stein has zero history of accomplishing anything, let alone winning an election.
You really are afraid of change, aren't you? Go ahead, play it safe but let me ask you, has the status quo made life for us and the rest of life on earth better? In my nearly 65 years of walking around on this planet I totally believe things in general are definitely not getting better (more and more frequent wars, more disease, continued population explosion, more international strife, more religious fanaticism on all sides, more acceleration of species die off, more radioactivity, shall I go on?) and if we don't make some changes quick, we are all fucked.
I don't understand how you think Jill Stein would have a positive impact on any of these things though Brian. Is she even capable of that?? I also think that a LOT of things are a LOT better than they used to be. But yeah, some things are worse. The US Green Party is unfortunately unlikely to fix any of those things, unfortunately. While I do certainly support the Green Party when it comes to environmental issues and clean energy initiatives, I think they are too much a one party platform. Even though the environment is very, very high on my list of major issues, I still don't vote Green, as much as I admire some of their principles. There is a good reason for that: I have no real confidence in their ability to actually lead a nation or to make most of their initiatives actually happen. I like a strong third party (In Canada anyway - i don't think the US system can handle one right now; the system is rigged against one), but Green doesn't seem to be one.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
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.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,946
Wow. 80k. That will get her a couple 30 second spots.
I think you missed the point. Besides, since when did the most money mean the best person? If most money wins, I'm down fairly low in the standings cellar. Fine by me.
It means if you want to compete in a general election, which takes people, phone banks, get out the vote operations, travel, advertising spots, then you need money.
Yep, that's how it works. Can we have some campaign finacne reform, please?
When Jill Stein ran for Gov of MA in 2010, she got like 1.5% of the vote. It's about the bluest state in the union. Her message does not resonate with most people. Sorry.
Well, sorry but the average American (at least) is rather uninformed and reckless are they not? (I'm restraining myself while thinking of a classic George Carlin routine.) What say we work to build a better educated America and encourage people to make better, more informed choice, eh?
Because Jill Stein has zero history of accomplishing anything, let alone winning an election.
You really are afraid of change, aren't you? Go ahead, play it safe but let me ask you, has the status quo made life for us and the rest of life on earth better? In my nearly 65 years of walking around on this planet I totally believe things in general are definitely not getting better (more and more frequent wars, more disease, continued population explosion, more international strife, more religious fanaticism on all sides, more acceleration of species die off, more radioactivity, shall I go on?) and if we don't make some changes quick, we are all fucked.
I don't understand how you think Jill Stein would have a positive impact on any of these things though Brian. Is she even capable of that?? I also think that a LOT of things are a LOT better than they used to be. But yeah, some things are worse. The US Green Party is unfortunately unlikely to fix any of those things, unfortunately. While I do certainly support the Green Party when it comes to environmental issues and clean energy initiatives, I think they are too much a one party platform. Even though the environment is very, very high on my list of major issues, I still don't vote Green, as much as I admire some of their principles. There is a good reason for that: I have no real confidence in their ability to actually lead a nation or to make most of their initiatives actually happen. I like a strong third party (In Canada anyway - i don't think the US system can handle one right now; the system is rigged against one), but Green doesn't seem to be one.
Again, see my first post in "Setting the Bar". That's why I wrote it, to answer these very types of questions.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
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.
Post edited by mrussel1 on
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,946
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.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
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.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,946
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.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
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.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
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.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
Mother Nature always controls population by her own means. If a species overshoots it population, die off will occur wither through increased predation, starvation, disease, or a combination of factors. Left unchecked, that will happen to humans. So a limited population is a good thing and we can achieve the same thing- zero or negative population growth- through birth control.
Population is slowing in many countries but what is often not recognized is that even when countries have zero population growth by births, the overshoot of people living longer means that the population in that country will still rise for many years. We may not be moving fast enough to avoid a die off of an unpleasant (but necessary) means.
I also think that a LOT of things are a LOT better than they used to be. But yeah, some things are worse. The US Green Party is unfortunately unlikely to fix any of those things, unfortunately. While I do certainly support the Green Party when it comes to environmental issues and clean energy initiatives, I think they are too much a one party platform. Even though the environment is very, very high on my list of major issues, I still don't vote Green, as much as I admire some of their principles. There is a good reason for that: I have no real confidence in their ability to actually lead a nation or to make most of their initiatives actually happen. I like a strong third party (In Canada anyway - i don't think the US system can handle one right now; the system is rigged against one), but Green doesn't seem to be one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sanders is gone and the derailing is yuge here.
No, I don't know what's up with that.
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!
Can we talk about Rubio? He has to be in surgery today getting a spine, right?