|
I prefer the idea that the potters are wizard big pharma because that's a ridiculous and hilarious idea. Because it presumes the idea of wizard patent trolling and wizard health insurance.
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:28 |
|
|
Apraxin posted:The state of this diseased loving country.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:04
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Why is big ben lit up in a creepy ghost green? Because it must bong. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:06
|
|
|
Apraxin posted:The state of this diseased loving country. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:07
|
|
|
big ben smashing the tower and collapsing the whole loving heap on 'brexit day' (ugh) would be the most beautiful metaphor in 100 years
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:10
|
|
|
Ratjaculation posted:Don't have kids This seems like such a dumb take. Like a person that would even consider not having children themselves to help the wider family of humanity then cool that's super principled and big-brained, but it's also loving weird, and as a horny normie that doesn't have that weird long-term brain thinking I will not be pursuing that course. If someone cares so much about climate change that they would choose not to have a family then that's hosed because the future is going to need their weird long-term brain. These people need to be less selfish tbh because in 90 years their grandkids might inherit their weird brains and potentially be actually useful whilst I am certain that my grandkids will just be posters. Call this a eugenics argument if you want but it's loving true, you do not want the offspring of Vitamin P to be the future braintrust.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:10
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:big ben smashing the tower and collapsing the whole loving heap on 'brexit day' (ugh) would be the most beautiful metaphor in 100 years brexit eve, surely? or when the bell tolls i guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:11
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj7oJ11PjiQ
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:11
|
|
|
 still relevant as ever
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:12
|
|
|
The idea that not having children is a heritable trait is nonsensical on many levels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:12
|
|
|
Tijuana Bibliophile posted:brexit eve, surely? or when the bell tolls i guess. for whomst the bell-end polls
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The idea that not having children is a heritable trait is nonsensical on many levels. otoh how your parents raise you is technically inherited
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The idea that not having children is a heritable trait is nonsensical on many levels. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:14
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:But in 50 years time will that still be true? Off the top of my head - Soil degradation: much of the UK's soil can only support around another 60 harvests (we largely harvest twice a year) - Sea level rise: as you said, the current ice-loss rate in Antarctica is unpresidented and beyond sciences worst nightmare 10 years ago - Land change: an area about half of the UK is lost to desertifcation each year now, with worsening droughts and the stuff happening in Australia, we're losing land faster than ever. By 2050 the UN estimate there could be as many as a billion climate refugees. - Crops: Many crops only have a few degrees of variation before they fail, so with climate change that's hosed. Also systematically changing agricultural systems for new crops takes years. - Crops (again): We use very few varieties, so very vulnerable to disease - Biodiversity: We are in an extinction event, likely faster than any in history (including the K-T event), we need to quell this yesterday, we need to preserve and increase wild areas. A global ecological cascade will destroy systems we rely on, and many will perish.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:14
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:I genuinely don't understand how this is even a controversial concept. It's trivial for leftists to assert that an infinitely growing economy is an impossibility and a catastrophic failure of capitalism (which it is), but somehow an infinitely growing population isn't? We don't need fewer people per se (i.e., we shouldn't be killing any of the extant ones except maybe the billionaires), but we do need an equal or lower birth rate than the death rate at some point in the relatively near future. Because 7 billion isn't too many. Maybe the 8 billion we'll have by the end of the decade won't be. But if the population growth rate continues to be positive (and I'm aware that's a big if, and that it looks like it might tail off in 50 or so years, albeit life expectancies are getting concurrently longer, too) we will eventually outgrow the planet, and it's looking pretty impossible to find new ones. Population control to solve the current climate/social crisis is just so ridiculously off the mark. There's more than enough resources on the planet to support our current population and growth several times over. "too many people" is an argument that goes hand in hand with opposition to support for poor people and poor countries. Like "what's the point of feeding them, it just means there will be more of them starving" That the regions they live in already can't support the population living there when it easily can. But the west keeps harvesting and exporting everything of value. The implication that humans are consumption goods that need to be cut down on. And it's always the poor in the end. Shouldn't even be implied.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:14
|
|
|
Apraxin posted:The state of this diseased loving country. this is doubly funny because afaik big ben will still be caged by the end of the month, definitely heading down to westminster on the day to see the absolute specimens out to mark the occasion
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:15
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:This seems like such a dumb take. Like a person that would even consider not having children themselves to help the wider family of humanity then cool that's super principled and big-brained, but it's also loving weird, and as a horny normie that doesn't have that weird long-term brain thinking I will not be pursuing that course. There are plenty of children already out there in need of a home. That's my approach.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The idea that not having children is a heritable trait is nonsensical on many levels. Who said that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:otoh how your parents raise you is technically inherited it's not, really
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
Katt posted:Population control to solve the current climate/social crisis is just so ridiculously off the mark. There's more than enough resources on the planet to support our current population and growth several times over. I believe you're wrong. See above. Also, I forgot to put on there that we're on the verge of/possibly past peak phosphorus, so its likely our intensive agricultural systems will become richest country first. So I could argue that by NOT not reducing the birth rate you're advocating genocide. Ratjaculation fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Jan 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:18
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:Who said that? I mean I might have got a bit lost but you're suggesting people who don't want to have children should have children because then their children will not want to have children and that makes them... good at other stuff?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:18
|
|
|
Ratjaculation posted:There are plenty of children already out there in need of a home. That's my approach. That's a good take but environmentally-minded people don't say 'instead of having children adopt kids in need and teach your values' they say 'don't have kids'. That is a really strong take though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:18
|
|
|
I tell people that I won't be having kids because who would want to bring kids into this awful world + the environmental aspects, but in truth it's because I find them loving irritating and gross, and I like being able to spend all of my money and time on myself and sleep in to whenever on weekends and get wrecked whenever I want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:19
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:That's a good take but environmentally-minded people don't say 'instead of having children adopt kids in need and teach your values' they say 'don't have kids'. That is a really strong take though. I'm an environmentally-minded person who works in conservation, and I literally just said that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:20
|
|
|
i'm in favour of consensual parenthood. i won't google it but if i did, i wonder if that statement would hit more abortions rights or "men's rights" stuff
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:22
|
|
|
Tijuana Bibliophile posted:it's not, really silence, Nord
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:23
|
|
|
Tijuana Bibliophile posted:i'm in favour of consensual parenthood. the idea that women should have control over their own bodies, have access to education and contraceptive is wholey good. And it is why birth rates drop in developed countries. It's slow, it might be too late, but it's the best we got. Not sure what possible argument there is against it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:24
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:This seems like such a dumb take. Like a person that would even consider not having children themselves to help the wider family of humanity then cool that's super principled and big-brained, but it's also loving weird, and as a horny normie that doesn't have that weird long-term brain thinking I will not be pursuing that course.  What if we're choosing it not out of any dubious reasons about the wider family of humanity or long term big brains but out of the simple idea that it's a hosed up thing to force onto someone else who can't consent to that? And is it 'eugenics' that 'targets the poor' if we just start removing all the financial gatekeeping around getting sterilized that means that currently only people that have a few hundred in disposable income can do it without a bunch of aggressive questions? Ratjaculation posted:I believe you're wrong. See above.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean I might have got a bit lost but you're suggesting people who don't want to have children should have children because then their children will not want to have children and that makes them... good at other stuff? No I'm saying the 'don't have kids' meme is dumb, because it self-selects for people that are environmentally conscious but has no influence on people that aren't environmentally conscious in the context of a generational threat. I think that being willing to not have your own family over it is weird-brain stuff and the future may need those weird-brains, but nature v nurture I think 90% of that is nurture which is why the above post about adoption low-key owned me. But to address your point the '...good at other stuff' yes absolutely. The next generations are going to have to make some big loving choices about climate change that might seem impossible to us and it almost certainly will be some form of socialism or some form of barbarism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:27
|
|
|
I do have a dark thought. All this research into science that solves fertility problems ultimately causes society to become dependent on its technology. If we are able to have children that would otherwise have not been born through these methods, then there is no evolutionary pressure weeding those issues out. Should even one of these solved problems be inheritable, it could lodge itself into perpetuity and ultimately require medical science to intervene on the fertility of that population to keep it sustained. There's nothing inherently morally wrong with that situation where fertility issues persist, and obviously the ideal solution is some kind of utopia in which we all have access to the care we need. It's also a situation we're seeing in practice with the populations of certain captive endangered species, most notably the panda bear. I do wonder, though: If the conservatives push to make healthcare less available to the poorest in society, could it eventually shoot them in the foot? Could the hostile environment they create ultimately result in the lower classes having a fertility they could weaponise? This and more stupid ideas you can put in your godawful science fiction novels. Azza Bamboo fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Jan 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:32
|
|
|
Paragraph one on page one of the population control manifesto will be to end all forms of child support for people who "can't afford to have kids and so shouldn't get them" Greater availability of birth control will probably not be on it at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:37
|
|
|
 Podcasting is Praxis - Episode 24 - Podcasting is Praxis 2: The Returnening We're back!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:37
|
|
|
Katt posted:Population control to solve the current climate/social crisis is just so ridiculously off the mark. There's more than enough resources on the planet to support our current population and growth several times over. Way to miss the point. I'm not suggesting population control to solve the climate crisis at all. Nor that we as a planet are currently overpopulated. I'm suggesting that our (i.e., humanity's as a whole) current population growth rate is not sustainable, and at some point in the (very near, in global terms) future, that growth rate will need to slow or stop, in order for actual overpopulation not to be the inevitable result. I'm not sure how that's controversial. You can't keep increasing forever. It doesn't loving work. Not to mention that the human population isn't the only one we need to feed preserve, grow, and even save. We're loving like the bunnies we keep introducing to remote islands that have never seen them before and wrecking their ecosystems with, to the point were the population has grown from under a billion 200 years ago, to knocking on 8 billion now, and we've rendered thousands if not hundreds of thousands of species endangered or extinct to the point that entire continental ecosystems have been irreversibly altered. The ever-smaller parts of the planet that aren't somehow compromised by people, need to be maintained and even expanded. We, as a species, need to slow down a bit. Best way to do that is to break capitalism and share its prosperity with everyone, so that everyone has broadly similar economic opportunities, and can as noted, take advantage of better control over their personal sexual and family planning options. thespaceinvader fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Jan 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:37
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:If the conservatives push to make healthcare less available to the poorest in society, could it eventually shoot them in the foot? Could the hostile environment they create ultimately result in the lower classes having a fertility they could weaponise? It's more likely that the richest would enslave the fertile, as some sort of maiden (if you will) who they keep in the attic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:38
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:this is doubly funny because afaik big ben will still be caged by the end of the month, definitely heading down to westminster on the day to see the absolute specimens out to mark the occasion Except 'they' got it to do the bongs on New Year's eve at midnight (even though it seemed to be a bit late - was watching it on tv) Vitamin P posted:That's a good take but environmentally-minded people don't say 'instead of having children adopt kids in need and teach your values' they say 'don't have kids'. That is a really strong take though. Adoption is not the easy process a lot of people who've never encountered the system seem to think it is "we'll just adopt" I hear people say. It doesn't work like that. Source: self - an approved adopter (who did not in the end adopt). Jaeluni Asjil fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Jan 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:41
|
|
|
Katt posted:Paragraph one on page one of the population control manifesto will be to end all forms of child support for people who "can't afford to have kids and so shouldn't get them" It will if we let the right wing write it. And someone will, as noted, eventually have to write it, one way or another. Azza Bamboo posted:I do have a dark thought. All this research into science that solves fertility problems ultimately causes society to become dependent on its technology. If we are able to have children that would otherwise have not been born through these methods, then there is no evolutionary pressure weeding those issues out. Should even one of these solved problems be inheritable, it could lodge itself into perpetuity and ultimately require medical science to intervene on the fertility of that population to keep it sustained. There's nothing inherently morally wrong with that situation where fertility issues persist, and obviously the ideal solution is some kind of utopia in which we all have access to the care we need. It's also a situation we're seeing in practice with the populations of certain captive endangered species, most notably the panda bear. I do wonder, though: Given that even in the wealthiest countries births via fertility treatments are only in the 1-2% range I doubt it's a huge issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:41
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Way to miss the point. Yes I see what you mean. But I also see how people open to those ideas will apply them if given a modicum of power. thespaceinvader posted:It will if we let the right wing write it. Right wing, centrists, liberals. The poor will be the target.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:42
|
|
|
Jaeluni Asjil posted:Except 'they' got it to do the bongs on New Year's eve at midnight (even though it seemed to be a bit late - was watching it on tv) oh sure it still works but it just looks like poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:42
|
|
|
Katt posted:Yes I see what you mean. But I also see how people open to those ideas will apply them if given a modicum of power. Then the left will have to do it, otherwise we're all hosed. But then, I'm pretty sure we're all hosed, so
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:28 |
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:If the conservatives push to make healthcare less available to the poorest in society, could it eventually shoot them in the foot? Could the hostile environment they create ultimately result in the lower classes having a fertility they could weaponise? I think there was a Star Trek TNG episode where a technologically advanced/fertility inert civilization were convinced by Picard to allow space-poors onto their planet for breeding purposes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 00:48
|
|
