Seven billion and counting
Posted: 24 Oct 2011, 10:54
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15368276'Too poor to buy clothes, but we still want six children'
Stupid humans.
Stupid humans.
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
https://forum.powerswitch.org.uk/
Seven billion and counting
Page 1 of 9
Stupid humans.
Re: Seven billion and counting
Posted: 24 Oct 2011, 11:07
Most of these people do not have the benefit of an education UE.UndercoverElephant wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15368276'Too poor to buy clothes, but we still want six children'
Stupid humans.
Not a sufficient condition of sensible behaviour, but a necessary one.
Re: Seven billion and counting
Posted: 24 Oct 2011, 11:10
They know they are too poor to buy clothes for the three children they already have. Did you watch the report? The average woman in Zambia has six children, and the report says "this may turn out to be bad news for economic growth."Ludwig wrote:Most of these people do not have the benefit of an education UE.UndercoverElephant wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15368276'Too poor to buy clothes, but we still want six children'
Stupid humans.
Not a sufficient condition of sensible behaviour, but a necessary one.
Posted: 24 Oct 2011, 11:10
And from the Guardian:
The Guardian - 23/10/11
Why current population growth is costing us the Earth
Article continues ...Since we passed one billion in 1800, our rising numbers and consumption have already caused climate change, rising sea levels, expanding deserts and the "sixth extinction" of wildlife. Our growth has been largely funded by rapidly depleting natural capital (fossil fuels, minerals, groundwater, soil fertility, forests, fisheries and biodiversity) rather than sustainable natural income. Our global food supply is heavily dependent on cheap oil and water. Yet peak oil means rising prices, while irrigation is quarrying out vital aquifers in many countries.
Posted: 24 Oct 2011, 11:15
Thanks for posting that. This quote is for Biff:Aurora wrote:And from the Guardian:
The Guardian - 23/10/11
Why current population growth is costing us the Earth
Article continues ...Since we passed one billion in 1800, our rising numbers and consumption have already caused climate change, rising sea levels, expanding deserts and the "sixth extinction" of wildlife. Our growth has been largely funded by rapidly depleting natural capital (fossil fuels, minerals, groundwater, soil fertility, forests, fisheries and biodiversity) rather than sustainable natural income. Our global food supply is heavily dependent on cheap oil and water. Yet peak oil means rising prices, while irrigation is quarrying out vital aquifers in many countries.
Some people, notably George Monbiot, argue that western over-consumption is the sole culprit, so criticising expanding population means "blaming the victims". Of course he is right that our self-indulgent lifestyles are grossly inequitable, and must become much more modest – each additional Briton has the carbon footprint of 22 more Malawians, so the 10 million more UK people the ONS projects for 2033 would equate to 220 million more Malawians. But all poor people aspire to become richer; if they succeed, their numbers will matter immensely.
Posted: 24 Oct 2011, 11:35
About 20 years ago, I met a guy of about 60 working as a clerk in an office.
In conversation he said that he had never got married because he had never earned enough to support a wife (and by implication raise a family).
When was the last time you heard that attitude in the UK?
(My adopted sprogs were produced by a couple under 20 with little education and no income, and fully expected to be paid to bring them up by the state. Having been proven to be incapable of the job, and the sprogs coming to us, the pair have a further 3 sprogs between them, so far. I very much doubt either of them has paid employment.)
In conversation he said that he had never got married because he had never earned enough to support a wife (and by implication raise a family).
When was the last time you heard that attitude in the UK?
(My adopted sprogs were produced by a couple under 20 with little education and no income, and fully expected to be paid to bring them up by the state. Having been proven to be incapable of the job, and the sprogs coming to us, the pair have a further 3 sprogs between them, so far. I very much doubt either of them has paid employment.)
Posted: 24 Oct 2011, 11:50
Why?UndercoverElephant wrote: This quote is for Biff:
Posted: 24 Oct 2011, 18:16
So we have intelligent clerks not having children because they cant afford to keep them and we have idle idiots having children who the clerk supports through taxation and a benefits system .
What you have there is a system of Dysgenics .
But on a bright note I feel confident that system is going to come to a abrupt end very soon .
Anyone thinking about not having children because of some misdirected notion that that would be good for the planet should try to understand how nature is supposed to work, your children are supposed to compete for resources with other peoples children, and the strongest are supposed to be the survivors .
Thats what happens with every animal species, if there is a god or guiding force in the universe he or it would surely create a world how he or it wants it to be.
The clerk was a fool he supported a system that robbed him and gave to people who very likely in nature he would have out competed , also why was he looking for a women who could not support herself , by not having children if he was a naturally intelligent man he was insuring that future humans would be less intelligent, because they would not have him as a ancestor .
I suppose in a way nature winnows out the less aggressive, and he clearly didn't have a strong enough drive to push his genes into the future which is a desirable trait, but I feel sorry for him to a degree if hes been bamboozled with this stupid I wont have kids for the sake of the planet malarkey.
We are going to have a die-off anyway the human population is going through a bottleneck , humans have gone through smaller die-offs before they have gone through collapses before, this doesn't effect what you should do
What you have there is a system of Dysgenics .
But on a bright note I feel confident that system is going to come to a abrupt end very soon .
Anyone thinking about not having children because of some misdirected notion that that would be good for the planet should try to understand how nature is supposed to work, your children are supposed to compete for resources with other peoples children, and the strongest are supposed to be the survivors .
Thats what happens with every animal species, if there is a god or guiding force in the universe he or it would surely create a world how he or it wants it to be.
The clerk was a fool he supported a system that robbed him and gave to people who very likely in nature he would have out competed , also why was he looking for a women who could not support herself , by not having children if he was a naturally intelligent man he was insuring that future humans would be less intelligent, because they would not have him as a ancestor .
I suppose in a way nature winnows out the less aggressive, and he clearly didn't have a strong enough drive to push his genes into the future which is a desirable trait, but I feel sorry for him to a degree if hes been bamboozled with this stupid I wont have kids for the sake of the planet malarkey.
We are going to have a die-off anyway the human population is going through a bottleneck , humans have gone through smaller die-offs before they have gone through collapses before, this doesn't effect what you should do
Posted: 24 Oct 2011, 18:40
And people saying these are stupid people well they aren't stupid if you let them migrate and take your land or if you keep feeding them, in that case you are the stupid ones .
Compassion can be pretty stupid .
Ive worked with guys in the UK who laughed themselves silly about aid workers in Somalia who helped them come to the UK, they really couldn't understand why they were not having children "for the sake of the planet "
when they had seven or so children
How this came up is they asked me was I married how many children did I have. its very possible I will be working with the same guys next month, and its a pity you guys couldn't speak to them
Compassion can be pretty stupid .
Ive worked with guys in the UK who laughed themselves silly about aid workers in Somalia who helped them come to the UK, they really couldn't understand why they were not having children "for the sake of the planet "
when they had seven or so children
How this came up is they asked me was I married how many children did I have. its very possible I will be working with the same guys next month, and its a pity you guys couldn't speak to them
Posted: 24 Oct 2011, 18:48
Yes, that's what happens with most of the animals. What distinguishes us from the rest of the animals is that we don't follow those rules. That has allowed individuals who aren't very good at fending for themselves, competing for resources and being stronger than their siblings, survive. It has enabled the thinkers, the artists, the musicians, the story-tellers, the carers and the dreamers to evolve. It's great to be human.jonny2mad wrote:...try to understand how nature is supposed to work, your children are supposed to compete for resources with other peoples children, and the strongest are supposed to be the survivors .
Thats what happens with every animal species,...
Posted: 24 Oct 2011, 20:56
This is a little bit ridiculous. However, people shouldn't be limited to amount of children they have due to the fact of money. I suppose they should be focusing on providing the best life possible for the children they have
Posted: 24 Oct 2011, 22:00
IMO the idea of not having children is stupid in its own right for its the only method of genetic legacy that exists. However that is stupid in itself for it put's an individual's desire to live on via genetics over the rest of the species. What does the universe care whether Joe public feels the need to "prove his existence?" It would probably care only the species exists, not who helped perpetuate the act.
But the guy above is right, we are supposed to compete for resources and supposed to fight for survival. It is the system life on this planet chose through some means or another and it is the system life continues to use. However modern civilisation has dropped the bar of survival, it is easy for human life to survive. IMO we have essentially bent, perhaps broken the rules for a short time (until the oil runs out and survival of the fittest re-occurs.) Should every human fight for life when its now so easy not to?
But the guy above is right, we are supposed to compete for resources and supposed to fight for survival. It is the system life on this planet chose through some means or another and it is the system life continues to use. However modern civilisation has dropped the bar of survival, it is easy for human life to survive. IMO we have essentially bent, perhaps broken the rules for a short time (until the oil runs out and survival of the fittest re-occurs.) Should every human fight for life when its now so easy not to?
Posted: 24 Oct 2011, 22:16
Why not?terra77 wrote:This is a little bit ridiculous. However, people shouldn't be limited to amount of children they have due to the fact of money.
No man is an island - everything we do affects other people, and having 11 children and expecting the state to feed them is selfish.
Even having 11 children and being able to feed them yourself is selfish, because if everyone did it... Well, a lot of people HAVE done it and see where we are.
But then, a lot of people aren't very bright, which is why we need the law to stop them doing stupid things.
Posted: 24 Oct 2011, 22:17
No, Standuble, there's no 'supposed to' about it. Humans evolved into social creatures that protected weak members of the tribe many tens of thousands of years before we got round to inventing civilization.
It's the protection of the physically weak that allowed individuals with other attributes to pass on their genes. Without this social protection, civilization would never have been invented.
It's the protection of the physically weak that allowed individuals with other attributes to pass on their genes. Without this social protection, civilization would never have been invented.
Posted: 24 Oct 2011, 22:30
Jonny's view makes sense, but it does not paint the whole picture. The fact that compassion continues to exist suggests that it has evolutionary value.
(Personally I believe compassion is more than a mere social utility, but that's another matter.)
Your quote by Nietzsche is quite interesting. Nietzsche derided the compassionate - but his final mental collapse occurred after he witnessed a horse being whipped and threw his arms around its neck in empathy.
Could anything be more ironic?
Examples of civilisations from which, in collapse, compassion disappeared completely, include Easter Island and that of the Ik in Uganda. Reports describe the survivors of the collapses as mean-spirited, suspicious and unhappy. Such a life may be better than no life, but not, in my opinion, by much.
For most people, love, of one sort or another, is the only thing that really makes life worth living.
(Personally I believe compassion is more than a mere social utility, but that's another matter.)
Your quote by Nietzsche is quite interesting. Nietzsche derided the compassionate - but his final mental collapse occurred after he witnessed a horse being whipped and threw his arms around its neck in empathy.
Could anything be more ironic?
Examples of civilisations from which, in collapse, compassion disappeared completely, include Easter Island and that of the Ik in Uganda. Reports describe the survivors of the collapses as mean-spirited, suspicious and unhappy. Such a life may be better than no life, but not, in my opinion, by much.
For most people, love, of one sort or another, is the only thing that really makes life worth living.