Opinion of our pro-eugenics socialist newbies

[Antonio the Sixth]

Eugenics may not be the right answer, apparently, but eventually people are going to need to understand that the human race can't just keep growing unsustainably forever.

War is the only noble way. Give our race a patriot's death.

EDIT: Well, one of only two noble ways. It just happens to be easier to motivate people to go to their death in the name of killing others than themselves.

I for one eagerly await the arrival of the Yuuzhan Vong, tbh.

I know misanthropy is hip and kewl and edgy, but if there is even the slightest bit of genuine sentiment behind the snark in these posts, that's utterly vile.

[Joe Republic]

Even if if we never get to this point there's no real reason to believe that the population is growing unsustainably. Overpopulation does not appear to be a serious problem.

Honestly, the amount of time wasted worrying about overpopulation when we have so many actually pressing issues at hand is pretty ridiculous.

I agree, when/if this problem ever starts happening, we should do something to address it, but that doesn't look like anytime remotely soon.

Okeydokey.  I guess we can cover our eyes and ears for a couple more generations, and hope for the best.

Incidentally, when was Earth Overshoot Day this year, btw?  A month ago?

I know misanthropy is hip and kewl and edgy, but if there is even the slightest bit of genuine sentiment behind the snark in these posts, that's utterly vile.

Is it as hip and kewl as being reflexively offended by everything?  Or to react to any differing viewpoint by assuming it must be a joke?

[SWE]

Is it as hip and kewl as being reflexively offended by everything?  Or to react to any differing viewpoint by assuming it must be a joke?

Assuming that your belief in overpopulation is a joke is simply being generous given it's a position with merit similar to climate change denial or opposing vaccination.

EDIT: Actually, on reflection, I was probably being unfair. At least climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers aren't primarily motivated by racism.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Even if if we never get to this point there's no real reason to believe that the population is growing unsustainably. Overpopulation does not appear to be a serious problem.

Honestly, the amount of time wasted worrying about overpopulation when we have so many actually pressing issues at hand is pretty ridiculous.

I agree, when/if this problem ever starts happening, we should do something to address it, but that doesn't look like anytime remotely soon.

Okeydokey.  I guess we can cover our eyes and ears for a couple more generations, and hope for the best.

Incidentally, when was Earth Overshoot Day this year, btw?  A month ago?

The societies which contribute the most to the "overshoot" are generally not those with high rates of natural increase in population.

[Joe Republic]

EDIT: Actually, on reflection, I was probably being unfair. At least climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers aren't primarily motivated by racism.

  Please explain why I'm now a racist.

The societies which contribute the most to the "overshoot" are generally not those with high rates of natural increase in population.

I know; it's the areas that do contribute most to it that need to slow down their increase.

It's a very long-term problem that there are no short-term solutions to, anyway.

[Sumner 1868]

Claustrophobia does some weird things to people.

[Joe Republic]

The societies which contribute the most to the "overshoot" are generally not those with high rates of natural increase in population.

...but it's easier to blame some anonymous farmer in Ethiopia or whatever than it is to ride your bike to work or move into a smaller house. And only someone with a rich sense of irony could complain about overpopulation while living in Nevada, which might be the only place on the planet that nuclear detonations actually made more suitable for human habitation.

Please don't let your hatred for me form any more misconceptions about my positions.

To your first point, you did see my response to shua, yes?  I have no issue with the places in the world that contribute most of the population increase while also living within their means w.r.t. natural resources.  It's the places that don't that I take issue with.  And yes, that's most of the Western world, particularly us.  If the human race were actually willing to make lifestyle changes in order to live better within our means, we would be.

To your second point, there is no irony.  It's living here that has in fact shaped my current view, not contradicted it.  I personally witness on a daily basis why any effort for humanity to even attempt to reduce its insatiable thirst for finite resources is completely pointless.  For your bike ride to work, I'll show you all the air-conditioned Humvees and F-150s commuting for a five minute journey.  For your effort to recycle, I'll show you the hundreds of people here who've never even attempted it because who wants to sort through their own garbage?  For your concern for conserving energy and water, I'll show you a hotel that points a 315kw beam of light directly into the sky every night, and a manmade reservoir that reached its lowest level ever this past July (due to a combination of the house-building industry restarting with gusto, and not refilling quickly enough due to climate change reducing annual snowmelt).  To me, Las Vegas is a symbol of an American Dream that revolves around conquering the empty landscape and setting up a life of luxury, with little regard for the long-term question of 'how?'... and frankly there aren't many other places in this country that are much less guilty.

[Joe Republic]

Incidentally, this discussion reminded me of a gif I made a few years ago:

[Antonio the Sixth]

Plus, it's pretty depressing if your idea of a "life of luxury" is Las Vegas.

[Boston Bread]

In a futuristic society, the main limiting factor for human populations would be the amount of waste heat generated, not space. Space is practically unlimited when you can build skyrises everywhere. Replacing houses with mega-apartments could give you a 100x higher population density while maintaining the amount of space per person available. But if we increase our energy usage 100x, the waste heat generated would cause the Earth warm significantly, even if we only use renewables.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yeah, i dislike misanthropy as a rule, but I imagine if I lived in Nevada I might reconsider my instincts.

[Joe Republic]

Funny, in addition to the cognitive dissonance of being a liberal Democrat who supports social justice and economic fairness, while also believing that the human race is on average pretty fucking terrible, I also have to battle the conflicting feelings of my adopted hometown being an unsustainable sprawl, while also defending it from arrogant snobs who consider it 'beneath' them...

Plus, it's pretty depressing if your idea of a "life of luxury" is Las Vegas.

$400k will just about buy you a tiny studio apartment in Manhattan.

It could also buy you a 4,000 sq ft, 5-bed house in Las Vegas, with a pool to cool off from the sun that shines 300 days a year.

Yeah, i dislike misanthropy as a rule, but I imagine if I lived in Nevada I might reconsider my instincts.

I've visited the UK.  I've used the public transit system in London, and the trains to and from it.  I also have the 'pleasure' of meeting British tourists out here nearly every day.  If living in Nevada has made me a misanthrope, I'd hate to think what living in your country might do to me.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The societies which contribute the most to the "overshoot" are generally not those with high rates of natural increase in population.

...but it's easier to blame some anonymous farmer in Ethiopia or whatever than it is to ride your bike to work or move into a smaller house. And only someone with a rich sense of irony could complain about overpopulation while living in Nevada, which might be the only place on the planet that nuclear detonations actually made more suitable for human habitation.

Please don't let your hatred for me form any more misconceptions about my positions.

To your first point, you did see my response to shua, yes?  I have no issue with the places in the world that contribute most of the population increase while also living within their means w.r.t. natural resources.  It's the places that don't that I take issue with.  And yes, that's most of the Western world, particularly us.  If the human race were actually willing to make lifestyle changes in order to live better within our means, we would be.

To your second point, there is no irony.  It's living here that has in fact shaped my current view, not contradicted it.  I personally witness on a daily basis why any effort for humanity to even attempt to reduce its insatiable thirst for finite resources is completely pointless.  For your bike ride to work, I'll show you all the air-conditioned Humvees and F-150s commuting for a five minute journey.  For your effort to recycle, I'll show you the hundreds of people here who've never even attempted it because who wants to sort through their own garbage?  For your concern for conserving energy and water, I'll show you a hotel that points a 315kw beam of light directly into the sky every night, and a manmade reservoir that reached its lowest level ever this past July (due to a combination of the house-building industry restarting with gusto, and not refilling quickly enough due to climate change reducing annual snowmelt).  To me, Las Vegas is a symbol of an American Dream that revolves around conquering the empty landscape and setting up a life of luxury, with little regard for the long-term question of 'how?'... and frankly there aren't many other places in this country that are much less guilty.

I wouldn't blame Lake Mead on manmade climate change.  That's like blaming a roof collapse on the last inch of snow that fell without acknowledging the other 47" inches that fell below it. Electricity usage growth and a change in the major Pacific ocean cycle has been the main culprit.  The Pacific ocean cycle has not been linked to climate change.  Only to solar and random variability.  (electricity demand keeps the river flowing at a consistent level regardless of good or bad snow years). 

The problem is that the deserts really took off during a historically very wet period for the region (70s-2000).  Had no development taken place, it would've been a time of spectacular Colorado river floods.  But because demand increased so much so fast, the lake rose only slowly... filling completely in 1983 and nearly so in the late 90s.

By now the growth has caught up and the lake is only maintaining its level during wet years while it falls moderately during normal years and plummets during dry years.

Unless something changes (the climate becomes wetter again.. certainly a possibility, or electricity and water demand fall substantially).. the southwest will deal with a crisis whereupon Lake Mead falls below operable levels and the dam has to basically shut down.  No doubt Glen Canyon dam will already have been shut by this point.

As for Antonio's sneering... one could question the economic implications of his chosen field of study in a sneering, sarcastic manner... but it would be rude, insulting, and not taking into account the history of complicated decisions that led to this decision that might prove to be an excellent choice or fit for him.

The truth of the matter is:  You can live a life of luxury in Vegas.  Many people do it.  You can also get a nice house with a pool for a very reasonable price.  And get a unionized job that doesn't pay half bad at a casino.  And go skiing or rock climbing or hiking or boating or camping every weekend without much traffic to deal with and still have Vietnamese-French style brunch at an excellent restaurant the next morning.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

So this seems to be a thing again?

I'd like to think omegascarlet at least will improve in this respect--she has in others. The unapologetically pro-eugenics posters right now are, depressingly, significantly more mainstream in their other views.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

So this seems to be a thing again?

I'd like to think omegascarlet at least will improve in this respect--she has in others. The unapologetically pro-eugenics posters right now are, depressingly, significantly more mainstream in their other views.

If you actually read my quote, it says that it should be at least discussed because eugenics is a very broad term (ie methods, motives, extremity, etc can vary so much that two "eugenics" policies can be wildly different from each other. Reducing child tax credits for people with severe genetic disabilities and the holocaust both fit the term), thus not all eugenics stems from racism, and people can (and likely do) believe in policies under the eugenics umbrella because they think it would make the world a better place(and thus are not evil).

I wasn't taking a position on the matter itself.

I was reading a position into what you were saying based on past interactions. I apologize.