Jump to content

population decline


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Well, that's a level of stupid I didn't expect.  Hoping it's an attempt at comedy...if so, don't quit your day job, and if not...

torbush-wow.gif

Yes, ants and mosquitos are destroying the planet.

No it wasn’t. The whole Agent Smith was right humans are a virus that should go away is a level of stupid that you should keep confined to the CR. 

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And by will have devastating consequences, I mean is having devastating consequences currently. It's not just a turtle going extinct here or there. Biodiversity loss will harm future generations of humans. So I believe that while population decline may put a financial burden on generations such as my own, fewer people consuming less is a good thing long-term, for both people and the planet.

Insect populations plummeting

North America has lost 3 BILLION birds

All wildlife populations collapsing

Massive loss of natural habitat

Fisheries are depleted

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, UT_OB1 said:

No it wasn’t. The whole Agent Smith was right humans are a virus that should go away is a level of stupid that you should keep confined to the CR. 

Why CR?  What's political about it?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, hookem2010 said:

I'm confused if people are unaware of these facts, don't believe them, don't care or don't think that it will impact them or their offspring. It baffles me, honestly.

Because the concept of insect populations and their place in the food chain/world is confusing for some people. National Geographic had a nice gen pop article about insect populations several years ago that was quite informative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Why CR?  What's political about it?

@DixonHur sorry, I thought you were someone else that pops over from CR and about to start telling which groups need to start having their populations reduced first 
 

4 hours ago, hookem2010 said:

You can think humans aren't a virus that need be eradicated while still believing that our march to 10 billion people will have devastating consequences.

Did I say a say anything about your bolded party?  No. But I completely disagree with the self defeatist take that we are a virus that many take so far as to say we should essentially commit suicide as a species.  Those types usually just want others off the planet, not themselves.  

 

3 hours ago, Parliament said:

And cedar

Probably #6 but I wouldn’t argue strongly against anyone ranking it higher  

 

3 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Um, that was a movie...but our DNA is literally 8% virus.

The viruses that helped to make you human (bbc.com)

 

And?…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/10/2024 at 12:39 PM, DixonHur said:

Just a quick survey, am I the only one on this board who thinks population decline is a good thing?

It depends, mostly on how technology advances and how immigration is managed.  But also how quickly it declines.  A slow, managed decline, where the missing workers are effectively replaced by advancing technology and developed countries can effectively manage generational bubble issues with immigration, could be the best thing ever.  That would require dramatic advances in AI/robotics and dramatic legislative changes to address wealth inequality and immigration.

Otherwise, rapid population decline leads to catastrophe and irrecoverable regression.

I will say, given the state of humanity, I think there’s a lot more upside in population decline than there is in population increase.

Edited by Snake Diggity
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2024 at 5:51 PM, UT_OB1 said:

@DixonHur sorry, I thought you were someone else that pops over from CR and about to start telling which groups need to start having their populations reduced first 

Nope.  Just in general, not ethnogenic.  I don't believe in the great replacement theory, primarily because I don't believe in race, per say.  Yes, there are physical differences between people from different areas, but the idea race is both relatively new, and fluid IMO.  

For example, the notion of "white" people was created in America, but referred only to people of English and German (specifically the Saxon region...hence Anglo-Saxon).  In the 1790 census there were only a 5 categories.

  1. Free White males of 16 years and upward
  2. Free White males under 16 years
  3. Free White females
  4. All other free persons
  5. Slaves

And in 1908 there was actually a trial to determine if Finnish immigrants could be considered white.  No, seriously...they debated whether these people were white just over 100 years ago...hidden for size  

Spoiler

image.thumb.png.58e020202cc05a018a3659199547c255.png

 

On 5/10/2024 at 5:51 PM, UT_OB1 said:

And?…

And you basically said I was stupid for comparing humans to a virus, when in fact we are in the most literal sense.  We would not exist without the 8% of our DNA that is a virus.

6 hours ago, Snake Diggity said:

Otherwise, rapid population decline leads to catastrophe and irrecoverable regression.

I will say, given the state of humanity, I think there’s a lot more upside in population decline than there is in population increase.

Couldn't agree more.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2024 at 5:51 PM, UT_OB1 said:

@DixonHur sorry, I thought you were someone else that pops over from CR and about to start telling which groups need to start having their populations reduced first

If you've seen anyone advocating for ethnic cleansing, you should report them. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2024 at 12:39 PM, DixonHur said:

Just a quick survey, am I the only one on this board who thinks population decline is a good thing?

1960 - three billion people
2023 - eight billion people

The planet really didn't need an extra five billion of us.  We obviously shouldn't kill people but a long term slow reduction through slower birth rates is probably good for the planet.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2024 at 5:51 PM, UT_OB1 said:

@DixonHur sorry, I thought you were someone else that pops over from CR and about to start telling which groups need to start having their populations reduced first 
 

Did I say a say anything about your bolded party?  No. But I completely disagree with the self defeatist take that we are a virus that many take so far as to say we should essentially commit suicide as a species.  Those types usually just want others off the planet, not themselves.  

 

Probably #6 but I wouldn’t argue strongly against anyone ranking it higher  

 

And?…

I, too, am undefeated in debates that exist entirely within my imagination 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1960 - three billion people
2023 - eight billion people
The planet really didn't need an extra five billion of us.  We obviously shouldn't kill people but a long term slow reduction through slower birth rates is probably good for the planet.

The planet isn’t going anywhere and doesn’t need anything to be “good” for it. “good for human use of” the planet is what you meant to say.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, tbone_ said:


The planet isn’t going anywhere and doesn’t need anything to be “good” for it. “good for human use of” the planet is what you meant to say.

You do know that humans aren't the only inhabitants of Earth, right?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tbone_ said:


The planet isn’t going anywhere and doesn’t need anything to be “good” for it. “good for human use of” the planet is what you meant to say.

Fair enough but I was actually thinking good for all of the plants and creatures on the planet, not just humans.

Forests, whales, bison, whatever.  Too many of us is not great for them.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, tbone_ said:


The planet isn’t going anywhere and doesn’t need anything to be “good” for it. “good for human use of” the planet is what you meant to say.

Well this is a terrifying albeit unsurprising mindset.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/12/2024 at 3:48 PM, Texas Jeff said:

1960 - three billion people
2023 - eight billion people

The planet really didn't need an extra five billion of us.  We obviously shouldn't kill people but a long term slow reduction through slower birth rates is probably good for the planet.

Quite a situation.  I gotta think someone out there has a modest proposal for addressing it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At 55 and the parent of one kid, what I didn’t realize earlier that I do now is that the more kids you have the better chance you have of one of them showing back up when it’s time to change your diaper.

So there is that. But no one thinks about that at a younger age when you are worried about living your best life.

I have one kid. With the money saved on raising a second or third kid, I can pay someone to wipe my old ass so my one kid doesn’t have to. She can just enjoy being my daughter as I wither away. Assuming I live that long. Otherwise her inheritance will be better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:


I have one kid. With the money saved on raising a second or third kid, I can pay someone to wipe my old ass so my one kid doesn’t have to. She can just enjoy being my daughter as I wither away. Assuming I live that long. Otherwise her inheritance will be better.

Meh, I have four and I suspect they will likely dump me in the woods when I get too old.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/12/2024 at 4:48 PM, Texas Jeff said:

1960 - three billion people
2023 - eight billion people

The planet really didn't need an extra five billion of us.  We obviously shouldn't kill people but a long term slow reduction through slower birth rates is probably good for the planet.

I agree. 
 

Imagine Austin with another 1 million people in 20 years. Ugh 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, wild_turkey said:


I have one kid. With the money saved on raising a second or third kid, I can pay someone to wipe my old ass so my one kid doesn’t have to. She can just enjoy being my daughter as I wither away. Assuming I live that long. Otherwise her inheritance will be better.

Well, because of their being far fewer people in the generation that will be of asswiping age when you need that service, you’re going to have to pay a lot more for it.  So if that was your logic for not having another kid, not sure the math works.  But with any luck there will be asswiping AI-powered robots by the time we need them.  So could be a wash.

Edited by Snake Diggity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...