5 ms·
Would you write the same thing about Houston or Paris? If not it’s just racist.
by dependsontheq 7y ago
Would you write the same thing about Houston or Paris? If not it’s just racist.
- jjuhl 7y agoWhy not? I just said "sufficient populated areas". That does not mean only India. Nothing racist about it. I mean, globally speaking, wiping out New York City and all the people in it would also provide a benefit.
- inflatableDodo 7y agoI think you have made your position completely clear. You first please.
- jjuhl 7y agoMe first what? I don't get what you are saying / you don't make any sense to me. I'm glad I have apparently made my point clear. But what is yours?? And please don't pull that bogus racist card again. Race has got nothing to do with any of my comments.
- inflatableDodo 7y agoI never said it did. However for my views on people using the term 'race card' please see my replies to tinus_hn. Now this isn't personal to you specifically, however in regard to your query, Me first what?, I have long thought that people who advocate the benefits of depopulation by mass die-off, should generally lead by example.
- jjuhl 7y agoI probably will - given age and living habits. But that aside; are you saying that we should try and sustain inbounded population growth on this tiny globe of ours? And if so, why/how?
- inflatableDodo 7y agoFrom a purely practical standpoint, I don't think a die-off will help very much. Say we had a 85% die off, we would be back to around the population level of 1800, the time that Malthus published his prophecy. And along the way we would have had the most collossal wars imaginable and would be ekeing out a living on a much reduced habitable area. Basically, although it is an unpopular vision these days, I suspect that for the amount of effort involved in having a mass die-off, we could stabilise the population somewhat and start building floating cities and space habitats. People regard this kind of thing as unrealistic, but I think it will rapidly become realistic should we even halt population growth temporarily through environmental disaster and it would be preferable to start doing it before that signal to action. To sit on our hands and hope for our own actions to kill us off in order to save some remainder is the most fatalistic and least imaginative approach going. We might as well be deer.
- jjuhl 7y ago"We might as well be deer" - and what tells you that in the grand, global, universe-scale sense, we are not? In my eyes, we very much are.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago>what tells you that in the grand, global, universe-scale sense, we are not? If we were deer, then Malthus would have been right by now. We are fairly uniquely placed as a species to be able to avoid being this dumb.
- jjuhl 7y agoI'm sorry, but I just have to do this. Even with Trump as president? He takes "dumb" to a whole new level!
- inflatableDodo 7y agoLook at some of the people funding him and ask yourself what their motivation is. It maybe isn't that dumb, at least if your motivation is to destroy confidence in democracy as a system and eventually balkanise the US so it can be openly ruled by princelings. He is pretty good for that.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoThis is how all organisms’ population dynamics work. They expand until they meet their boundary conditions.
- mizzao 7y agoIn humans case, we may actually be making our boundaries smaller and smaller by changing the planet. Would it be a tragedy if humans went extinct?
- jjuhl 7y ago"Would it be a tragedy if humans went extinct?" - The planet doesn't care. The only species that cares is humans. Tragedy? Not really. The universe will move on. We are quite insignificant as-is.
- imtringued 7y agoIn this case it's the opposite. We are sawing off the branch we are sitting on. It's not that we are expanding, we are shrinking the boundary conditions!
- TeMPOraL 7y agoThe defining charteristic of humanity is that we refuse to accept natural population dynamics and don't let ourselves be governed by them.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoHumans have figured out some neat tricks to create hospitable boundary conditions where there were non, e.g. moving water, heat, and themselves around, but so have other organisms. But by definition, they are all subject to “natural population dynamics”, such as the sun going supernova, an asteroid hitting the earth, earth’s temperature rising a few degrees. Also, I would bet long term survival success (very long term) under various environmental changes to organisms such as water bears over humans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade Unless we figure out cheap space travel and water production in the next few hundred years.
- tinus_hn 7y agoHouston and Paris are not races.
- inflatableDodo 7y agoNow, this is what I generally qualify as the "that's not racist, it's bigoted" pedant's defense. And it really doesn't carry quite as much weight as people apparently think it does.
- tinus_hn 7y agoIf you think that is the answer, call it bigoted instead of playing the race card.
- inflatableDodo 7y agoI generally do use the word bigot rather than racist. I know very few people who are only racist and not bigoted in other ways, so it tends to be more accurate. It also gives much less wiggle room and appears to cut into people's ego far more. As another observation, I have yet to meet anyone who uses the phrase 'playing the race card', that has a considered opinion on that subject, or indeed many others. It is indicative of a thought process constructed almost entirely from clichés.
- jjuhl 7y agoWell, thank you for putting people in boxes. One can have a considered opinion and still think that playing the "race card" is despicable. Try not to be so single-minded.
- inflatableDodo 7y agoI think you missed the nuance. I was saying that I find that people who use that term do not generally have considered opinions. As for putting people in boxes, I thought you were the one advocating that. Wooden ones, specifically.