4 ms·

I'm really trying to find somewhere to agree with you...but it sounds like they are taking issue with your "blade runner 2049" strategy, like I'm fairly decent

I'm really trying to find somewhere to agree with you...but it sounds like they are taking issue with your "blade runner 2049" strategy, like I'm fairly decent at robotics, I got to the point where I make them out of organic molecules now...but we ain't there chief. I don't care how many hours you've logged on "ML SAAS" it's not where you think it is

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
I don’t know how to respond to snark. I really want to engage in meaningful discussions. This isn’t it.
jelliclesfarm 6y ago
Let me try again. My gardener has 5 children and three grandchildren at age 48. This is irresponsible procreation. An average 2.1 replacement rate in a family unit that doesn’t rely on welfare still relies on tax subsidies, incentives and free public schools. Both are unsustainable. When there is no cost and only rewards for irresponsible procreation that is resource hogging from the commons, there will be a quick deterioration of available resources for all. When there is want and scarcity and more demand in the apex predator population, they start stripping the habitat and resources of the species below them in the food chain. That will eventually threaten the apex predators survival. This is more ‘killing the golden goose’ of Aesop tales than ‘blade runner 2049’ adoption of Philip k dick’s sci fi story. If I were to explain to a child about apex predators, I would bring up sharks..if sharks eat all the little fish in the sea, when they are out of little fish in the sea, they will die because they won’t have anything more to eat to survive.
- Avicebron 6y ago
  I will apologize for the snark, It's monday and I've been in the lab and away from my coffee. I agree with you on principle, humans are apex predators, we are remarkable efficient at fast procreation and finding ingenious ways to outpace every animal/shrub/bush we don't directly exploit. That being said, I find this a difficult conversation to have online, because "responsible restriction of childbirth" isn't something anyone short of dangerously dictorial, can fathom to hope to achieve. It's a non starter, therefore we have to approach the problem from a end that's not so...thorny.. It's easy to say, "let's just thanos this and get it done" reset at another few thousand years..but the hard question is who gets snapped?
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    Ok. I never said ‘responsible restriction of childbirth’. I said ‘incentivise responsible procreation’. I don’t know if you twisted my words on purpose or you really don’t see the difference? Why is it genocide to offer incentives for a greater quality of life for their thoughtful and mindful roadmap to nurture their progeny and to protect the commons from over exploitation. We should be rewarding responsible procreation and parenting. Human beings like ‘to do the right thing’. We are rationalizing animals rather than rational animals. Supporting and incentivizing irresponsible procreation economically and empathetically simply gives people reasons to mindlessly offer themselves rationalizations to continue making wrong and harmful personal decisions. Giving people incentives and support to provide the greatest chances of their gene pool to thrive along with the rest of the human species is a rational solution to the depopulation event that is a mathematical surety to occur within a century. Having said that, maybe it’s also time to have discussions about ‘thorny’ subjects. The lack of open discourse is why even reasonable suggestions are downvoted here. Because there is nothing to compare common sense with..
    - scollet 6y ago
      The problem is, regardless of the incentives, they will be manipulated to target "undesirable" groups. It's fine to tow this line of thinking, but give it 100 years or so to implement.
      - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
        I don’t have answers but I have some suggestions: 1. Remove food insecurity. The job of the govt is to provide basic calories to ALL. In the form of credits. (Like in Switzerland) 2. The subsidized calories will come only from farms that have to follow ecological practices. 3. Housing: everyone gets to live in state housing for diff income levels. On 99 year lease at market rate. This gives generational housing security. And protects housing from speculative shocks.(like in Singapore) 4. Universal health care. What is provided is a basic quality of life to everyone. Just as everyone deserves a basic quality of life guaranteed hybyeh govt, everyone has to display responsibility. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Downgrades to quality of life if too much is siphoned off from the commons is a reasonable and fair bargain.
- helen___keller 6y ago
  This isn't reflective of reality - overpopulation isn't a current issue in the industrialized world. The US for example has been below replacement rate in total fertility rate for a while (and only increasing in population thanks to immigration). Of course, consumption per capita is still a concern, and global population is still a concern, but it's hard to fault your gardener for having 5 children if you live in an industrialized country with below replacement rate fertility. > An average 2.1 replacement rate in a family unit that doesn’t rely on welfare still relies on tax subsidies, incentives and free public schools. This is a totally different kind of commons. Personally I'm much less concerned about funding public schools than I am about overfishing, habitat destruction, etc.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    You are missing the trees for the forest. Or is it the other way around? 1. Industrialized countries consume more than the rest of the world. 2. Consumption is many times higher in countries with lower replacement rates. 3. Richer countries typically import and overfishing and destroy habitat of over populated high density developing nations with already depleted resources. 4. China is a special case. China exports a lot of our conspicuous consumption. China in turn imports a lot from developing as well as developed world with its bolstered purchasing power. It takes a lot of maintain 1.4 billion people. 5. One other (bad) solution is to make every nation self sustainable and close borders. And allow them to determine their own replacement rate via births and immigration. 6. Overfishing happens in Asia to feed Americans. Habitat is destroyed in Latin America to feed the China and the rest of the world. 7. Habitat is the most important thing when it comes to resource allocation and resource conservation and exploitation. I like E.O.Wilson’s Half Earth policy because it’s an elegant and fair solution. 7. You should be concerned about funding public schools because the subsidized cheap frozen fish fingers is what’s causing overfishing elsewhere in the world. More children at a higher consumption strata = more habitat destruction. America IS the 1% of the world. A poor child in America has more resources and nutritional calories and dollar spent/per head than 80% of the world’s children. 8. While there are a lot of begging bowls out in America(and other rich countries), the begging bowls in the rest of the world that sells their resources to America have deeper begging bowls that often don’t get filled. 8. One way to NOT incentivise over population and irresponsible procreation at a macro level is for America and other rich countries to curtail consumption and stop economic exchange of goods that are hostile to habitat preservation. (Example: palm oil)

jelliclesfarm 6y ago

I don’t know how to respond to snark. I really want to engage in meaningful discussions. This isn’t it.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago

Let me try again. My gardener has 5 children and three grandchildren at age 48. This is irresponsible procreation. An average 2.1 replacement rate in a family unit that doesn’t rely on welfare still relies on tax subsidies, incentives and free public schools. Both are unsustainable. When there is no cost and only rewards for irresponsible procreation that is resource hogging from the commons, there will be a quick deterioration of available resources for all. When there is want and scarcity and more demand in the apex predator population, they start stripping the habitat and resources of the species below them in the food chain. That will eventually threaten the apex predators survival. This is more ‘killing the golden goose’ of Aesop tales than ‘blade runner 2049’ adoption of Philip k dick’s sci fi story. If I were to explain to a child about apex predators, I would bring up sharks..if sharks eat all the little fish in the sea, when they are out of little fish in the sea, they will die because they won’t have anything more to eat to survive.

Avicebron 6y ago
I will apologize for the snark, It's monday and I've been in the lab and away from my coffee. I agree with you on principle, humans are apex predators, we are remarkable efficient at fast procreation and finding ingenious ways to outpace every animal/shrub/bush we don't directly exploit. That being said, I find this a difficult conversation to have online, because "responsible restriction of childbirth" isn't something anyone short of dangerously dictorial, can fathom to hope to achieve. It's a non starter, therefore we have to approach the problem from a end that's not so...thorny.. It's easy to say, "let's just thanos this and get it done" reset at another few thousand years..but the hard question is who gets snapped?
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  Ok. I never said ‘responsible restriction of childbirth’. I said ‘incentivise responsible procreation’. I don’t know if you twisted my words on purpose or you really don’t see the difference? Why is it genocide to offer incentives for a greater quality of life for their thoughtful and mindful roadmap to nurture their progeny and to protect the commons from over exploitation. We should be rewarding responsible procreation and parenting. Human beings like ‘to do the right thing’. We are rationalizing animals rather than rational animals. Supporting and incentivizing irresponsible procreation economically and empathetically simply gives people reasons to mindlessly offer themselves rationalizations to continue making wrong and harmful personal decisions. Giving people incentives and support to provide the greatest chances of their gene pool to thrive along with the rest of the human species is a rational solution to the depopulation event that is a mathematical surety to occur within a century. Having said that, maybe it’s also time to have discussions about ‘thorny’ subjects. The lack of open discourse is why even reasonable suggestions are downvoted here. Because there is nothing to compare common sense with..
  - scollet 6y ago
    The problem is, regardless of the incentives, they will be manipulated to target "undesirable" groups. It's fine to tow this line of thinking, but give it 100 years or so to implement.
    - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
      I don’t have answers but I have some suggestions: 1. Remove food insecurity. The job of the govt is to provide basic calories to ALL. In the form of credits. (Like in Switzerland) 2. The subsidized calories will come only from farms that have to follow ecological practices. 3. Housing: everyone gets to live in state housing for diff income levels. On 99 year lease at market rate. This gives generational housing security. And protects housing from speculative shocks.(like in Singapore) 4. Universal health care. What is provided is a basic quality of life to everyone. Just as everyone deserves a basic quality of life guaranteed hybyeh govt, everyone has to display responsibility. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Downgrades to quality of life if too much is siphoned off from the commons is a reasonable and fair bargain.
helen___keller 6y ago
This isn't reflective of reality - overpopulation isn't a current issue in the industrialized world. The US for example has been below replacement rate in total fertility rate for a while (and only increasing in population thanks to immigration). Of course, consumption per capita is still a concern, and global population is still a concern, but it's hard to fault your gardener for having 5 children if you live in an industrialized country with below replacement rate fertility. > An average 2.1 replacement rate in a family unit that doesn’t rely on welfare still relies on tax subsidies, incentives and free public schools. This is a totally different kind of commons. Personally I'm much less concerned about funding public schools than I am about overfishing, habitat destruction, etc.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  You are missing the trees for the forest. Or is it the other way around? 1. Industrialized countries consume more than the rest of the world. 2. Consumption is many times higher in countries with lower replacement rates. 3. Richer countries typically import and overfishing and destroy habitat of over populated high density developing nations with already depleted resources. 4. China is a special case. China exports a lot of our conspicuous consumption. China in turn imports a lot from developing as well as developed world with its bolstered purchasing power. It takes a lot of maintain 1.4 billion people. 5. One other (bad) solution is to make every nation self sustainable and close borders. And allow them to determine their own replacement rate via births and immigration. 6. Overfishing happens in Asia to feed Americans. Habitat is destroyed in Latin America to feed the China and the rest of the world. 7. Habitat is the most important thing when it comes to resource allocation and resource conservation and exploitation. I like E.O.Wilson’s Half Earth policy because it’s an elegant and fair solution. 7. You should be concerned about funding public schools because the subsidized cheap frozen fish fingers is what’s causing overfishing elsewhere in the world. More children at a higher consumption strata = more habitat destruction. America IS the 1% of the world. A poor child in America has more resources and nutritional calories and dollar spent/per head than 80% of the world’s children. 8. While there are a lot of begging bowls out in America(and other rich countries), the begging bowls in the rest of the world that sells their resources to America have deeper begging bowls that often don’t get filled. 8. One way to NOT incentivise over population and irresponsible procreation at a macro level is for America and other rich countries to curtail consumption and stop economic exchange of goods that are hostile to habitat preservation. (Example: palm oil)