Population, Pollution & Politics: The Future of Civilization

[Fox Fire]

As we should all be aware of, the world is an ever changing place. Nothing is static. Today, humanity faces many great challenges. One of those challenges in particular is a changing climate, primarily due to human activity. We are also in the midst of the worlds 6th mass extinction, also due to human activity. No doubt these things are related, but what's being done to solve them?

Well, aside from a climate meeting in Paris where nothing significant was agreed on, basically nothing. Most of what was agreed on in Paris appears to be empty promises by governments regarding future production with no penalties or pressure for not honoring their agreements. Meanwhile, pollution in China has already reached apocalyptic proportions several years ago. At the same time, energy companies, specifically oil companies, seem to have little interest in advancing to clean energy without having it in their pockets first. We may have had far more fuel efficient vehicles if not for a mysteriously convenient murder for oil companies. Nowadays however, oil companies seem to be accepting the inevitable; that their product is drying up. Thus, they seem to be putting much more investment into clean energy, because you know, they can't stop making money. Big business can't fail. Not even when people protest oil leaks destroying their land. In fact, that tends to get them killed. So it's safe to assume these massive companies, or at least the people leading them, will be around for a while. With or without oil. 

Which brings me to the next topic: Politics. The politics of the future could become a very vague place, where nations and borders become obscured by money. Anyone with money can hire a very well equipped and trained military these days, known as Private Military Contractors or PMCs. These PMCs do not represent a nation, only their own desire for money and war. With arguably the worlds best trained military soldiers joining PMCs in disturbingly large numbers across the world, are we reaching a point where corporations and companies have or are gaining more projection power than an entire modernized nation?

When it's all said and done, Americans at least, seem to be unconcerned with climate change or our impacts on the environment. Something they are heavily concerned with however is warfare and security. A business that is very much booming all over the oil rich area of the middle east. Perhaps the future of mankind is to slowly dissolve this age old notion of politics in favor of raw business. A world where even superpower governments are absolute puppets of corporations, the global environment is a poisoned wasteland and only the strong will survive at the pure expense of the weak. A polluted, hostile, nearly uninhabitable world of anarchist capitalism held hostage by the simple currency system we invented so long ago. Perhaps we are already there? After all, there is no money in clean energy that may not even work. But there is plenty of money in war and that business is growing.

This is why I don't have children. Discuss.

 

TLDR: The world will become an "anarchist capitalist" society where the large majority will be living in squalor and filth left over from all other capitalizing generations.  

Edited February 7, 2016 by Fox Fire

[Captain_Vietnam]

climate change is rubbish and debunk many times.

 

[Saruman]

climate change is rubbish and debunk many times.

 

I legitimately laughed out loud at this

[Captain_Vietnam]

I legitimately laughed out loud at this

it is true. liberals dont get that asian countries like china are outsmarting them all the time - https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en

[Fox Fire]

it is true. liberals dont get that asian countries like china are outsmarting them all the time - https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en

Make a serious comment or GTFO. 

[Clarke]

[Captain_Vietnam]

Make a serious comment or GTFO. 

 

 

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"^[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly. When used inappropriately, it is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.^[2] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.^[3]

Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,^[4][5][6] more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.

notice attack on if i serious or not? debate like adult!

[Fox Fire]

People think they don't have to worry about climate change (it's called climate change), because it's a slow process that does not immediately effect them. In fact, it's so slow that it surpasses their brief experience as an individual life form. I think the biggest issue is that this disaster is a slow process. It's not an issue that people are experiencing in a direct or even linear manner, but a cyclical one on a scale that overshadows a human lifetime. 

The modern mass extinction is entirely the fault of humans, more specifically overpopulation. 

The world you leave behind is the world your descendants will grow up in. So you can act like it's a joke if you want. But it's actually more disturbing than watching ISIS cut peoples heads off. It's pissing in the face of all life itself. 

[Auctor]

Ultimately, people are going to be a lot more disappointed by their welfare states collapsing because their population isn't beating the replacement rate than the results of a couple thousand years of anthropogenic climate change.

[Fox Fire]

Ultimately, people are going to be a lot more disappointed by their welfare states collapsing because their population isn't beating the replacement rate than the results of a couple thousand years of anthropogenic climate change.

Developed nations will experience a steady stream of migrants from undeveloped nations (who reproduce is large numbers) as they leave lands that are drying up. We can clearly see that happening in Europe right now. The mountains around where I live are getting a steady stream of Californians setting up houses as water wells are constantly being drilled up there. 

A couple thousand years you say? I think things are happening a hell of a lot faster than you think. The rate of change is ever increasing, I might add. 

Here's what to expect where I live:

http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts/northwest.html

 

2 million years ago, it took the earth 5,000 years to warm by 5 degrees. The earth today, is expected to warm by about that much in less than 100 years.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

[Captain_Vietnam]

Developed nations will experience a steady stream of migrants from undeveloped nations (who reproduce is large numbers) as they leave lands that are drying up. We can clearly see that happening in Europe right now. The mountains around where I live are getting a steady stream of Californians setting up houses as water wells are constantly being drilled up there. 

A couple thousand years you say? I think things are happening a hell of a lot faster than you think. The rate of change is ever increasing, I might add. 

Here's what to expect where I live:

http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts/northwest.html

 

2 million years ago, it took the earth 5,000 years to warm by 5 degrees. The earth today, is expected to warm by about that much in less than 100 years.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

haha. you deny isis exist?

 

they leave nation because liberals moved soliers out and allow isis into power!

 

but liberals will tend to deny reality...as is ISIS

[Clarke]

People think they don't have to worry about climate change (it's called climate change), because it's a slow process that does not immediately effect them. In fact, it's so slow that it surpasses their brief experience as an individual life form. I think the biggest issue is that this disaster is a slow process. It's not an issue that people are experiencing in a direct or even linear manner, but a cyclical one on a scale that overshadows a human lifetime. 

The modern mass extinction is entirely the fault of humans, more specifically overpopulation. 

The world you leave behind is the world your descendants will grow up in. So you can act like it's a joke if you want. But it's actually more disturbing than watching ISIS cut peoples heads off. It's pissing in the face of all life itself.

I didn't name the title and yes everyone knows it is slow. 

1) Humans are opposed to change and the extinction of any species even if they were going extinct naturally

2) This is more related to the debate, but generally these debates are useless as no one gains anything of value other than maybe they will stop caring about nature and their lack of control over it what is happening. It doesn't matter what you say the only people who gain valuable info they can apply to life is people who accept that they have no control. I'm not speaking of control over nature but rather control over ourselves. Of course you can still debate but the real world value of such a debate is minimal. 

 

I think the threat of extinction would be good for humanity, nothing better than forcing humans to focus on getting out into the stars. 

 

Developed nations will experience a steady stream of migrants from undeveloped nations (who reproduce is large numbers) as they leave lands that are drying up. We can clearly see that happening in Europe right now. The mountains around where I live are getting a steady stream of Californians setting up houses as water wells are constantly being drilled up there. 

A couple thousand years you say? I think things are happening a hell of a lot faster than you think. The rate of change is ever increasing, I might add. 

Here's what to expect where I live:

http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts/northwest.html

 

2 million years ago, it took the earth 5,000 years to warm by 5 degrees. The earth today, is expected to warm by about that much in less than 100 years.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

 

That's more overpopulation and poverty. 

I don't see that as any way relevant to climate change because that's what the climates were for a very long time and they just can't sustain themselves due to the overpopulation. The migrants are looking to escape poverty caused by overpopulation. 

Edited February 6, 2016 by Clarke

[Fox Fire]

haha. you deny isis exist?

 

they leave nation because liberals moved soliers out and allow isis into power!

 

but liberals will tend to deny reality...as is ISIS

I didn't even mention ISIS. Though I did point out the fact that the world is running out of water. This includes Syria, where just before the war, people were moving into the cities and abandoning their farms because there was no water. 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/is-a-lack-of-water-to-blame-for-the-conflict-in-syria-72513729/?no-ist

[Fox Fire]

I didn't name the title and yes everyone knows it is slow. 

1) Humans are opposed to change and the extinction of any species even if they were going extinct naturally

2) This is more related to the debate, but generally these debates are useless as no one gains anything of value other than maybe they will stop caring about nature and their lack of control over it what is happening. It doesn't matter what you say the only people who gain valuable info they can apply to life is people who accept that they have no control. I'm not speaking of control over nature but rather control over ourselves. Of course you can still debate but the real world value of such a debate is minimal. 

 

I think the threat of extinction would be good for humanity, nothing better than forcing humans to focus on getting out into the stars. 

I disagree. This type of debate is what fuels a solution. Without this debate, there will be no solution. No stars. I'm also highly skeptical of the idea that we can effectively live on another planet or in space. We as life forms are inherently part of this planet. Not just something on it.

[Captain_Vietnam]

I disagree. This type of debate is what fuels a solution. Without this debate, there will be no solution. No stars. I'm also highly skeptical of the idea that we can effectively live on another planet or in space. We as life forms are inherently part of this planet. Not just something on it.

intersteller travel is impossible. physics by albert einstein say cant go faster then light. but athiests are too busy watching star trek and think theyre smarter then einstein because they watch star trek

[Fox Fire]

intersteller travel is impossible. physics by albert einstein say cant go faster then light. but athiests are too busy watching star trek and think theyre smarter then einstein because they watch star trek

Actually, it's entirely theoretically possible to travel instantaneously or even fast forward your experience of time. 

For example, someone traveling is experiencing time at a slower rate than a person standing still. Objects in space can and do, seemingly move faster than light. Though this is due to spacial expansion happening beyond light speed, rather than actual objects moving faster than light. Example: the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. This shows that the "speed of light barrier" does not apply to space itself. Don't argue cosmology with me. You'll lose and that isn't the topic.

[Captain_Vietnam]

Actually, it's entirely theoretically possible to travel instantaneously or even fast forward your experience of time. 

For example, someone traveling is experiencing time at a slower rate than a person standing still. Objects in space can and do, seemingly move faster than light. Though this is due to spacial expansion happening beyond light speed, rather than actual objects moving faster than light. Example: the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. This shows that the "speed of light barrier" does not apply to space itself. Don't argue cosmology with me. You'll lose and that isn't the topic.

einstein say as objects get closer to speed of light they pick up more energy

 

this mean if they go over it they would have infinate energy and destroy the universe.

[Clarke]

intersteller travel is impossible. physics by albert einstein say cant go faster then light. but athiests are too busy watching star trek and think theyre smarter then einstein because they watch star trek

I wouldn't divert from the debate but no one said FTL specifically anyway. That said you can't expect humans to comprehend everything because otherwise we would be almost instantly advanced and much like climate it is process that no one can truly say where we will end up. 

[Fox Fire]

That's more overpopulation and poverty. 

I don't see that as any way relevant to climate change because that's what the climates were for a very long time and they just can't sustain themselves due to the overpopulation. The migrants are looking to escape poverty caused by overpopulation. 

The world is running out of water, almost everywhere on the planet. The areas we see people migrating from are areas running out of water. Oddly enough, most young people generally leave my state after high school. Still, the population is the fastest growing in the area mostly from illegal immigration and people coming here and destroying our wildlife so they can retire in some fancy mountain home. 

In any case, yeah, it's basically over population.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Fox Fire

[Fox Fire]

Random thoughts: 

I never thought anarchy was possible, other than anarchist capitalism. However, this defeats the entire traditional idea of anarchy. Proponents of anarchist capitalism like to claim some kind of freedom. "Free markets = free people" or some garbage. The reality is that anarchist capitalism means that anything can be capitalized. And in order to capitalize, competition must be eliminated. Allowing competition in capitalism is only allowing your own future downfall. It's a "survival of the fittest" game through and through. 

At the end of the day, this means that even human life is literally nothing but a price tag. We can already see that now. 

It's the future of politics. As migrants flood into Europe and as more and more people join PMC's money is replacing nations and ideas are the food behind that money. 

I've argued against leftist anarchism for a while now because I'm 100% sure it doesn't work. But perhaps "anarchy" itself does work in terms of pure, raw human nature. 

Let's take a look at drug cartels..... Who literally runs southern America? Governments? Or people with money?

Edited February 7, 2016 by Fox Fire

[LordRahl2]

Your thread title included "population". Did I just miss where you address that? I am on a mobile so maybe I did.

[Big Brother]

I, for one, look forward to putting my post-apocalyptic gaming skills to use in the real world. Apparently, I've been preparing for the apocalypse for years!

[Fox Fire]

Your thread title included "population". Did I just miss where you address that? I am on a mobile so maybe I did.

No, I actually left that part out because I had this whole thing thought out last night but was too tired to write it. So when I did write it, I was half asleep and I just completely forgot to add that bit. Was thinking of adding it, but then I started drinking.... In any case, I've made arguments about overpopulation on here before. You should have some idea of what should have been there.

Actually, touche on that. I was waiting for someone to ask. I might add it when I'm sober but that will be 2 days from now at least. A bit too late if you ask me...

 

 

I, for one, look forward to putting my post-apocalyptic gaming skills to use in the real world. Apparently, I've been preparing for the apocalypse for years!

Good for you. Do you mean you're going to bomb the poor with drones?

Edited February 7, 2016 by Fox Fire

[LordRahl2]

I will endeavor to write up a reply before I start drinking tomorrow. Could you link me to one of your previous posts or tldr it for me?

[Fox Fire]

I will endeavor to write up a reply before I start drinking tomorrow. Could you link me to one of your previous posts or tldr it for me?

I don't feel like digging. I haven't been here in a while as is. However, I'll give you this:

http://alexandrapaul.com/activism/overpopulation/

 

You don't have to read the whole page (though I recommend it). I would suggest watching that video that comes up there. She basically covers all the basics and I agree with everything she says there and more. TBH, she only scratches the surface, including the rest of that website.

I think the most recent case I've made is in this thread starting here:

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/10599-the-6th-mass-extinction/?p=191729

 

This is an issue I'm quite passionate about. I think if you look at the much bigger picture and connect all the dots, you'll see that everything you've mentioned here all comes down to one particular issue. Human overpopulation. There is absolutely no shortage of optimists out there who deny that this is an issue, or that human overpopulation has yet occurred, but the facts are very clear. We are destroying our own ecosystem on a global scale and using more natural resources in numerous areas considerably faster than the earth can replenish them. We are also destroying forests and even the oceans at a completely ridiculous rate. that nature cannot cope with. As a species, we have economically relied on constant, never ending growth. Unfortunately, the earth is finite and we have reached a tipping point where growth is no longer sustainable. What we have right now is not sustainable. The situation in Syria can be partially attributed to human effects on the earth. The people flooding into Europe aren't just fleeing a war. They're also fleeing a dried up nation. And that's just the beginning. Most of the world is running out of water. We'll see what people do when the tap no longer works and stores are being sold out on bottled water every day. When farmers can no longer water their crops. That happened in Syria just before the war broke out. 

I've put a lot of thought and research into this issue and I find it considerably hard to believe that human society will survive another 100 years. I like to put faith in technology, but people are vastly underestimating the speed at which things are changing. I think the biggest issue of this topic is that this disaster is a slow process. It's not an issue that people are experiencing in a direct or even linear manner, but a cyclical one on a scale that overshadows a human lifetime. Thus they will continue ignoring the issue until they experience a swift, direct personal connection to the issue, or unless they accept the hard facts for what they quite clearly point to.

If the world would actually address this issue in a serious manner before the world continues to fall apart and we end up killing ourselves, I'll be amazed. However, even if we do, we've already reached the tipping point on earths climate. It's changing at an ever increasing rate and there is no way of stopping this reaction. Whether we can survive it or not is debatable, but most likely not. These fluctuations in earths climate over the last 2 billion years shows a pattern that seems to correlate with mass extinctions. 

 

 

But we actually don't We are pretty well out of land. What many people don't understand is that although human habitation only accounts for less than 1% of the earths surface, human use of land is considerably larger, maybe even mind blowing. Would it surprise you to know that more land is being used by humans for something than there is untouched land on the planet? And that the vast majority of that untouched land is uninhabitable desert, which is why it's untouched? 

NASA has proven that nearly the entire planet is indeed running out of water. More specifically, that humans are consuming fresh ground water sources from aquifers faster than they replenish.

https://web.archive....o.info/impacts/

https://en.wikipedia...population#Land

https://en.wikipedia...ion#Fresh_water

http://web.archive.o...h.org/node/1661

https://books.google...id=C0_q-90H1aAC

 

Nobody knows how much water these things contain, but what we do know is the one supporting Syria is drying up, and that Syria is in a drought. We also know the one in California is drying up and California is in a drought. It spreads to my neck of the woods next, which experts predict, will in fact spread. 

The rest of what you've said in that piece seems to be covered in this response^

I think you should know that studying climate change is what eventually brought me to the conclusion of overpopulation. The factor you mention in this thread, mass extinction, is the one major thing that completely solidified this belief for me. Although I came to this conclusion before the results of the study this post is mentioning were released, before I had a chance to even read the data they found, I had already concluded that we were overpopulated. 

So now we have not just resources being consumed at unreplenishable rates, not only do we have climate change that correlates with overpopulation and die offs (a natural cycle of earth), but we actually have proof of a mass extinction happening as we speak. I'm not really sure what more evidence could possibly be needed for people to accept the horrible truth. Does it suck? Obviously. Should we ignore it because it sucks so bad? IDC. Do what you do. But I for one am not fond of the idea that we are destroying the only thing we know of that can support life.

I would have children right now if I were not so convinced of this seemingly obvious fact. Knowing this has kept me from pursuing personal interests because I have a very real concern for the future of humanity, which overpowers my personal desires. 

 

Edited February 7, 2016 by Fox Fire