The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 278588 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1425 on: 07/09/2015 08:40:45 »
Then we come to Hansen's et al predictions. What is interesting there, to me then, is the idea of a threshold. The threshold being the one in where you can expect all 'constant ice masses' (as the Arctic and Antarctic) to disappear. They sets it around 450 ppm (parts CO2 per million) in the atmosphere. The research is based on geological research, and when it seems those ice masses first got their chance to develop, which then was as the Earths atmosphere went under 450 ppm, a very long time ago to us.

We're at around 400 ppm today. http://co2now.org/current-co2/co2-now/

So? How fast has it been increasing? http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-levels-airborne-fraction-increasing.htm

And when will it pass 450 ppm?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1426 on: 07/09/2015 08:56:29 »
Lastly, there are two things more to consider. One is that CO2 do come down, although its 'tail' stays, and (at present) builds up yearly by us, for a very long time. One estimate, if I remember correctly, being around 7% staying for about 30 000 years in the atmosphere. The main part of CO2 (released today for example) is expected to come down in about two to three centuries though. And the sinks are land and oceans, the oceans getting and storing the major part (acidity).

And then there is what a 'tipping' toward a new climate might do. And yes, one more thing. This is man made, not geological as easily can be seen by the time scales presented. And, we also have frozen methane that's getting warmed up, as well as we're using it, 'natural gas' as one fossil energy source. Methane's end product is CO2. https://blogs.princeton.edu/research/2014/03/26/a-more-potent-greenhouse-gas-than-co2-methane-emissions-will-leap-as-earth-warms-nature/

« Last Edit: 07/09/2015 09:13:36 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1427 on: 07/09/2015 09:09:51 »
We're a weird species, ain't we :) Putting a thought construction as being each ones goal in life, profits. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/17/shell-climate-change-rhetoric-the-real-story

 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1428 on: 07/10/2015 17:31:46 »
Hi Yor-on.  The last few posts that you made here have been returning to my thoughts with respect to formulating a response.  Its a difficult subject, but first, I'd just like to say that, in my supporting David in his logical approach to human behaviour, I was not in any way, Ethos, detracting from your position. I take the same stance myself.  My granny taught me to treat others as I would wish to be treated myself.  If I'm annoying someone, I'd prefer that they let me know, than didn't.  David just takes the logic beyond the personal and into the long view is all.

Ok, global warming.   Clearly we can link human activities to global warming, but are we just exacerbating the process of a natural phenomenon that is happening anyway?  I have heard it suggested by geologists that earth has a history of being subjected to periods of cooling, and periods of warming.
Of course, an earth that is above or below certain temperatures becomes a difficult prospect for the human, but it would be presumptuous of us to consider that the earth is just in existence for our purposes.
We humans, we like to believe that we can control our environment.  Every part of our lives is designed to this intent.  We wrap ourselves up with conveniences, hot water taps, electric light switches, temperature controlled radiators.  By means of the remote control, on off switch, choice of newspaper, type of book, internet site, we control the information that we subject ourselves to.  Some of us even care to control the actions of others.   Somewhere within all of this, we forget that right here, and right now, there is no tomorrow!
This is an inherent trait in the human.  We are hard wired to plan for the future.  We are hard wired to always seek out the easiest and least time consuming method of reaping the highest gain.  If we were not like this then we would be more synonymous with the members of the animal kingdom who know of no reason to develop beyond their natural habitat. (unless forced to do so by humans.)  Why are we like this?  When considering the long view, do we serve a purpose to our environment in the same way that we have identified that other animals do, such as bees?  Are we 'supposed' to be like this?
Yor-on, what I am trying to get at is that "Do we have to feel so personally responsible?".... And if we do... assuming that we would even be politically capable of initiating such a change... if we all then became vegetarian, bicycle riding people who were willing to accept a far less consumer based existence, would it ultimately stop a warming process of the earth that was initiated long before the advent of the industrial revolution?
On the basis that the human genome is potentially identified as having been originated from an extremely small group of humans, this gives us reason to believe that the human race has possibly been subject to many naturally induced culls.  These being due to pestilence, pandemics, natural disasters such as land mass movement, the resulting floods, volcanic activity, meteorite collision and the resulting earth environment after such events.
One way or another Yor-on, the balance is always restored, just look at open system predator prey wave forms. (Edit: We are the apex predator, our only enemies being natural disaster and ourselves!)
On the brighter side, when considering the universe as a system of particles in a flux of displacement, maybe we can take some comfort in the fact that we consist of matter that is in a state of constant recycle.  In this respect and from this perspective, we are in fact just a part of a greater whole in which our ongoing existence is relative and subject to change.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2015 21:11:23 by timey »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1429 on: 07/10/2015 21:45:58 »
Hi Yor-on.  The last few posts that you made here have been returning to my thoughts with respect to formulating a response.  Its a difficult subject, but first, I'd just like to say that, in my supporting David in his logical approach to human behaviour, I was not in any way, Ethos, detracting from your position. I take the same stance myself.  My granny taught me to treat others as I would wish to be treated myself.  If I'm annoying someone, I'd prefer that they let me know, than didn't.  David just takes the logic beyond the personal and into the long view is all.

Ok, global warming.   Clearly we can link human activities to global warming, but are we just exacerbating the process of a natural phenomenon that is happening anyway?  I have heard it suggested by geologists that earth has a history of being subjected to periods of cooling, and periods of warming.
Of course, an earth that is above or below certain temperatures becomes a difficult prospect for the human, but it would be presumptuous of us to consider that the earth is just in existence for our purposes.
We humans, we like to believe that we can control our environment.  Every part of our lives is designed to this intent.  We wrap ourselves up with conveniences, hot water taps, electric light switches, temperature controlled radiators.  By means of the remote control, on off switch, choice of newspaper, type of book, internet site, we control the information that we subject ourselves to.  Some of us even care to control the actions of others.   Somewhere within all of this, we forget that right here, and right now, there is no tomorrow!
This is an inherent trait in the human.  We are hard wired to plan for the future.  We are hard wired to always seek out the easiest and least time consuming method of reaping the highest gain.  If we were not like this then we would be more synonymous with the members of the animal kingdom who know of no reason to develop beyond their natural habitat. (unless forced to do so by humans.)  Why are we like this?  When considering the long view, do we serve a purpose to our environment in the same way that we have identified that other animals do, such as bees?  Are we 'supposed' to be like this?
Yor-on, what I am trying to get at is that "Do we have to feel so personally responsible?".... And if we do... assuming that we would even be politically capable of initiating such a change... if we all then became vegetarian, bicycle riding people who were willing to accept a far less consumer based existence, would it ultimately stop a warming process of the earth that was initiated long before the advent of the industrial revolution?
On the basis that the human genome is potentially identified as having been originated from an extremely small group of humans, this gives us reason to believe that the human race has possibly been subject to many naturally induced culls.  These being due to pestilence, pandemics, natural disasters such as land mass movement, the resulting floods, volcanic activity, meteorite collision and the resulting earth environment after such events.
One way or another Yor-on, the balance is always restored, just look at open system predator prey wave forms. (Edit: We are the apex predator, our only enemies being natural disaster and ourselves!)
On the brighter side, when considering the universe as a system of particles in a flux of displacement, maybe we can take some comfort in the fact that we consist of matter that is in a state of constant recycle.  In this respect and from this perspective, we are in fact just a part of a greater whole in which our ongoing existence is relative and subject to change.

Timey I wish you were so clear in the expression of your views on physics as you were in this post. It was very insightful.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1430 on: 07/10/2015 23:54:28 »
Migration has always been the intentional response of living things to environmental change (evolution being unintentional and generally slower). As, for the most part, change occurs gradually at the boundaries, plants and animals colonise new areas as the old ones become uninhabitable, moving up or down a shoreline or mountain as the sea level, rainfall, or whatever, changes. Or at least they used to.

The problem with the present human population is an inability to migrate. There are too many of us in the habitable and cultivable areas to allow substantial inflow without damaging the quality of life of the inhabitants, and our culture is too complicated and dependent on inherited infrastructure to allow substantial outflow into marginal land.

Furthermore we have taken great pains to ensure that no other species migrates into areas we might consider desirable: we may establish the occasional reserve, but they are surrounded by developed property and we don't tolerate bears, elephants or knotweed intruding on our space.       

So how should we respond to climate change? The one variable that is entirely and unequivocally under human control is the human population. First off, reduce the numbers (no action needed, just breed less) to a level that can live sustainably under current climate conditions, then reduce further to the point at which it becomes worthwhile to cultivate marginal territory that may become productive if climate trends continue. Somewhere between the two, there will be enough space to allow inflow from regions that become unproductive.

Problem is that people aren't much motivated by long term concern for the species, but principally by pursuit of their short term comfort and pleasure. The trick is to sell the one-child family, not as a State imposition but as a desideratum - the key to immediate happiness. Any suggestions as to how this can be done would be very welcome.   
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1431 on: 08/10/2015 00:39:36 »
If a substantial child benefit were offered for a first child, with no increase for a second child, and a minimum or even no increase for a third child, etc. - combined with a significant cash incentive offer of sterilisation after first child (in consideration of the choices of the less less well off), with a significantly reduced cash incentive for sterilisation after second child... and a significant tax break (in consideration of the choices of the middle classes) that became null and void on the advent of a second child?

Or something like that anyway.  I suspect that a financial incentive might well self regulate the situation.  Although this does raise the question as to the morality of such an openly calculated display of financial pressurisation, with the traditional family of brothers and sisters then being a scenario only for the rich... To be fair, the rich should then be further taxed for having more than one child.  Therefore, I imagine that selling it as part of ones manifesto for election purposes might pose problematic...unless of course the manifesto also included significant measures to redistribute a sizeable proportion of the wealth back into the hands of the 'other' much larger percentage of the population...(chuckle)
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1432 on: 08/10/2015 23:07:32 »
Why offer any benefit for the first child? No other species does so, and not all human societies consider it the duty of the taxpayer to support other people's children. It is an outdated invention, introduced in 1909 in the UK at a time when reproduction was, apparently, involuntary. If you can't afford to feed a child, or a dog, don't have one. We don't have dog benefits, car benefits, or indeed any payments to maintain things you don't actually need. 
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1433 on: 09/10/2015 00:54:07 »
Well Alan, I do get your point... but in the animal kingdom many other human ideals are also lacking, such as resources being disproportionally shared among, or hoarded by members of the population.  Ok, we do observe colonies such as ants or bees that seem inherent with a type of cast system, but this is, I believe, due to their breeding mechanics.
I personally feel that the child benefit ideal is one of the more charming aspects of our social system.  Available for all children from any class or financial background and designed to improve the quality of life for children.  A nobel cause indeed.
However, as with everything, the system is open for abuse.  As a separate issue from any pre-meditated abuse, it's a sad and shocking realisation that many children are born simply because the mother just hasn't got a damn clue what else to do with her life.  More often than not ending up as a single parent on benefits.  Undereducated and under-motivated by job choices, having more kids becomes all that she believes she is capable of.  It's not much of a life, but a person can become institutionalised.
In these instances it is the children who are the ones being let down.  Chances are in these instances that the children of such circumstances will also grow up as undereducated and under-motivated.  So we see a downward spiral.  These are the people who 'cant' afford to have kids.  Why not?  What part of the animal kingdom has portions of society that cannot afford to reproduce?  Who are we to say that our fellow man is not allowed to have children due to his circumstances that, let's face it, are more inherent to a small percentage of the population having obtained all the worlds wealth, than due to his own incapabilities. (I'm a big fan of that program "faking it" as a social study).  Clearly we cannot disallow people to have children based on their financial status, or next thing we will be saying is that these people are of no social desirability, which is fascist...
(Already, since the Reagan administration in the USA under the "war on drugs" banner, we see a capitalisation upon the policy in the very profitable privateering within the prison industry, that is spelling out a scenario of social injustice synonymous to the holocaust in slow motion...don't get me started)
...being realistic, given that these people will have kids whether they can afford them or not, child benefit acts as a sort of social safeguard, in the hope that the children will have a better life.  More well off kids, living under more well adjusted circumstances might have 'their' lives improved by their parents subsequently being able to afford out of school additional learning activities, such as piano lessons, etc.
On the basis that I feel that we have no society at-all if we do not invest in our children, (we are after-all a herd oriented species) I have to disagree with you Alan here, and say that I think that child benefit is a good thing, but that it could be better set up.  If it were slanted in favour of one being significantly better off in the event of having only one child (in conjunction with other financial incentives), I suspect that this would then benefit the requirements that we set earlier in the conversation of reducing the population, and also further to improve the lives of all children on the whole.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2015 01:53:54 by timey »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1434 on: 09/10/2015 06:41:44 »
Everyone is really over thinking the situation. In poorer countries more children means more hands to help in making what little money they can to survive. In richer countries having children can be a means to an end, gaining some advantage or simply accidental. In both cases it is simply individuals not seeing the results of their actions on a larger scale. What harm can 1 more child do? Ultimately none of it matters anyway. We aren't special. We just think we are.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1435 on: 09/10/2015 12:57:21 »
I don't really think you can overthink the situation Jeff.  Its complexity knows no bounds.  We as humans are hard wired, not only in our desire to participate in sexual activity, but to be desirous of continuing the fact of a family line, and indeed to live a life that is inclusive of being part and parcel of a family group.
Yes, poorer people, in poorer countries are more inclined to have more children.  This being a part and parcel of agricultural and family based business in a scenario of zero social benefits.  More hands to help with the work, and insurance of more family support for ones elderly years.
These days, those third world helping hands are employed by sweat shops, whereas 11 year old Dita, who really should be at school, or out playing with her mates, sits for 10 hour shifts embroidering the dress that Mrs Jones, in Ashford, Kent, is subsequently going to buy as her outfit to host her well to do "children in need" benefit champagne dinner.  Mrs. Jones will wear that dress once, and then pop it into a clothing recycle bag to be sent off as a further act of charity, chances are, to the very same region it was made in, to sit amongst the many, many, hundreds of tons of recycled clothing that has been dumped in Dita's local area, causing untold pollution and constituting the very reason why Dita and her mates are not allowed by their mothers to go out and play in the environment of their surroundings.  Dita's mother would like to send her to school, but under the remit of the areas main employers, the sweat shops, taking on Western Hemisphere, brand name business, more cheaply produced, under less stringent work ethics than would be socially acceptable in the West, wages are low.  It is the extra wages that Dita brings to the family that affords her brothers schooling.  Dita is just a girl.  All Dita needs to know is her job within this financial structure.  It's unlikely she will ever know any other life.
Who is at fault here?  It's most certainly not Dita's mother.  Is it the brand name companies responsibility, or do we lay the blame at the feet of Mrs. Jones?
« Last Edit: 09/10/2015 21:29:14 by timey »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1436 on: 10/10/2015 08:34:04 »
"Helping hands" doesn't make sense. If you can't feed one person on one person's wages, you can't feed two people on two wages. And unless you are going to put babies to work immediately post partum you have to look after then for a year or two before they are able to take their place in the sex trade or whatever rewarding career you had in mind for them.

In the west, we don't expect anyone to contribute to the economy for at least 18 years, and even then they are a threat to the employment of older people with financial responsibilities. Or they go into higher education as an alternative to the dole queue and end up with a debt that can't be repaid because there aren't many jobs in media studies.

The plain fact is that we don't need as many people as we already have, we don't have to make more, we'd all be better off with fewer, and the solution is quite simply "do nothing" - including not making babies. If you want recreational sex (and who doesn't?) then buy a few pills or condoms: much cheaper than skiing or parachuting (or child care) and less likely to end up with a broken leg.   

Apropos Timey's reform of child benefit, my proposal is to give every female 500 every 6 months if she is not pregnant. With a little thought, a woman could build up a useful reserve before having her first child and use subsequent payments as support for that child.

As for the agricultural family business, whilst it may look attractive in the short term to have some free labour, land does not expand to accommodate descendants. An acre might support four people but it won't support the children's children. And it is worth noting that whilst 80% of the Ugandan population works on the land, there are persistent food shortages: in the UK, with a much less favourable climate, less than 5% work on the land and we throw food away to keep the price up. People are not very productive as agricultural machines.
« Last Edit: 10/10/2015 08:50:08 by alancalverd »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1437 on: 10/10/2015 14:47:18 »
"Helping hands" doesn't make sense. If you can't feed one person on one person's wages, you can't feed two people on two wages. And unless you are going to put babies to work immediately post partum you have to look after then for a year or two before they are able to take their place in the sex trade or whatever rewarding career you had in mind for them.

But of course Alan.  The mistake here is expecting anything that humans do to make sense! :)

...to turn your statement around, what we must consider is, why it is that one persons wages cannot support a family?  A weeks work in any field is a weeks work, right?  Mr Jones in Ashford, Kent, his working week consists of less hours than Dita's father, or her mother, and even Dita herself works more hours than he.  Yet he supports his family of 2 children and a wife comfortably, and sends his children to a private school.  Dita's father has to send the whole family, himself, his wife and his daughter to work in order to send his boy to school.  (There is no free state education).
Ok, clearly Dita's mother and father should not have had children.  Oh whooptie doo!  Any suggestions as to what Dita's mother and father's life should consist of then?
Mr and Mrs Jones are kind, decent and caring people.  Mrs. Jones dedicates her free time to charitable causes.  She is blissfully unaware that the dress she bought, at a price that made her really happy, was made by a child.  It makes her cry to see the poverty of third world countries... on the telly.  However, both her and her husband have a bitch about their hard earned tax payments being utilised in a social benefits system.  What the ****?   Sorry, but we have a contradiction of terms here!
Most folk in the Western hemisphere have a problem with the ideal of the Hindu caste system.  Why?  Because they think it unacceptable that just because of the circumstances of ones birth, that one should be consigned to a life of poverty.   That this is beyond the ideal of what we consider humanly decent.  I'd say, much as I disagree with it myself, that this philosophy of a social structure is at least "honest"!  Clearly in a social structure that is inclusive of kings and queens, there will be a ladder of less elevated position all the way down to the bottom rung.  What the Hindu caste system does is give the people on the bottom rung a 'position' in life.  It is an accepted fact that by means of the fact of elevated positions, the result is that there will be a least elevated position.  Recognising this, the least elevated people are given a purpose in life, dealing with the dead, tanning leather and begging.  Within this structure, these bottom feeders have a job, and a means to carry on their lives and families as an accepted part of society.  Truly, you would think that people in such a position would not have children, not wish to pass this position in life on to their offspring.  Maybe some don't, but most do.  Why?  Because they are hard wired to be human!  Being part of, and reproducing a family is a basic human trait.  It's the human condition!
What Mr and Mrs. Jones are missing is the fact that their elevated position in life is a direct cause to someone else's less elevated position, and that if it were not for the social security system, they would have to encounter desperate, hungry, and perhaps even dying people every time they left the 'resulting debatable' safety of their home.  They talk about these benefit scroungers, like being on the dole is a teddy bears picnic.  It's a sickening display of hypocrisy in my book.   A direct refusal to accept the consequences of a system that inevitably causes class division.  A refusal to accept that their elevated position in life is the direct cause of another's poverty.  As unintentional as that may be, people should recognise this fact and be honest about it.  Trouble is that for our society to be honest in this way means that we have to jettisoned the ideal of human decency.  What we would be saying is that it is a fact of life that some of us, as a direct result of the fact of others elevated positions, will have to live a life of poverty, and that these people will serve no purpose and be consigned to the fact of not being able to live a normal family life.  That Mrs. Jones had better keep on buying her "price happy" dresses, otherwise Dita might well end up in the sex industry.  Mr and Mrs. Jones cannot bring themselves to make this connection, or even allow these thoughts to cross their mind.  Clearly, if this was an open policy, and we were to tell these people that they have been written off, that the concept of human decency that would not allow another to starve to death (as we would see in the animal kingdom in an overpopulation scenario) is in fact null and void, then these people would arm themselves and rise up to take what they need by force.
So... Mr and Mrs Jones's bitching and whinging is in fact a hypocrisy born of their own non acceptance of the ramifications of a social structure that will inevitable leave some people without means to survive, while others live the fat cat life, and their refusal to accept the fact of their own role in perpetuating this system.  It's dishonest and unattractive.

Yes there are too many people.  What we going to do about it?  Take all the financially insolvent folks, line em up and shoot them?  Oh yes, I forget, traditionally it's been a war that takes care of that scenario.  Or perhaps we should just turn a blind eye to ner-do-wells pumping highly addictive drugs into poverty stricken areas, and then build lots of prisons to lock up the symptom, rather than addressing the cause, like they do in the USA!  Least ways these people would be serving a purpose as an industry, right?  Roads are responsible for more deaths than wars even.  Why not get social security scroungers to address the ragwort that blights Britain's verges?  That would put them in direct danger of death, and if we didn't manage to lose any of the lousy leeches along the way, least ways the ragwort problem would be under control!  Right?

Fact of the matter is that people who are financially insolvent are in fact still people.  Mostly they are not incapable and in fact many are more capable than some that are financially solvent.  Given that they were pitted against each other for survival by acumen and physical attributes alone, without any financial bearing brought to the situation, such as in the animal kingdom, financially solvent people may find their position of guaranteed survival vastly reduced and under threat!!!

Apropos Timey's reform of child benefit, my proposal is to give every female 500 every 6 months if she is not pregnant. With a little thought, a woman could build up a useful reserve before having her first child and use subsequent payments as support for that child.

As a woman who had only one child at the age of 28, that scenario would have suited me just fine. :)
Personally, although I have definitely been eligible to claim benefits at some points in my life, I have not done so. This being due to my abhorrence to total strangers demanding that I answer personal questions, rather than any moral reticence.  I'd prefer to upkeep a juggling act outside Waitrose supermarket for spare change, than talk to those nosy parkers, but that's just me...
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1438 on: 11/10/2015 12:01:33 »

Quote
Yes there are too many people.  What we going to do about it?  Take all the financially insolvent folks, line em up and shoot them?  Oh yes, I forget, traditionally it's been a war that takes care of that scenario.


Not true. Total casualties in WWII were about 48,000,000 out of a world population of 2,400,000,000, of whom about 220,000,000 would have died anyway during that period, so it's a very expensive and disruptive way of achieving very little. The problem with war is it mainly kills fit, productive males, so the net effect is to reduce the overall ability of the species to survive and prosper. Worse still, as Allied casualties outnumbered Axis casualties by about 6:1, and the bleeding-heart Allies decided to rebuild Germany and Japan afterwards, the only lasting benefit was to the aggressors and losers in the contest - another antiDarwinian result.   
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1439 on: 11/10/2015 12:38:50 »
Oh... Ok, well I wasn't all that keen on starting a war anyway, it's noisy, disruptive to the country side, from what I can tell, and also, as you said, it takes all the men away.  I wouldn't want that! :D

Alan, you may well be right in saying that if all women were to only produce one child in their life, then the population problem could be solved by doing nothing else... but we can see by observation, that people who are more well off, generally tend to produce less children than those who are poor.   This doesn't make any sense at-all, but it 'is' what we observe!  A population reduction will not occur if we are to continue to force people into poverty via the ever widening financial division between the very rich and the very poor.

For me this just about sums it up:
"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank.  Give a man a bank and he can rob the world!"

In respect of the industrial revolution, and the advertising psychology and consumerism based policies of Edward Bernays, our world has become a production line of throw away goods, made by throw away people, to be snapped up by folks who have become as addicted to shopping as a junkie is to heroin.

That dude Edward Bernays has got a lot to answer for in my book!
What chance do we have of pulling together and reducing global warming in a society that purposely makes dross, built with a break by date, and sold to us under the banner of 'status symbol'?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sJhePGnzuUU

:)
« Last Edit: 11/10/2015 12:41:04 by timey »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1440 on: 11/10/2015 16:29:35 »

Alan, you may well be right in saying that if all women were to only produce one child in their life, then the population problem could be solved by doing nothing else... but we can see by observation, that people who are more well off, generally tend to produce less children than those who are poor. 


Hence my plan to financially encourage those who can't afford to support children, not to have any. This year's state education budget for the UK is about 90,000,000,000. That is about 4,000 per taxpayer. So giving every woman 1000 per year not to breed will save the taxpayer a lot of money in the fifth and later years - something like 1500 per year, every year - on education alone. We can expect a saving of around 3000 per taxpayer per year on welfare and social services, and probably another 1000 on health.

So every woman can be 1000 per year better off, and every taxpayer can take home an extra 5500 per year, by doing nothing at all!

The problem is that with a declining population, house prices will fall, the countryside will become green and pleasant, and economists and commodity speculators will starve. Unthinkable.   

Quote
Ok, clearly Dita's mother and father should not have had children.  Oh whooptie doo!  Any suggestions as to what Dita's mother and father's life should consist of then?
Play bridge, walk the dog, watch Downtrodden Abbey or Scum Dancing, eat better, and worry about other things than their daughter's wedding or whether their son was at school or in police custody again.  I (mostly) enjoyed bringing up children, but (a) I rarely had to worry about money and (b) my childless neighbours never seemed to be short of amusement or purpose in life.
« Last Edit: 11/10/2015 23:49:10 by alancalverd »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1441 on: 12/10/2015 11:11:14 »
Although I strongly feel that the money saved should remain within the school budget, in order to afford the now reduced number of state school children a 'desperately required' better class of education... apart from this, I think your plan beats my suggestion hands down Alan.  I like the angle.  Encouraging responsible behaviour, and the extra finance to utilise such with, leading hopefully to better parenting over-all.  But it only takes care of the population in UK!
What good is it that our population is reduced, when the population continues to explode elsewhere?
Perhaps Mrs Jones, and her group of charitable friends, should lobby the brand name companies making use of such sweat shops in third world countries, not only to provide a reasonable wage in context with local economic requirements, safer working conditions and sick pay... but to also include a bonus for women who have not yet become pregnant!  Might need to underwrite that with a requirement that the company is bound by agreement to employ a certain percentage of 'as yet un-pregnant women', otherwise such a measure would be counter productive.  You know how slippery the money hounds can be (chuckle)...
But more significantly, speaking from my own experience, and I think this may pose a significant element, the desire to have a baby becomes something of a hormonal itch.  At first it's just a faint whisper, a primordial tug when you happen across someone else's one of those cute little bundles.  Even soiled and sticky, boy, they just smell sooo good!  Then, after a few years, it escalates to a bit of a louder voice that speaks to you with some urgency.  Finding oneself looking longingly at baby clothes and babies toys, when one was supposed to be out shopping for some winter socks.  Approaching late twenties, I may as well have had my fingers in my ears, shouting lalla, lalla, la, la, la, for all the difference it would have made!  The desire to have a baby was a force of imminence, despite all reason, or 'ideal' circumstance, and a phenomenon not of my conscious decision.
I've heard tell that this feeling is common in the woman.  What can one do about this?  A little pill would be nice!   The contraceptive pill only aggravating such hormonal stirrings, in that it tricks the body into thinking it is pregnant.  The non arrival of the bodily expected then causing hormonal confusion, turning most women I've met on the things into right moody cows.
Anyway, a pill that could reduce the hormonal stirrings of the biological clock, without reducing sex drive, or inducing moody cow-ness, might be 'an' area of research in the quest of a population reduction.

Play bridge, walk the dog, watch Downtrodden Abbey or Scum Dancing, eat better, and worry about other things than their daughter's wedding or whether their son was at school or in police custody again.  I (mostly) enjoyed bringing up children, but (a) I rarely had to worry about money and (b) my childless neighbours never seemed to be short of amusement or purpose in life.

Alan, :)  you do make me laugh...  I don't watch telly as such, so scum dancing took me a mo or two...
I was actually thinking of putting forward the concept of kid pooling, as in the concept of car pooling - (just to make that clear, can't be too careful these days).  If society were to consist of one child families, sibling life is then a past tense scenario.  Children are more well adjusted with siblings.  On the basis that parents are more well adjusted with help, why not kid pool?  This could also be inclusive of a childless couple who don't, or can't have kids.  Two children who live together, with three sets of parents to care for them.  Less financial strain all round, and the kids getting lots of quality time with people who aren't stressed out.
« Last Edit: 12/10/2015 11:37:27 by timey »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1442 on: 12/10/2015 16:48:10 »
Quote
Finding oneself looking longingly at baby clothes and babies toys, when one was supposed to be out shopping for some winter socks.
I detect a wee hint of social norming here. The accoutrements of western motherhood are designed to sell accoutrements. Would you have looked equally longingly at a shelf full of screaming, vomiting, defecating infants, or the promise of a couple of years of sleepless nights, followed by tantrums, pocket money, homework, and Friday nights apologising to the bail sergeant, until they leave home and start asking for serious money?

Compare http://www.mothercare.com/new-baby-essentials/advice-ms-preg-essentials-root,default,pg.html (for those that can't be bothered, it lists over 100 "essential" items that didn't even exist before the 20th century, and another 80 "nice to haves" - now define "essential") with what an Aboriginal mother considers essential: a bag to carry the baby when you are working. 

Not sure about kid pooling. I was an only child and as my dad was quite capable of feeding three mouths, I spent a lot of time learning stuff from my mum, who was a lot more interesting than any of my contemporaries, and when I acquired friends there was a clear distinction between "family" and "others". Maladjusted? No more so than my four kids.

 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1443 on: 12/10/2015 18:31:10 »
Och now there you beastly man! :) Social normalisation?  I'll have you know that I not only lived with a man and his young family for a good few years before I met the father of my child, (who I'm still with)... but also being an only child, that is of my mother and fathers union, I went on to experience a sister at the age of seven on my mothers side, and at age fourteen onward, (not that I lived with them) 2 further sisters and 2 brothers on my dad's side, the youngest of whom is only 3 years older than my son.  I can absolutely guarantee you that I knew exactly what I was letting myself into in having a child of my own!  The baby clothes and toys comment stands...as an analogy to baby pangs...

Not sure about kid pooling.

Lol... Well, I suspected that this might be the case.  Talking from the experience of being a teenager who made an art out of parent pooling, having at least three or four different families on the go, to which I made myself useful in return for food and sofa surfing, I can say that it does work, but that I could see problems arising in an intentional and structured rendition of such a situation.  People do have a strong tendency for monopoly, it's true...
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1444 on: 13/10/2015 08:00:44 »
OK, so it's deep in the psyche. Now I get a lump in my throat every time I see a beautiful sailplane, but (a) I can't afford it and (b) there would be no pleasure in gliding if the sky was as crowded as the roads. So a combination of financial constraint and common sense keeps my feet on the ground even if my head is in the air. Let's see if it works with babies! 
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1445 on: 13/10/2015 15:07:45 »
Alan, the point I'm trying to make is, that one hasn't got any hope of ever finding a 'working' solution to any problem, unless one fully understands all the parameters.

A woman's 'body' is designed to have babies, and it will release hormones through that woman's body and brain to that purpose.  It is observed that a woman who continues not to become pregnant will experience an escalation of these hormonal influences.  This is not on par with the desire to 'buy' material goods Alan.  But... in as much as your bank balance regulates your purchases, can we not accept that perhaps the desire to produce babies can be more effectively regulated via a medically associated reduction, or a masking of these hormonal influences?  I think it a most relevant area of consideration in the quest to a population reduction.
Speaking for myself, I am unequivocally relieved that these hormonal tendencies in my body are now over.  I no longer feel like bursting into tears when I see families of young children on outings, or babies at the breast.  I usually balk at the notion of taking even a headache tablet, unless truly desperate, but I would have parted with proper cash to purchase a pill that put a stop to these hormonal feelings that were beyond all common sense, reason, and entirely outside of my own control.

Yes, sure let's see if the world can have less babies, but first, be truly aware of what is involved.  You cannot analogise the desire to have a baby with the desire to own a plane, and then expect the population to reduce under the remit of this type of common sense.  It doesn't apply. 

And what about the population that we do have already?
Don't get me wrong Alan, I'm not getting on your case personally.  A man of your education, age, and in consideration of the economics of your era, I'd expect you to be comfortably well off.  If you are not, then you most certain have had the potential and opportunity to be so.  I don't have a problem with comfortably well off people.  I think there is enough resources in the world for us all, every last one of us, to be comfortably well off.  What I object to is the very rich, who hoard more resources than they, or their families could ever use in a hundred lifetimes.
Have you read a book by James Clavel "King Rat"?  My eyes look upon the world with the same disgust that the American soldiers felt when they showed up to liberate the population of that concentration camp...
The fact that the middle classes vent their frustration of the stranglehold of their tax status, at the poor rather than the rich, (who avoid taxation via offshore accounting) is a direct contradiction in terms.  The middle classes are being used by the rich as a piggy in the middle to ensure that the poor are kept in their place.  The rich incite this middle class attitude to the poor by selling them the idea that if it were not for the poor, the middle class tax would be lesser, when in fact the situation is comprised of, if it were not for the rich, there would be no poor people!

Therefore, to state that poor people should not have children they cannot afford is, a) unrealistic in the face of the natural human condition, and b) unfair, in that there are enough resources in the world for everyone to live comfortably, should the phenomenon of "King Rat" type behaviour be eliminated!!!

I personally view this "King Rat" type  behaviour as being on par with medical illnesses such as bulimia, anorexia, drug addiction, psychotic tendencies and mental illness!
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1446 on: 13/10/2015 17:39:14 »
I'm pretty sure that you could offset the promaternity hormones with a pill costing a lot less than 1000 per year, and certainly a lot less than the 6000 per year that society will save for every baby not conceived.

Quote
if it were not for the rich, there would be no poor people!
  Alas, not true!http://www.sochealth.co.uk/national-health-service/public-health-and-wellbeing/poverty-and-inequality/the-black-report-1980/the-black-report-health-inequalities-25-years-on/black-report-conference-summary/ provides a very clear graph of household weekly income distribution. If you took all the income of those earning more than twice the mean (408 in 2005) and redistributed it to all those earning less than the mean, it would increase their weekly income by 4 per household - less than a packet of fags. 

There are two reasons why governments tax the poor: (a) because there are LOTS more of them and (b) because they can't avoid it.
« Last Edit: 13/10/2015 17:41:25 by alancalverd »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1447 on: 13/10/2015 20:58:05 »
I'm pretty sure that you could offset the promaternity hormones with a pill

Yes... exactly Alan, and may I suggest, no matter the cost of producing a pill specified as such, that this pill be as naturally derived as is possible, in order not to cause any physical or mental side effects that unscrupulous pharmaceutical companies can then financially capitalise upon in curing?

There are two reasons why governments tax the poor: (a) because there are LOTS more of them and (b) because they can't avoid it.

Oh no Alan, I think you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick.  I'm taking a much longer view than this. I'm not suggesting that the poor should not be taxed.  I'm suggesting that the poor should be richer in order that we may tax them more!  That the poor should be that much richer, that we wouldn't have need of a welfare system, and that the middle classes be then required to find some other type of misdirected bitching and whining to attend themselves to, should they miss the fact of it.  I'm suggesting that the only means of achieving a wealthier poor, is for the 'very rich' to be that much poorer to achieve a more balanced equilibrium.
You talk about wages, tax brackets and a few tuppence.  I'm talking about a blatant hoarding of a large proportion of world wealth by a small proportion of the population.  I'm suggesting that this small proportion of very rich individuals are suffering from medical conditions of compulsive hoarding, a total lack of empathy to other humans synonymous with psychotic disorders, and displaying a disengagement from reality that reeks of mental illness.  These are the people who dominate world policy.

As for this country, from what I have gleaned from posts you have made elsewhere Alan, I don't need to teach you how to suck eggs.  The Ken Loaches film, "The Spirit of 45" sums up a pulling together of the working classes into trade unions and social welfare measures, etc, resulting in the great British institution of nationally owned business, owned by, and payed for, by the people via their tax.  All sold off now to support policies that the majority did not vote for.  The NHS reduced to tatters, state education in severe crisis.  Wages are beginning to reflect those of third world countries, in that they are not sufficient in respect to economic requirement.  Seriously, this country is a mess, and if we do actually pull out of Europe, without the European Court of Human rights at our service, this country's poor are in great danger of becoming the peasants that they were before the labour movement.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1448 on: 13/10/2015 23:06:09 »
OK, forget income and deal with wealth. Let's redistribute Bill Gates' net worth among the world's population. That works out at $10 per person, paid once and once only. What are you going to do with your $10? A meal and a glass of wine, and then it's gone. But if a thousand people pooled that money and bought a tractor, they could grow a lot more food and wine. Concentration of capital is the key to efficiency, progress, or anything else that doesn't just end up in the toilet.

I've never succumbed to the politics of simple jealousy. Is a footballer worth $20,000,000 a year? According to the people who pay to watch him, yes. And it's nobody else's business because nobody else has to pay. Is Bill Gates worth $80,000,000,000? Nobody orders you to buy Microsoft at gunpoint, or even to have a computer, so it's all from voluntary donations by people who want the product. Or you could build your own computer and write your own software.

I haven't seen any evidence of the European Court improving the lot of the working man. It has protected murderers and upheld the right of "religious" perverts to tell a woman what to wear, but it hasn't made any peasant less poor. The European Union demanded the dismantling of nationalised industries, and when the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is sealed between the EU and the US, it will require the sale of the NHS and protect industry from any government action that may harm profits.   http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html
« Last Edit: 13/10/2015 23:08:07 by alancalverd »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1449 on: 14/10/2015 00:23:07 »
Well Alan, (chucke), I'm more of an observer of the human condition as a whole, than a politician, just in case that wasn't obvious enough!
What I observe of this country is that we have seen the implementation of laws that allow money to be taken from people in the street under the premiss that they must prove where they got it.  And that people may be removed from their homes on suspicion, under the pretext of anti terrorist laws, and held for 14 days, or longer, without being informed of any charges.  Both of these laws are justified under certain premiss, BUT... both of these same laws were implemented in Nazi Germany.  In the wrong hands these laws are deadly!  The term 'terrorist' being rendered as to "from who's and what perspective"!
Perhaps I am being a little naive about the European Court of Human Rights.

In the case of current wealth distribution, I don't believe there is such a thing as simple jealousy... People who can't afford to eat are jealous of those who can, but most still manage to watch the football.  It's a weird contradiction.  That the poor will worship and wish to emulate their favourite actors, film stars, musical artists, politicians, or other general high rollers, and then perhaps break into a nice middle class family home to steal the means to do so.

Anyway... I'm fairly confidant... (hark at me...chuckle) ...that I have the solution.  It's not my idea, I heard it from a friend.  Not at-all sure if its my friends idea either.  This idea leaves everything just the way it is.  People can still have their disproportionally large wages, but the idea implements a spend by date on the money.  As soon as you get it, you gotta get rid of it, and all your savings must also be spent.  The banks wouldn't like it, but the economy would blossom.  Might not cure all ills, Alan, but I reckon it would take care of a good few of them! :).

Edit:  P.S. You didn't answer and I'm curious.  Have you read James Clavel's "King Rat"?
« Last Edit: 14/10/2015 00:31:14 by timey »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1449 on: 14/10/2015 00:23:07 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length